Worlebury Camp Hillfort North Somerset

Archaeological Condition Survey

Report prepared for: North Somerset Council

CA Project: 6496

CA Report: 12345

March 2018

Worlebury Camp Hillfort North Somerset

Archaeological Condition Survey

CA Project: 6496

CA Report: 12345

Joanne Robinson, Heritage Consultant prepared by and Richard Morton, Principal Heritage Consultant date March 2018

reviewed by Alan Ford, Senior Heritage Consultant

date March 2018

approved by Richard Morton, Principal Heritage Consultant

signed

date March 2018

issue 1

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover Exeter Building 11 Unit 8 – The IO Centre Stanley House Unit 53 Kemble Enterprise Park Fingle Drive, Stonebridge Walworth Road Basepoint Business Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover Centre Gloucestershire Buckinghamshire Hampshire Yeoford Way GL7 6BQ MK13 0AT SP10 5LH Marsh Barton Trading Estate Exeter EX2 8LB t. 01285 771022 f. 01285 771033 t. 01908 564660 t. 01264 347630 t. 01392 826185 e. [email protected]

CONTENTS

SUMMARY ...... 3

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5

2. METHODOLOGY ...... 9

3. HILLFORTS: A BRIEF CONTEXT ...... 12

4. PREVIOUS SURVEYS AND PRE-IRON AGE BACKGROUND ...... 15

5. DIGITAL TERRAIN MODEL RESULTS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE MONUMENT 19

6. SUMMARY OF CONDITION SURVEY RESULTS ...... 30

7. THE WIDER SETTING OF THE HILLFORT ...... 48

8. NOTES ON SCHEDULED MONUMENT LEGISLATION ...... 50

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 53

10. REFERENCES ...... 55

APPENDIX 1: HERITAGE CRIMES ...... 56

APPENDIX 2: HERITAGE THREATS ...... 59

APPENDIX 3: ADDITIONAL DTM VIEWS ...... 63

APPENDIX 4: PHOTOGRAPHIC ARCHIVE ...... 64

APPENDIX 5: PROJECT DESIGN ...... 65

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig.1 Location map Fig. 2 Aerial imagery of the Scheduled Monument comprising the survey area Fig. 3: Wider topography and hillforts Fig. 4 Warre’s 1852 survey of Worlebury Camp (produced by E. Martin Atkins) Fig. 5: Plan of Worlebury Camp from Dymond and Tomkins 1886 Fig. 6 Notable prehistoric features beyond the survey area Fig. 7: Digital Terrain Model displayed as hillshade model (Azimuth 315, Altitude 45) Fig. 8 Summary of internal pits on the DTM Fig. 9 The multivallate sequence Fig. 10: The north-eastern and southern entrances Fig. 11 The western entrance Fig. 12: Example of internal pits and the ‘chamber’ in the DTM Fig. 13 Heritage crime located on the DTM by category Fig. 14 Heritage threats (forestry) located on the DTM by category Fig. 15 Heritage threats (excluding forestry) located on the DTM by category Fig. 16 Public rights of way, and key areas of other visitor erosion

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

SUMMARY

In December 2017, Cotswold Archaeology (CA) was commissioned by North Somerset Council to undertake an archaeological condition survey of Worlebury Camp Hillfort Scheduled Monument, Weston-Super-Mare, North Somerset. The key purpose of the report is to provide comprehensive information on the current form and survival of the hillfort; areas of damage; areas of ongoing erosion; and areas of future threat. This information will allow appropriate management recommendations to be prepared by the Council.

A key result of the condition survey has been the production of the Digital Terrain Model (DTM). This is provided as a georeferenced digital file, and may be used as a tool for future monitoring and management of the monument. The production of the DTM has enabled the results of the condition survey to be placed in context, and the results are also provided as geo-referenced points, lines and polygons with ‘clickable’ information fields. Again, these layers may be used for long-term management of the monument. The condition survey has highlighted several key themes.

The extensive tree cover across the monument was established from the 1820s, and has thus had some 200 years of growth and effect. The ongoing erosion of the monument by trees is the principal long-term threat to the monument. This is the result of root action, and is particularly destructive when a tree falls (of which many instances were recorded). The resultant damage is commonly more severe on the ramparts, where the stone make-up is easily dislodged and collapsed. Tree cover also limits the intelligibility and accessibility of the monument. Undergrowth and scrub vegetation presents a somewhat lesser physical threat, although its erosive effects on already vulnerable parts of the monument such as exposed rampart material can indeed be severe. This undergrowth is in fact a greater hindrance on access and visibility of the monument in many areas than the tree cover.

A significant issue is areas of collapse of the stone ramparts. This is in fact largely also correlated to tree root and undergrowth effects, although weathering also has a role. Erosion by visitors (via footfall) is another factor, and is largely focussed on the footpaths and their immediate vicinity. Little evidence of damage from animal burrows was found.

Heritage crime comprises actions which, whether wilfully or not, affect the significance of the monument. An action of direct physical harm is the removal of stones from the ramparts, either just one or two, or extensively such as the new ‘cairn’ and the numerous fire settings scattering the site.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Other actions, such as fly tipping and littering, are not physically harmful to the monument, but greatly detract from the experience of the monument. Such instances can greatly reduce a visitor’s enjoyment, and even, in some cases, introduce an air of intimidation. Limited footpath maintenance, limited provision of footpaths in the south of the scheduled monument, and a lack of litter bins contribute to this issue.

It may be concluded that measures may certainly be taken which would reduce the threats to the monument, and which could improve public appreciation of it. The proximity of a monument to a major urban centre may act as a negative factor: but it may also be used as a positive one. A large number of potential visitors live, work and holiday in close proximity to the hillfort, which is an excellent example of its type with an impressive coastal location. If management measures increased public access, enjoyment and visitor footfall, instances of fly tipping, removal of stones and anti-social behaviour might all be expected to decrease.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction and Project Team 1.1. In December 2017, Cotswold Archaeology (CA) was commissioned by North Somerset Council to undertake an archaeological condition survey of Worlebury Camp Hillfort Scheduled Monument, Weston-Super-Mare, North Somerset (centred on NGR 331327 162511: Figure 1).

1.2. Cotswold Archaeology is a Registered Organisation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). The project was managed for Cotswold Archaeology by Richard Morton MCIfA, Principal Heritage Consultant. The project was coordinated, researched and report compiled by Joanne Robinson ACIfA, The condition survey fieldwork was coordinated by Jessica Stevens PCIfA. Heritage Consultant. Geomatics survey work was managed by Jonathan Bennett PCIfA, Principal Geomatics Officer, and coordinated on site by Thomas Weavill, Assistant Geomatics Officer.

1.3. Cotswold Archaeology is grateful to Cat Lodge, Archaeologist, North Somerset Council for assistance during the project, and also the members of the Worlebury Hillfort Group for kindly providing information on and off site.

1.4. The report is supported by the following Appendices:

 Appendix 1: Summary list of Heritage Crimes  Appendix 2: Summary list of Heritage Threats  Appendix 3: Additional DTM Views  Appendix 4: Photographic Archive  Appendix 5: Project Design

Project objectives 1.5. The survey, assessment and report were carried out in accordance with the Project Design prepared by Cotswold Archaeology (Appendix 1) and approved by the Archaeologist at North Somerset Council. The Project Design itself was tailored to meet the requirements of the Specification issued by North Somerset Council in the Request for Quotation.

1.6. The overarching objectives of the project were to:

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

 Complete a topographic survey (Digital Terrain Model) of the hillfort  Complete a condition survey inspection of the monument, identifying areas of varying condition and erosion/threat  Complete other informing research, including overview of historic maps and previous archaeological investigations in the hillfort  Prepare a Condition Survey Report and Figures

1.7. The key purpose of the report is to provide comprehensive information on the current form and survival of the hillfort; areas of damage; areas of ongoing erosion; and areas of future threat. This information will allow appropriate management recommendations to be prepared by the Council.

Extent of survey 1.8. The area addressed by the report is depicted on Figures 1 and 2, and comprises the redline Scheduled Monument area of Worlebury Hillfort (Historic England List No: 1011260). It comprises an area of approximately 10.2ha, comprising the defences and interior of the hillfort.

Figure 2: Aerial imagery of the Scheduled Monument comprising the survey area

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Summary of the survey area 1.9. Historic England describes the monument as ‘an outstanding example of its class’, and it’s defences remain well-defined. The site is one of a number of examples surviving in the area, although its location is somewhat unusual as hillforts on this scale are rarely situated on coastal promontories. The Scheduled area is predominantly under mature tree cover, with the exception of two small clearings towards the central-eastern part of the hillfort interior. The area is defined by the steep multivallate banks and ditches enclosing the hillfort interior: numerous small banks and quarries/pits

1.10. There have been a number of investigations of the hillfort in the past. Excavations of the interior were carried out as early as the 1850s by Warre, and the 1900s by Dymand.

Scheduled Monument Designation Summary  OSGB Grid Reference: ST312 624  Scheduled Monument List Entry number 1011260  Date first Scheduled: 22 February 1915  Date of most recent amendment: 15 April 1997  Historic England Archives Unique Identifier number 192721  Historic England ‘NMR’ number ST36SW1  North Somerset HER number 43168 (former Avon SMR number MSN0121)

1.11. Worlebury Camp Hillfort was first Scheduled in 1915, and as such belongs to the earliest phase of designated Scheduled Monuments in the country.

1.12. The listing description for Worlebury Camp describes the monument as an ‘outstanding example of its class’, which survives ‘well’ and is known to contain archaeological deposits associated with its construction, use and later re-use. The listing description notes that Worlebury is unusual with regards to its location; there are few examples of hillforts of this size occupying coastal locations.

Heritage at Risk Register 1.13. Worlebury Camp is recorded on the Heritage at Risk Register, compiled by Historic England. The condition of the scheduled monument is recorded as ‘generally unsatisfactory with major localised problems’, and its principle vulnerability is defined as forestry. The plantation which covers much of the hillfort is said to have been

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

planted in 1823 (Moore, 2006). The tithe map for Weston-Super-Mare parish dated to 1837 records the hillfort as plantation, under the ownership of John Hugh Smith Piggott. Rutter gave his account of the hillfort in a publication of 1829, which makes no reference to plantation, indicating that the plantation had yet to become established. However, in 1851, Warre observed ‘the trees which not only the rest of the hill, but unfortunately the area of the camp also has been planted, have grown so much as to render it impossible to perceive the plan of the fortifications at one view’.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

2. METHODOLOGY

Key Professional Guidance 2.1. Key professional guidance informing the project included:

 Historic England 2017: ‘Understanding the Archaeology of Landscapes: A Guide to Good Recording Practice (2nd Edition)’  Historic England 2011: ‘3D Laser Scanning for Heritage (2nd Edition)’  Historic England 2008: ‘Conservation Principles’

Data standards and software 2.2. The use and management of extensive data was a key aspect of the project.

2.3. The MIDAS Heritage publication ‘The UK Historic Environment Data Standard Version 1.1 (October 2012) is a key guide on data usage and management. The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH) terminology and standards were used, which will allow the results, if required, to feed into larger programmes such as Heritage at Risk and North Somerset Historic Environment Record.

2.4. The software used for a project is fundamental to both the presentation and potential use of the data. Key data sets are set out in Table 2.1 below.

Data set Format

DTM survey data GeoTif

Condition survey data ArcGIS ArcMap 10.5 (shapefiles)

Report text Microsoft Word 2010

Report illustrations Adobe Illustrator, ArcGIS ArcMap 10.5 (shapefiles), PDFs

Table 2.1 Summary of data sets

The assessment stages Documentary research 2.5. A programme of documentary research examined the current baseline data for the hillfort. This allows the survey results to be placed in the proper context, and also provided relevant information pertinent to the condition survey itself. Key sources of documentary evidence are set out in Table 2.2 below.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Source Data

National Heritage List England Full designation description for the Worlebury Camp (NHLE) and any other relevant designated heritage assets.

North Somerset Historic Heritage sites and events records relevant to Environment Record (HER) Worlebury Camp.

Additional sites and events records to those recorded Historic England Archives (HEA) by the HER. Data requested February 2018.

Relevant historic mapping and published and Somerset Record Office unpublished documents.

Historic England’s Aerial Vertical and oblique aerial photography ranging in date Photograph Research Unit from the 1940s to present. (Swindon)

LiDAR imagery and point cloud data, available from Environment Agency (EA) website the Environment Agency website.

National Library of Scotland, the Genealogist website & other Historic mapping in digital format. cartographic websites Local archaeological groups, particularly Weston- super-Mare Archaeological and Natural History Society Local archaeological societies and (WANHS) and the Worlebury Hill Fort Group have volunteer groups provided in depth local knowledge on the monument, its layout, condition and on previous archaeological works. Particularly works by:

 John Rutter, 1829  Rev Francis Warre, 1851; Antiquarian reports on the  W.H.P. Gore Langton, 1852; Worlebury Camp  C.W. Dymond, 1902; and  Bryan Moore, 2006.

As referenced in Chapter 7. Table 2.2 Key data sources

Topographical survey (Digital Terrain Model, ‘DTM’) 2.6. The DTM survey was carried out between 15 and 24 January 2018.

2.7. A series of overlapping scans using a GeoSLAM Zeb-Revo were carried out, comprising a handheld laser scanner which uses a simultaneous localisation and mapping technology to automatically create a 3D point cloud. The system allows the surveyor to walk through the survey environment and rapidly record points at a rate of 43,200pts/sec with an expected accuracy of 0.02m. The rotating design of the

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

scanner allowed for scanning with a 360° field of view and can capture points at a range of up to 30m.

2.8. Targets were set up over a minimum of 3 points and located in the scan areas to relate the point cloud to British National grid. The targets were located using a combination of an RTK GNSS rover and Leica Total Station. To ensure complete coverage, the scans were undertaken on a grid based system and where necessary overlapping scans were taken.

2.9. The laser scanning was carried out in accordance with Historic England guidelines ‘3D Laser Scanning for Heritage 2nd Edition 2011’.

2.10. The scan data was processed and quality assured using GeoSLAM Desktop. The resulting 3d point clouds were geolocated and processed in Cloud Compare to produce relief models (DTM) with a resolution of approximately 0.1m. The slope and hill shade models were rendered in GIS to act as a backdrop to the condition survey.

Walkover condition survey 2.11. The walkover survey was also undertaken between 15 and 24 January 2018, in conjunction with the DTM survey. It was informed by the ongoing documentary research outlined above. The locations of any physical evidence for heritage threats, e.g. erosion and vandalism, were plotted using a handheld GPS with up to 3m accuracy. This level of accuracy was judged appropriate to both allow rapid coverage through difficult vegetation, and also precise enough to clearly provide the location of specific areas in the future.

2.12. For each instance of a heritage threat or crime identified, a basic interpretation was recorded utilising the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage (FISH) Thesauri terminology. The FISH Thesauri comprises a structured wordlist which is used to standardise terminology, setting the standard for heritage data which is then held and managed by multiple organisations. Each instance was plotted as a point, line or polygon, and a photograph was taken. Photographs of each heritage threat/crime may be viewed within the GIS data set, at the relevant grid location and with reference to the hillfort DTM.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

3. HILLFORTS: A BRIEF CONTEXT

3.1. Hillforts are a defensive monument generally situated on hilltops, ridges, spurs or promontories (some instances of low lying examples do exist), comprised of one or more circuits of banks and or ditches (Historic England, 2011). They are one of the most prominent forms of prehistoric monument, but also one of the most poorly understood. Hillforts were built and occupied from around 900 to 100BC, and are represented across Europe; in England they are particulrly concentrated in Wessex, the Welsh marches and in the south-east. Some small hillforts are recorded in Northumberland and the south-west, while few are known from east England, the Pennines of the north-west (ibid).

3.2. Large multivallate (comprised of more than once defensive circuit / rampart) hillforts, such as Worlebury Camp, were largely constructed between the 6th-century BC and the mid-1st-century AD. This type of hillfort is generally considered to have been permanently occupied, and defended in response to increasing threat of warfare. Mulitvallate hillforts usually include earthwork (or stone) ramparts and ditches, although some examples only have ramparts. The interior of the hillfort is generally accessed via two entrances, although examples of hillforts with one or more than two entrances are known. Internal features often include evidence of the intensive occupation of these sites, including the remains of oval or circular houses, possibly raised granaries represented by four and six post-hole group, platforms, pits, gullies, fence lines and paved areas, as well as hearths and ovens. Some hillforts include evidence of industrial activity including pottery production and bronze and iron working.

The local context 3.3. Due to the positioning of many hillforts in locations overlooking lower lying land, it has been suggested that collectively they form part of a defensive network. However, the wide variation in the location and layout of hillforts conflicts with this interpretation (Historic England, 2011).

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Figure 3: Wider topography and hillforts

3.4. There are a large number of contemporary hillforts within the wider environs of Worlebury Camp, as mapped by the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland (School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, 2016) with those closest to Worlebury Camp mapped on Figure 3. There is some potential for intervisibility between these monuments, though the extent of the mature plantation across Worlebury Camp precludes any such intervisibility. Whilst the exact nature of the relationships between Iron Age hillforts remains unclear, the group value of these assets makes a positive contribution towards their individual significances, enhancing our understanding of Iron Age activity in the region.

Hillfort studies 3.5. Key publications and projects on hillforts include the following sources:

 Cunliffe, B. 2005 (4th Edition) ‘Iron Age Communities in Britain  Historic England 2011 ‘Introduction to Heritage Assets: Hillforts’  Brown, I. 2009 ‘Beacons in the Landscape: The Hillforts of England and Wales’  Payne, A., Corney, M. and Cunliffe, B. 2006 ‘The Wessex Hillforts Project’  Harding, D. 2012 ‘Iron Age Hillforts in Britain and Beyond’  Hogg, A.H.A. 1975 ‘Hillforts of Britain’

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

3.6. As noted above, an extremely useful study and resource is provided by the University of Oxford’s (School of Archaeology) ‘Atlas of Hillforts in Britain and Ireland’. This project collated information on hillforts across the country, providing rapid access on the accompanying website database (http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/hillforts-atlas.html).

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

4. PREVIOUS SURVEYS AND PRE-IRON AGE BACKGROUND

Archaeological investigations at Worlebury Camp 4.1. Two key antiquarian investigations of the hillfort took place.

4.2. In 1851-52 the Reverend Francis Warre excavated a large number of the storage pits in the hillfort interior. The results were published in the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Proceedings at the General Quarterly & Annual Meetings Held During the Years 1849 and 1850 (pages 64-85). In that article Warre provided an excellent illustration of the hillfort, including the defences and interior including the extensive pits. The figure is reproduced as Fig. 4 below, with key features noted by Warre added as numerals.

Figure 4: Warre’s 1852 survey of Worlebury Camp (produced by E. Martin Atkins)

4.3. In 1880-1881 C.W. Dymond’s investigated all of the entrances, principle wall faces, the ditches and the talus to the north of Worlebury Camp. Dymond also inspected around 50 of the pits and hollows, but reported that they had been thoroughly

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

excavated by Warre and his team. Dymond published his results in 1886 (Worlebury: An Ancient Stronghold in the County of Somerset) and 1902 (Worlebury an Ancient Stronghold in the County of Somerset). The key survey plan produced by Dymond in that publication is reproduced as Fig. 5 below, with key features noted by Dymond added as numerals.

Figure 5: Plan of Worlebury Camp from Dymond and Tomkins 1886

4.4. Sections through the hillfort’s ditches and ramparts were excavated in 1987-8 by Mr Chris Richards (Research Assistant at North Somerset Museum Service and North Somerset Council Ranger), although, as Mr Moore reports (see below), ‘only a single sheet was written up and printed for private circulation’.

4.5. A very useful article on the hillfort was produced by Bryan Moore in 2006 (Worlebury: The Iron Age Hill Fort at Weston-super-Mare: unpublished document).

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

A note on pre-Iron Age landuse 4.6. Artefacts including flint arrowheads and flint axes have been recovered from the area, indicating pre-Iron Age occupation of the area.

4.7. Hillforts were often built on sites of Neolithic causewayed enclosures, and sometimes incorporate barrows and other contemporary late prehistoric monuments within the landscape. It has been suggested that the association between hillforts and earlier monuments may have been intentional, reflecting the deliberate reuse of a site of historical significance and or antiquity (Historic England, 2011), though it remains possible that such sites simply represent repeat use of particular topographic positions within the landscape for defensive rather than any ritual or sacred purpose.

Figure 6: Notable prehistoric features beyond the survey area

4.8. Two Bronze Age round barrows have been identified in the wider environs of the hillfort, outside of the survey area (Figure 6). One lay around 120m south-west of the hillfort, near the shore beneath what is now Birkett Road. A second cairn lay around 500m east of the hillfort, known locally as ‘Peak Winnard’, ‘Picwinnard’ or ‘Picwinner’. No trace of these former barrows survives.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

4.9. Two shallow, broadly parallel, rock cut ditches aligned generally north-south, both with sharp west returns at their southern ends, lie to the east of the hillfort, outside of the Scheduled Monument and survey area (Figure 6). Both ditches are mapped on early plans of Worlebury Hillfort (including Barnes c.1829). In 1902 Dymond thought it likely that the ditches were to enclose cattle and thus contemporary with the hillfort; or else served as additional defences.

4.10. Bryan Moore (2006) noted that the ditches are on a different alignment to the hillfort and may be earlier, possibly Bronze Age, defences. Limited excavation of the ditches in 1988 found evidence of mining, and also a ‘hoard’ of pieces of lead ore. This latter may potentially have related to prehistoric ritual deposition in the ditches.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

5. DIGITAL TERRAIN MODEL RESULTS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE MONUMENT

5.1. The following section presents the results of the Digital Terrain Model (DTM) survey, and discusses the surveyed form of the monument with reference to the previous investigations discussed in section 4 above. Reference is made to illustrative Fig. 7, which summarises the DTM results. Fig. 8 provides a summary interpretation of key features.

5.2. It should be noted again that key data from both the DTM survey and the condition survey (discussed in section 6) is provided as digital GIS data, allowing data queries and viewing of images across the hillfort. That data package is a key product. The figure images referred to herein are for illustrative purposes, to explain the discussion.

5.3. It became clear during the survey that the choice of using hand-held laser scanning was the right one. The automatic creation of a 3D point cloud allowed the surveyors to walk through the very dense vegetation that covers most of the hillfort, and rapidly record points (at a rate of 43,200pts/sec with an expected accuracy of 0.02m). Detailed topographic modelling of the vast majority of the monument was possible. It is certainly the case that the main area that is clear of vegetation in the centre of the hillfort produced better resolution scans: as observable on Fig. 7. Reasonable definition is still provided in the remaining areas of dense cover, however; and we conclude that these are likely to be clearer resolution than alternative techniques such as LiDAR would have yielded.

5.4. The northern edge of the promontory is very steep in places, as well as being very densely vegetated, and thus resolution is of lesser detail. Resolution of the defences is generally good, as it that of the interior pits. These features of the monument are now discussed below, with reference to the established literature regarding their form and interpretation.

Ramparts 5.5. The hillfort’s fortifications comprise a combination of both natural and man-made defences. To the north, south-west and west, steep natural slopes and cliffs are utilised as part of the hillfort defences (Figure 1 is useful in illustrating this point). Dymond also observed ‘slight traces of a former embankment’ along the northern boundary.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

331000 331200 331400 331600 162800

Survey Boundary 162600 162400

0 100m

Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Exeter 01392 826185 Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset FIGURE TITLE Digital Terrain Model displayed 162200 as hillshade model (Azimuth 315, Altitude 45)

DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO 6496 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 20/03/2018 Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017 APPROVED BY RM SCALE@A3 1:2,500 7

Document Path: P:\6496 Worlebury Camp Hillfort Condition 7_.mxd Survey\Illustration\Drafts\6496_Fig. 331000 331200 331400 331600 162800

Survey Boundary (! Internal pit 162600

(! (! (! (! ! (!(!(! (!(! (! ((!(!(!(! (!(!(!(!(!(!(!(! (! (! (!(!(!(!(!(! (! (! (!(!(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!(! (!(!(! (! (! (! (! (!(!(!(! (! (! (! (!(!(! (!(! (! (! (! (! (! (!(! (! (! (!(! (! (!(!(! 162400

0 100m

Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Exeter 01392 826185 Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset FIGURE TITLE Summary of internal pits on the DTM 162200

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO 6496 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 20/03/2018 IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community APPROVED BY RM SCALE@A3 1:2,500 8

Document Path: P:\6496 Worlebury Camp Hillfort Condition 8_.mxd Survey\Illustration\Drafts\6496_Fig.

Figure 9: The multivallate sequence

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

5.6. These natural slopes are much more limited to the south, which led to the construction of a single rampart, comprised of a stone built bank. Dymond observed rectangular stone structures on the inner side of the southern rampart, which he interpreted as possible ammunition platforms or sentry stations. Dymond also concluded that the southern rampart was purposely constructed to be lower in height than those to the east.

5.7. To the east, where the hillfort lies level with the topography of the promontory, a multivallate system of defences was established comprising seven banks, three large stone-built banks with four smaller ramparts behind. All seven banks have external ditches; the listing description for Worlebury Camp notes that the material quarried from these ditches was used in the construction of the banks. However, Dymond suggests that the stone was sourced from readily available surface stone, largely obtained from the surface of the hill, on the basis that none of the stones exhibit any evidence of tool marks.

5.8. In 1829, Rutter described two eastern ramparts standing approximately 15ft high from the bottom of their corresponding ditches, which were ‘composed entirely of stones loosely placed, without a blade of grass of plant of any kind’. In 1851, Warre incorrectly recorded ‘no appearance’ of walls associated with the eastern fortifications, and instead suggests that the stone was removed from the ditches and used to construct what he refers to as a ‘keep’ on the eastern side of Worlebury Camp, described in further detail below. Warre gave some useful insight into the condition of the ramparts in the mid-19th century, particularly those to the south and west which he described as ‘so much interfered with [since the description of Rutter in 1829], and in some parts mutilated, as to present only a maze of inextricable confusion’.

5.9. Regarding the construction of the rampart walls, Dymond provides a detailed analysis. He describes that the ramparts were constructed from a massive wall comprised of loose stones, faced on both sides with dry walling. He notes that this ‘core’ varied in thickness, but was rarely less than c.1.8m. Dymond also proposed that the core wall would have been topped with a parapet, thought he observed that no such remains survive; Warre also proposed that the walls (where he found walls to survive) had previously been capped by a parapet.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

5.10. During Warre’s work at Worlebury Camp, a member of his team, Edwin Martin Atkins, drew up a survey of the hillfort (Figure 3), in which he gave his interpretation of some of the features. One of Atkins’ interpretations was that the rampart walls were comprised of a series of platforms. Warre suggested that his investigations supported Atkins’ interpretation. In 1902, Dymond observed that the survey produced by Atkins was in fact inaccurate, and offered that the platforms were actually debris from the main wall and not any planned structural element at all. Between 1880 and 1881, Dymond undertook new research of the hillfort (including a new survey; see Figure 4) and found the walls to be supported by a continuous buttress of loose stones c.1.2 – 2.4m wide. In some places, a second and third buttress is described. The top of the buttresses is described as flat, and Dymond suggests this would have provided a terrace from which to fight off attack.

5.11. With regards to the rampart ditches, Dymond (1902) provides the greatest detail. He recorded that the principle exterior ditch, complete save for a break at the ‘grand gateway’ (the southern entrance – Figure 3 and 5), and was excavated to an average depth of 1.2m – 1.5m. The ditches to the east are also said to have been excavated up to a depth of c.1.5m

The talus and outerworks 5.12. Along the northern boundary of Worlebury Camp (within the scheduled monument boundary) is a talus (or sloped fortification) of loose stones. Dymond argues that the talus itself is natural, comprised of natural loose stone accumulated on the steep cliff-side, which has been adapted in order to utilise the feature as part of the defences, namely by clearing a line between the stones and the northern extent of the hillfort in order to provide a position / passage from which to defend Worlebury Camp from any northern attack.

5.13. When Worlebury Camp was surveyed by Atkins in 1951 / 1952, he observed that the southern and western boundaries of Worlebury Camp were provided with further defences in the form of a series of outerworks, including triangular which he interpreted as places for ‘slingers’ to be stationed (Warre, 1852, see Figure 4). Dymond (1902) also observed groups of ‘stoney patches, of triangular shape’, but disputes the theory of slinger stations, though he conceded that he found no alternative function for them. Dymond noted that by c.1881, most of these ‘slingers’ had largely been lost, destroyed by the making of gardens, planting of trees, and overgrown with scrub, that they are no longer recognisable.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

5.14. Rutter (1829) had described further outworks to those planned by Atkins in 1852, observing ‘the ground to the west at the brow of the hill […] is covered with evident vestiges of extensive earthwork, one of which is a somewhat irregular figure, approaching to the form of a parallelogram, from which there is a broad and gradual decent to the beach’. He continues ‘another embanked enclosure, though small, is in the form of an amphitheatre’. These features are not depicted in the accompanying plan by Barnes (Figure 2), and Dymond remarked in 1902 that the plan produced by Atkins, published in 1852, was the only record of the outer defences, which were subsequently ‘destroyed by ‘’intakes’’ of modern Weston’ (Dymond, 1902).

Entrances 5.15. The HER record for Worlebury Camp records three entrances; one to the south (defined as the principle entrance) one to the north-east and one to the west, as seen on Dymond’s plan of c.1886 (Figure 4). The earliest available plan of 1829 suggested only two of these entrances, comprising those to the south and north-east (Figure 2). It has been suggested by Moore (2006) that the southern entrance is clearly contemporary, whilst the eastern and western entrance may be later.

Figure 10: The north-eastern and southern entrances

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

5.16. Rutter (1829) describes a ‘subterranean passage’ to the north, cutting through the rock to the lower part of the hill, and infilled with stone, as indicated Barnes’ accompanying plan. Atkins plan of 1852 (Figure 3) also shows a possible north-west entrance as per Rutter, and Dymond describes the possible narrow passageway, indicated on his plan of 1902 (Figure 4), and suggests four other ‘practicable passages through the cliffs’. Moore (2006) suggests that the possible north-west entrance would have provided access to fresh water.

Figure 11: The western entrance

Internal features 5.17. A key internal feature of Worlebury Camp is the feature referenced as the ‘keep’ (see Figures 3 - 4); a small rectangular area immediately within the eastern ramparts and fortified on the remaining three sides, separated from the remaining area of the hillfort by a ditch (known as the ‘fosse’), which Dymond excavated in 1902 and found to be ‘sunk to a great depth’.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Figure 12: Example of internal pits and the ‘chamber’ in the DTM

5.18. Evidence for the intensive occupation of Worlebury Camp is provided by the presence of a large number of pits, largely focused in the eastern half of the hillfort (see Figures 3, 4 and 5), thought to have served as storage pits. In 1829, Rutter observed the pits within Worlebury Camp, which he described as ‘several curious circles, difficult to explain, about 28 or 30 feet in diameter, principally towards the western point; but one is nearly in the centre, composed of separate stones, surrounded by a shallow excavation or ditch’. Many of the pits were excavated by Warre between 1851 and 1852, who incorrectly interpreted them to be the remains of roundhouses. The contents of the pits included grain, pottery animal remain, and some of the pits also included human remains. The pits are quite regular in size, the smaller ones being around 2m in diameter, and the largest ones up to 3.6m in diameter. The large majority are around 3m in diameter.

5.19. In his publication of 1902, Dymond record a total of 93 pits. Interpretation of the DTM, combined with the field survey, has identified some 83 pits clearly today (Figure 8). Allowance should be made for varying on-the-ground interpretation by both Dymond and Cotswold Archaeology; and changing vegetation cover. The suggestion is, however, that the pits are gradually becoming less recognisable due

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

to vegetation density, and erosion. As noted above, almost all of the pits are located in the east of Worlebury Camp (Dymond, 1902), with 74 in the main area of the Camp, 18 in the ‘keep’, and one located within the fosse. Warre (1851) noted further pits to the east of the outer enclosure, however, Dymond (1902) proposed that these outer pits are in fact related to later lead and calamine extraction (see below).

Photograph 1: An internal pit

5.20. Many of the human remains recovered from the pits at Worlebury Camp exhibited evidence of a violent death, indicating possible warfare victims. However, Moore (2006) notes that ritual killings have been observed at other hillforts. Burials of possible Iron Age date are recorded beyond Worlebury Camp (see Figure 6), having been excavated during the creation of the Grove Estate In the late 19th-century (HER refs MNS3813; MNS3812; MNS3814; MNS3815; MNS3816; MNS3817; MNS3818; MNS3820; MNS4366; MNS5264; MNS6064; MNS8261 and HEA ref 192730).

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Photograph 2: Surveying the internal pits (in ‘the glade’)

Post-Iron Age activity at Worlebury Camp 5.21. A Romano-British coin hoard (over 200 coins) and a quantity of Romano-British pottery, glass beads and fragments of bronze have been recovered from the hillfort (MNS3823 and MNS3824), indicating some level of activity during this period. Many hillforts were abandoned following their main period of occupation, though some had forts or temples built in them during the Romano-British period. The HER notes that evidence of a rectangular building measuring was recorded at the centre of Worlebury Camp in the 19th-century (MNS3825); the only square feature recorded during the survey was that of a ‘chamber’ (described below), and it is unclear whether this is the feature being described. Rutter (1829) suggested that Worlebury Camp was occupied, and probably enlarged and strengthened during the Romano- British period, and utilised as a ‘Castra Aestiva’ (a summer camp). Evidence for Romano-British settlement and activity within the immediate environs of the Site includes a large number of shallow inhumation burials and assemblage of Romano- British pottery recorded c.480 south of Worlebury Camp (MNS127 and MNS3821, see Figure 6).

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

5.22. Some hillforts were re-fortified in the post-Roman period, and there are examples of Saxon forts, medieval castles, towns, cities and cathedrals were sometimes located within hillforts. Rutter (1829) suggests that Worlebury Camp was occupied during the early medieval period, and notes that a Saxon chronicle of 998 records that the Danes marched from Worlebury Camp to Biddisham, some 10km to the south-east, where they were beaten by the Saxons, who subsequently took and burnt their camp of Worlebury.

5.23. In 1566, the first discoveries of calamine were made at Worle Hill (Evans, 1980). The mines closed in 1582, and began again in the 17th-century and continued until 1820; an old shaft is still visible on the northern rampart of the hill (ibid). Rutter (1829) noted a square, stone sided pit, measuring c.1.5m deep and c.2m2, which he interpreted as a possible infilled well; it is possible that he was describing one of the mining shafts. Identification of the exact location of former mine shafts is hindered by the overgrown state of much of the hillfort, as observed during the survey.

5.24. Dymond also describes some later features at Worlebury Camp, including two walls, built at a right angle, within the southern ramparts in the south-eastern-most corner of the hillfort (Figure 5). Dymond (1902) indicates that the walls may represent the remains of a shepherds hut, though notes that the two free ends are finished squarely which suggests they might represent some form of shelter, such as a sheep shelter. During the survey, it was noted that stones had been removed from this feature, possibly to construct a fire pit (discussed in further detail in Section 4, Condition survey results). Dymond notes that a flight of steps were established across the southern ramparts by 1902, along with various other paths which he notes were established by locals, particularly those who’s gardens provide direct access to the hillfort.

5.25. A rectangular ‘chamber’ lies immediately north of the southern ramparts. In 1902, Dymond observed that the walling of the chamber, comprising regular coursed stone, is much different to that of any other part of the camp, indicating that this feature most likely post-dates the hillforts construction and occupation, but provides no further interpretation. It is possible that this feature also relates to former mining and extraction activity. During the survey, it was noted that this feature is threatened by trees and scrub growth.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

5.26. During the 20th-century many took on a new defensive role and were used for searchlight locations and anti-aircraft batteries (English Heritage, 2011). The HEA records two Second World War pillboxes c.100m north of Worlebury Camp (1460788), but no features or structures are known to have been built within Worlebury Camp itself.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

6. SUMMARY OF CONDITION SURVEY RESULTS

6.1. This section presents the results of the condition survey. This chapter covers the general condition of Worlebury Camp, comparing historic descriptions and plans of the hillfort to its current condition.

6.2. This section also details the identified heritage threats and any heritage crime currently affecting both the physical remains of Worlebury Camp as well as its experience. Heritage crimes relate to criminal incidents against heritage such as graffiti and theft, while heritage threats relate to different forms of threat to heritage such as erosion and flooding. The FISH Thesauri terminology has considerable overlap between these two groups, with incidents such as vandalism occurring in both datasets. For clarity, this assessment makes the following distinction between the two groups:

 Heritage crime – FIGURE 13 - considered here to comprise wilful damage to the scheduled monument, i.e. as a result of fire starting, vandalism and dumping  Heritage threat – FIGURE 14 (FORESTRY) and FIGURE 15 (NON- FORESTRY) considered here to comprise non-intentional damage to the scheduled monument, i.e. as a result of erosion, collapse and animal burrowing. This group is also considered to include accidental damage, i.e. damage resulting from forestry, and visitor erosion (e.g. use of non-official footpaths)

6.3. Where instances of heritage threats or crime were identified, they were given a threat and/or damage level. The damage level pertains to the actual harm incurred to date. The threat level pertains to the longer term harm which may be incurred if unchecked. The threat / damage levels assigned are as follows:

 Severe: significant and/or irreparable damage which has harmed the significance of the monument, or is likely to  Moderate: material damage which may potentially reduce affect the significance of the monument  Slight: issues which are not causing appreciable physical harm to the monument, but may affect one’s experience of it

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Heritage crime (see also Appendix 1) 6.4. The following key types of heritage crime were recorded at Worlebury Camp:

 Removal of objects  Fire setting  Fly tipping and littering  Graffiti  Unauthorized metal detecting  Drug and sexual paraphernalia

6.5. Whilst instances of heritage crime were observed across the scheduled monument, the majority were recorded in the southern half, particularly around the southern rampart (Figure 13). It is notable that there are few instances of heritage crime recorded in the vicinity of the official footpaths; those that are recorded are almost exclusively instances of littering and fly tipping which might be anticipated with public access.

6.6. Further detail regarding the nature of these threats, and recommendations to remove or mitigate any harm to the scheduled monument are provided below.

Removal of objects 6.7. Three main instances of ‘removal of objects’ were recorded (Figure 13).

Ref. Heritage Threat Damage Description Crime level level 4 Removal of Removal of stones from the objects southern rampart, possibly for use Slight Slight as a fire pit 15 Removal of Removal of stones from the objects southern rampart used to build a Moderate Severe makeshift wall 79 Removal of Removal of stones from the objects southern rampart used to build a Moderate Severe cairn Table 6.1: Removal of objects

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

331000 331050 331100 331150 331200 331250 331300 331350 331400 331450 331500 331550 331600 162700

Legend

Survey boundary Heritage Crime point # DRUG PARAPHANALIA 162650 * *# FIRE SETTING *# FLY TIPPING

11 *# GRAFFITI 20 ! ! !16 29 *# *# LITTERING 162600 ! *# *# !14 *# *# *# REMOVAL OF OBJECTS !6 *# SEXUAL PARAPHANALIA !46 22 *# !72 !66 *# ! *# UNAUTHORIZED METAL DETECTING *# *# *# !2 Heritage Crime (other) polygon

162550 !41 !67 *# !57 *# !70 !60 *# *#!64 *#*# !34 *# 37 *# !7 !3 !52 !44 ! !27 78 *# *# *# ! 53 *# *# !30 *# *# !65 !62 !56 ! *# *# *# 4 !1 69 *# *# !

162500 ! !15 12 *# *# !71 *# !17 ! !59 *# !75 *# *# *#*#!10 *# 48 !25 79 *# !55 ! ! !77 *# *# *# *#!74 68 *# !18 # ! 61 !24 13 !8 * ! !49 *# !*#*# !5

162450 *# !76 *# !58 *# *# *# !39 !23 *# 73 *# 45 !19 !9 ! ! !40 *# !38 !33 *# !63 *# !36 28 *# !54 51 *# 43 *#*#!35 ! *# *# ! !*#*# *# *# *#!32 *# *# !42 *# !21 *# *#!26 !47 *# 31

162400 ! !50 *# *# 162350

0 50m

162300 Ordnance Survey 0100031673

Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Exeter 01392 826185 Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

162250 Worlebury Camp Hillfort North Somerset FIGURE TITLE Heritage crime located on the DTM by category

162200 DRAWN BY xx PROJECT NO xxxx FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY xx DATE 20/03/2018 APPROVED BY xx SCALE@A3 1:2,000 13

Document Path: P:\6496 Worlebury Camp Hillfort Condition Survey\GIS\Draft Fig13.mxd Crime figures\CA_Heritage

6.8. The most significant of these instances is the removal of stones from the monument to create a modern cairn (Photograph 1, below), just north of the southern entrance to Worlebury Camp (Figure 13, 79), defined as severe damage. The remaining two instances are both recorded within the ‘keep’ of the hillfort. One instance, defined as severe damage, related to the removal of stones from the southern rampart in order to build a wall (Figure 13, 15). The second instance, defined as slight damage, related to further removal of stone from part of the southern rampart, possibly for the creation of a fire pit (Figure 13, 4); see below for further instances of stone removal for fire construction.

6.9. The key concern relating to the removal of the stones from the walls is clearly the incremental damage to the rampart walls. Continuing removal of the stones will result in irreparable damage to the scheduled monument.

Photograph 3: Modern cairn built just north of the southern entrance (Figure 13, 79)

Fire setting 6.10. Eighteen main instances of ‘fire settings’ were recorded (Figure 13).

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Ref. Heritage Threat Damage Description Crime level level 6 Fire setting Moderate Moderate Fire setting 8 Fire setting Moderate Slight Fire setting 10 Fire setting Slight Slight Stones removed to make firepits 12 Fire setting Moderate Moderate Stones used for fire pit 17 Fire setting Moderate Moderate Stones removed 18 Fire setting Moderate Moderate Fire pit, littering 24 Fire setting Moderate Severe Fire setting 25 Fire setting Moderate Moderate Stones used for fire pit 35 Fire setting Moderate Slight Fire setting Fire setting Stones removed to make fire pit; 38 Moderate Moderate litter 46 Fire setting Slight Slight Fire setting 49 Fire setting Moderate Severe Stones used for fire pit 52 Fire setting Slight Moderate Fire setting 59 Fire setting Slight Moderate Fire pit of stones, burnt logs 61 Fire setting Slight Moderate Stones used for fire pit 69 Fire setting Moderate Moderate Pile of logs & separate stone fire pit 74 Fire setting Moderate Moderate Fire setting 75 Fire setting Moderate Moderate Stones used for fire pit Table 6.2: Fire setting

Photograph 4: An example of fire setting (Figure 13, 59)

6.11. Fire setting, largely defined as moderate damage with some slight, was one of the most common instances of heritage crime recorded after littering/fly tipping. The vast majority of the recorded instances of fire setting were recorded around the southern

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

ramparts, and had again involved removal of the stone from the monument in order to create fire pits. Their prevalence in the southern part of the scheduled monument is likely to result from easier access from the town centre, combined with the tree cover. It is also of note that there are no formal public footpaths in the southern half of the scheduled monument, which may be an additional factor in the prevalence of fire setting in this area, adding to its seclusion.

6.12. Whilst the fires themselves cause only superficial damage to the scheduled monument, if at all, as noted above, removal of stones from the ramparts and elsewhere within the monument will lead to irreparable damage to Worlebury Camp, especially when considered in its cumulative effect. As well as this physical effect, it also has a clear adverse effect upon one’s experience of the monument.

Fly tipping and littering 6.13. Fly tipping and littering is recorded widely across the scheduled monument (see photograph 2, below), including in association with the official footpaths (Figure 8). Fly tipping comprises areas of more extensive dumping, whilst littering is the result of more casual activity. There is some obvious correlation between littering and fire setting.

Photograph 5: An example of fly tipping (Figure 13, 60)

6.14. Some nineteen instances of quite extensive fly tipping were recorded.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Ref. Heritage Threat Damage Description Crime level level 1 Fly tipping Slight Slight General refuse 7 Fly tipping Moderate Slight General refuse 11 Fly tipping Slight Slight General refuse 19 Fly tipping Moderate Moderate Domestic waste 26 Fly tipping Moderate Moderate General refuse 27 Fly tipping Slight Slight General refuse 28 Fly tipping Moderate Slight Camping debris - tarpaulin 30 Fly tipping Moderate Slight General refuse 32 Fly tipping Moderate Slight General refuse 33 Fly tipping Moderate Slight Garden tool 36 Fly tipping Moderate Slight Sheet metal 40 Fly tipping Moderate Moderate Domestic waste 43 Fly tipping Moderate Slight Bin bags, bed sheets 57 Fly tipping Slight Moderate Corrugated sheet metal and litter Fly tipping Plastic tubs, plastic bags & plant 58 Slight Slight pots, et al Fly tipping Bike, trolley, camping debris, plastic 60 Slight Slight bottles, clothes 63 Fly tipping Slight Slight General refuse 70 Fly tipping Slight Slight Clothing, bicycle parts Table 6.3: Fly tipping

6.15. Some thirty-four instances of littering were recorded. These did not comprise single small instances, such as may have occurred accidently: they comprised several items, or items of a larger or unpleasant nature. This is to some extent a ‘photograph in time’ of littering at the monument, as some refuse will blow elsewhere, or be collected. It is useful, however, in providing a guide to the extent and form of littering at the monument.

Ref. Heritage Threat Damage Description Crime level level 2 Littering Slight Slight General litter 9 Littering Slight Slight General litter 14 Littering Moderate Slight Can 16 Littering Slight Slight General litter 20 Littering Moderate Slight Cans, plastic bags 21 Littering Slight Slight Broken glass & domestic waste 22 Littering Slight Slight General litter 23 Littering Moderate Slight Plastic carrier bags 29 Littering Slight Slight Glass bottles 31 Littering Moderate Slight General litter 34 Littering Slight Slight General litter 37 Littering Slight Slight General litter 39 Littering Moderate Slight Food wrappers, plastic carrier bags 41 Littering Moderate Slight General litter 44 Littering Slight Slight General litter 45 Littering Moderate Slight General litter 47 Littering Moderate Slight Broken glass, plastic Littering Plastic food packaging, wrappers, 48 Moderate Slight plastic bottles

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

50 Littering Moderate Slight General litter 51 Littering Slight Slight General litter 53 Littering Moderate Slight Tin can, looks burnt 54 Littering Slight Slight General litter 55 Littering Moderate Slight Glass bottles, aluminium cans Littering plastic bags, bottles, cans, glass 56 Slight Slight bottles Littering Aluminium cans, plastic bags, 62 Slight Slight plastic bottles 64 Littering Slight Slight Plastic bags, bottles, wrappers 65 Littering Slight Slight Plastic bags 66 Littering Slight Slight Plastic, glass 67 Littering Slight Slight Plastic bags, plastic wrappers 68 Littering Slight Slight General litter 71 Littering Slight Slight General litter 72 Littering Slight Slight Plastic bottle 76 Littering Moderate Slight Dog bag Littering Food wrappers, plastic bottles, 78 Moderate Slight plastic bags Table 6.4: Littering

6.16. Neither fly tipping nor littering have any major adverse effects on the physical remains of the scheduled monument. However, they have a significant impact on its experience and enjoyment of the monument, and would deter some visitors, which in turn leads to more significant issues arising, such as fire setting, due to the isolated setting of scheduled monument.

Grafitti 6.17. Only two instances of graffiti were recorded, both in the south-east of the scheduled monument (Figure 13). One instance comprised spray painting on a tree (thus not impacting the scheduled monument directly) and the other on the rampart stones.

Ref. Heritage Threat Damage Description Crime level level 3 Graffiti Slight Slight Spray paint 13 Graffiti Moderate Moderate Spray paint (on the rampart) Table 6.5: Graffiti

6.18. Graffiti doesn’t result in any lasting adverse physical effects on the scheduled monument, however, as with fly tipping and littering, the main concern is the impact on the experience of the scheduled monument; such antisocial behaviour may be deterring visitors, who would otherwise discourage such behaviour.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Photograph 6: An example of graffiti (Figure 13, 13)

Unauthorized metal detecting 6.19. One instance of possible unauthorised metal detecting was recorded in the west of the scheduled monument (Figure 13, 77). The evidence for this activity comprised small recently-dug holes, although it is possible that these were caused by something else. There was certainly not widespread evidence for this activity, although it is not one which is readily spotted.

Drug use and sexual paraphernalia 6.20. During the survey, evidence of drug use (a box for needles: Figure 13, 42) was recorded, as well as sexual paraphernalia (Figure 13, 5).

6.21. This type of litter has no adverse impact on the physical remains of the scheduled monument, however, it poses a significant public health risk, and effects the public enjoyment and experience of the scheduled monument. Whilst not a priority with regards to the condition of the scheduled monument, addressing this issue should be a priority with regards to public safety and enjoyment of the monument. The presence of this type of material may deter visitors which, as noted above, may lead

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

to an increase in those instances of heritage crime which do result in an adverse effect on the condition of the hillfort.

Summary and potential measures 6.22. The objective of the present report is to record the condition, and threats to, the scheduled monument: this may then inform the production of a management plan. Measures which may potentially be considered, however, are highlighted in the summary table below. These are not recommendations, but considerations.

Recorded heritage Threat level(s) Potential measures crime Improving the footfall of visitors by Removal of objects Slight / severe enhancing the experience of Worlebury Camp and reducing the Slight / moderate / Fire setting screening effect of mature vegetation severe across the hillfort would likely reduce instances of vandalism. Graffiti Slight

Unauthorized metal Clearing the current formal footpaths Slight (some of which are in poor condition) detecting and removing fly tipping and other litter would improve the visitor experience of the hillfort.

An additional footpath / footpaths in the southern half of the scheduled Moderate (due to the monument could also improve its Sexual and drug nature of the material experience, and may also reduce paraphernalia and public health and instances of vandalism through safety) increased footfall.

The installation of information panels may also serve to reduce instances of vandalism by raising awareness of the significance and value of the monument. It was noted during the survey that the scheduled monument lacks provision of bins, both general and dog waste. Bins could be installed along the official footpaths across Worlebury Camp in order to deter littering. Fly tipping and littering Slight / moderate As above, increasing the footfall of visitors and raising awareness of the monument and its value through information panels would likely deter behaviour such as fly tipping and littering.

Table 6.6: Summary of heritage crime and potential measures

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Heritage threats (see also Appendix 2) 6.23. The following instances of heritage threat were recorded at Worlebury Camp:

 Forestry and scrub growth  Collapse  Visitor erosion  Public danger  Animal burrowing

Forestry 6.24. Forestry comprises the most significant threat to Worlebury Camp, as recorded on the heritage at risk record produced by Historic England. Worlebury Camp was intentionally planted in the 19th-century, and the plantation is now well established across much of the hillfort, except for an area to the east (where many of the pits are located) known as ‘the glade’ which has been intentionally cleared by the Worlebury Hill Fort Group. As noted in Section 1 above, the plantation which covers much of the hillfort is said to have been planted in 1823 (Moore, 2006). The tithe map for Weston-Super-Mare parish dated to 1837 records the hillfort as plantation, under the ownership of John Hugh Smith Piggott. Rutter gave his account of the hillfort in a publication of 1829, which makes no reference to plantation, indicating that the plantation had yet to become established. However, in 1851, Warre observed ‘the trees which not only the rest of the hill, but unfortunately the area of the camp also has been planted, have grown so much as to render it impossible to perceive the plan of the fortifications at one view’.

6.25. There are multiple issues with regards to forestry including:

 Tree root erosion of features including pits and ramparts  Erosion caused by tree collapse or leaning trees  Collapse of trees across formal footpaths

6.26. The threat levels of forestry are largely recorded as severe. The ongoing significant erosion by mature trees of key features of the monument is notable, including; the central area (and ‘keep’) and pits; the ramparts and ditches; and the three entrances.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

331000 331050 331100 331150 331200 331250 331300 331350 331400 331450 331500 331550 331600

!38 !28 162600 *# Legend *# 19 17 5 30 ! ! ! ! !16 !8 scheduled_area !49 *#!26 *#*#!*#21!*#18 *# 37 *#!*#33 *#15 ! *# ! *# Heritage Threat point (Forestry) *# *#!32 125 *# ! 35 ! *# 27 *# 48 *# ! Heritage Threat polygon (Forestry) ! *#*# !47 162550 !121 *# !42 !112 !97 *# 91 !83 *# *# ! !77 !106 *# *# *# *#*# !76 *# !96 *# 52 79 ! 105 !90 ! !110 ! *# !45 # *# !84 162500 *# * *# *# *# *# !7 !55 51 !130 ! !46 *# !102 !58*# *# *#!57 *# 59 *# 113 111 ! *# ! ! 14 !44 ! 120 #*# 54 ! * ! *# *# 152 !74 *# 162450 ! *# *# !72 !31 *# *# !123 !107 !101 !86 *# *# !80 *# *# *#

162400 !119 *# 162350

52 331400 *# ! 331450 331500 331550 162300 162500 !51

*# 162600 !38 !28 *# *# 162250

55 ! 0 50m !26 21 !19 *# ! !18 !17 !57 *# *#*# !33 !30 *# *#!16 *# 8 © Crown copyright and database rights [year of supply or date of publication] !37 *# *# *#*#!15 ! Ordnance Survey 0100031673 *# !58 *# !59 *# Andover 01264 347630 162200 !32 Cirencester 01285 771022 *# Exeter 01392 826185 *# Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE !35 Worlebury Camp Hillfort !27 North Somerset 162150 *# *# FIGURE TITLE !54 !48 162450 !47 *# *# Heritage threats (forestry) located on 162550 *# the DTM by category

*# DRAWN BY xx PROJECT NO xxxx FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY xx DATE 20/03/2018 APPROVED BY xx SCALE@A3 1:2,000 14

Document Path: P:\6496 Worlebury Camp Hillfort Condition Survey\GIS\Draft Fig14.mxd figures\CA_HeritageThreat 331000 331050 331100 331150 331200 331250 331300 331350 331400 331450 331500 331550 331600 162700

Legend

survey boundary Heritage Threat point (non forestry) ANIMAL BURROWING

162650 *# *# COLLAPSE *# NATURAL EROSION *# PLANT GROWTH !60 !22 !6 *# SCRUB GROWTH *# 29 *# !10 *# ! *# Heritage Threat line (non forestry) 162600 !88 *# *# PLANT GROWTH 13 ! PUBLIC DANGER 40 *# ! #3 135! *# *! SCRUB GROWTH *# VISITOR EROSION 43 62 ! ! Heritage Threat polygon (non forestry) 162550 !67 *# 73 *# *# 117 116 137 ! # 11 COLLAPSE ! ! ! 94 *# * ! *# *#*# ! 69 !25 *# ! *# !4 *#!2 PLANT GROWTH *# *# *# SCRUB GROWTH !70 !53 134! 132! 122 118! *# *#! *# 1 Heritage Threat point reference 138 !24*#*#23 12 !1 162500 ! 99 139 ! ! ! *# 1 Heritage Threat polygon reference ! *# !41 34 *# 131 *# !*# ! 141! !85 !56 *# 1 Heritage Threat line reference 129! *# *# 36 115 68 ! *# ! 108 ! 140 *# ! *#78 *# 133! ! 128 *#114 *# ! 136 ! ! 95 *# ! *# 126! ! 87 81 20 !9*# *# 104! *# !*# ! !71 !65 *#! 162450 *# *# *#*# !75 103 66# 109 ! 89 !* !63 127! ! *# 98 ! *# *# *# *# ! *# *# 50 124! *# ! *# !64 *#!61

162400 *#100! 162350

0 50m

Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Exeter 01392 826185 Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE 162250 Worlebury Camp Hillfort North Somerset FIGURE TITLE Heritage threats (excluding forestry) located on the DTM by category 162200 DRAWN BY xx PROJECT NO xxxx FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY xx DATE 20/03/2018 APPROVED BY xx SCALE@A3 1:2,000 15

Document Path: P:\6496 Worlebury Camp Hillfort Condition Survey\GIS\Draft Fig15.mxd figures\CA_HeritageThreat

Ref. Heritage Threat Damage Description Threat level level 5 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 7 Forestry Severe Severe Fallen trees 8 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 14 Forestry Moderate Moderate Fallen tree loosened stones 15 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree on path 16 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree Leaning tree at risk of falling & 17 Forestry Moderate Moderate uprooting stones 18 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 19 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 21 Forestry Moderate Moderate Leaning tree 26 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 27 Forestry Moderate Moderate Mature tree 28 Forestry Moderate Moderate Fallen tree 30 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree on path 31 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 32 Forestry Moderate Slight Leaning tree upturning stone 33 Forestry Moderate Moderate Falling trees uprooting stones 35 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 37 Forestry Slight Moderate Fallen tree 38 Forestry Moderate Severe Fallen tree, uprooted stones 42 Forestry Slight Moderate Fallen tree 44 Forestry Slight Moderate Felled tree 45 Forestry Severe Severe Fallen tree, stones dislodged 46 Forestry Severe Severe Fallen tree, stones dislodged 47 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree on footpath 48 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree on footpath Leaning/fallen trees uprooting 49 Forestry Moderate Moderate stones 51 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen trees on footpath 52 Forestry Moderate Slight Fallen tree on footpath Tree rot; 2 tree trunks fallen over 54 Forestry Severe Severe pits 55 Forestry Severe Severe Tree growing on edge of pit 57 Forestry Severe Severe Trees fallen into pit 58 Forestry Severe Moderate Fallen trees 59 Forestry Severe Moderate Fallen tree 72 Forestry Moderate Moderate Fallen tree 74 Forestry Moderate Moderate Tree on edge of pit 76 Forestry Moderate Moderate Tree stump on edge of pit 77 Forestry Moderate Slight Tree stump on edge of pit 79 Forestry Moderate Slight Tree trunk on edge of pit Fallen tree leaving c.2m of trunk in 80 Forestry Moderate Moderate ground 83 Forestry Moderate Slight Tree stumps on edge of pit 84 Forestry Severe Severe Fallen tree, stones uprooted 86 Forestry Moderate Slight Tree stumps Tree growth; roots dislodging 90 Forestry Severe Severe stones; fallen trees Tree stumps & roots disturbing pit 91 Forestry Severe Severe feature 96 Forestry Slight Moderate Fallen tree 97 Forestry Moderate Moderate Fallen trees; uprooted stones 101 Forestry Severe Severe Tree stump & roots upturning stones

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

102 Forestry Severe Severe Fallen tree 105 Forestry Moderate Moderate Fallen tree c.10m 106 Forestry Moderate Moderate Fallen trees; uprooted stones 107 Forestry Severe Moderate Fallen tree, loose stones 110 Forestry Severe Moderate Fallen tree c. 7m 111 Forestry Severe Moderate Leaning tree loosening stones 112 Forestry Severe Moderate Fallen tree 113 Forestry Severe Moderate Fallen tree c.14m in length Leaning trees, uprooting stone 119 Forestry Severe Severe structure 120 Forestry Severe Moderate Fallen tree loosened stones 121 Forestry Severe Moderate Fallen tree lifting stones 123 Forestry Severe Severe Tree stump 125 Forestry Moderate Slight Fallen tree 130 Forestry Severe Severe Tree uprooting stones 152 Forestry Severe Moderate Trees uprooting stones Table 6.7: Recorded instances of forestry threat

Photograph 7: An example of damage caused by a tree throw

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Scrub growth and plant growth 6.27. Extensive areas of scrub and other plant growth are also notable, and also present long-term erosion issues. They also greatly hinder access across the monument, probably to a greater extent than the mature trees. The damage to the monument itself, however, is lesser, due to the shallower and lighter roots.

Photograph 8: General example of the extent of undergrowth on the monument

Ref. Heritage Threat Damage Description Threat level level 1 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Fallen trees, shrubs, bramble 2 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Tree & shrubbery 4 Plant growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 6 Plant growth Slight Slight Holly tree 9 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 10 Plant growth Moderate Slight Bramble 11 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Uprooting stones 13 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 20 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 22 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Bramble 23 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 24 Plant growth Severe Severe Tree stump on edge of pit and scrub 25 Plant growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 34 Plant growth Severe Moderate Bramble, fallen tree, scrub 36 Plant growth Severe Severe Fallen tree, bramble, ivy

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

39 Plant growth Moderate Severe General heavy growth Leaning trees & shrubbery loosening 43 Plant growth Severe Severe stones 53 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 56 Plant growth Severe Severe Bramble & scrub 60 Plant growth Severe Moderate Brambles 62 Plant growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 64 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 65 Plant growth Severe Severe Tree on edge of pit, ivy, scrub growth 66 Plant growth Moderate Severe Trees and shrubbery 67 Plant growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 68 Plant growth Severe Severe Fallen tree, bramble, ivy 69 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 70 Plant growth Slight Slight General heavy growth Trees on edge of pit, ivy, bramble, 71 Plant growth Severe Severe scrub growth 73 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 75 Plant growth Severe Severe Saplings, ivy, bramble 78 Plant growth Severe Severe Trees, fallen trees, ivy, bramble, shrub 81 Plant growth Severe Moderate Ivy, tree, bramble 82 Plant growth Severe Moderate Ivy, tree, bramble 88 Plant growth Severe Moderate Brambles + trees scaling cliff face 92 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Bramble 93 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 94 Plant growth Slight Slight General heavy growth 95 Plant growth Severe Severe Saplings, ivy, bramble and litter Brambles & scrub extending c.10m+ 98 Plant growth Severe Severe north, east & west 99 Plant growth Severe Severe Scrub & tall bramble 100 Plant growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 108 Plant growth Severe Severe Saplings, ivy, bramble 114 Plant growth Severe Severe Ivy, shrub 115 Plant growth Severe Severe Tree in centre of depression, ivy, shrub 116 Plant growth Severe Severe General heavy growth 117 Plant growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 118 Plant growth Moderate Slight Bramble 122 Plant growth Severe Moderate Scrubs, brambles & trees 124 Plant growth Severe Severe General heavy growth 126 Plant growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 127 Plant growth Severe Severe General heavy growth 128 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 129 Plant growth Severe Severe General heavy growth 131 Plant growth Moderate Moderate General heavy growth 132 Plant growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 142 Plant growth Severe Severe General heavy growth 144 Plant growth Severe Severe Brambles over ramparts Trees & shrubs over entire area 145 Plant growth Severe Severe including ramparts Brambles & shrubbery; area so overgrown pits cannot be seen easily - 146 Plant growth Moderate Severe danger to public safety 147 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Sapling growth on edge of pit 148 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Brambles in area of pits 150 Plant growth Moderate Slight Overgrown with brambles 41 Scrub growth Severe Moderate Ivy, fern; tree trunk in side of pit 50 Scrub growth Severe Severe Ivy, saplings, fern

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

63 Scrub growth Severe Severe General heavy growth 85 Scrub growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 87 Scrub growth Severe Moderate Ivy, bramble 89 Scrub growth Severe Severe Some collapse/tumble Extends c.10m either side; ivy, 104 Scrub growth Severe Severe bramble, saplings 140 Scrub growth Severe Moderate General heavy growth 149 Scrub growth Severe Moderate General scrub growth observed 151 Scrub growth Severe Moderate General scrub growth observed

Table 6.8: Heavy areas of plant and scrub growth

Collapse 6.28. A moderate amount of general collapse, mostly affecting the southern ramparts (Figure 15) was noted during the survey, with a recorded threat level of slight to moderate.

Ref. Heritage Threat Damage Description Crime level level Collapse of wall - stone may have been 12 Collapse Moderate Moderate removed for a fire pit 40 Collapse Moderate Moderate General tumble of stone observed Tumble of stone (also covered with 61 Collapse Moderate Moderate scrub) 109 Collapse Moderate Moderate Loose stones from rampart 143 Collapse Slight Moderate Collapse of stones from ramparts Table 6.9: Areas of notable collapse

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Photograph 9: Stone collapse (Figure 15, 143)

6.29. As with the purposeful removal of stones, collapse poses a significant threat to the long term conservation of Worlebury Camp.

Visitor erosion 6.30. Visitor erosion, which relates entirely to unofficial footpaths, is recorded in association with the formal footpaths, with visitors straying from these formal routes, and from the south, where the hillfort is accessed from the local town (Figure 10).

Ref. Heritage Threat Damage Description Crime level level Visitor 133 erosion Moderate Slight Footpath erosion Visitor Footpath erosion 134 erosion Moderate Moderate Visitor Footpath erosion 135 erosion Moderate Moderate Visitor Footpath erosion 136 erosion Moderate Moderate Visitor Footpath erosion 138 erosion Moderate Slight Visitor Footpath erosion 139 erosion Moderate Moderate 141 Visitor Moderate Moderate Footpath erosion

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

erosion Table 6.10: Areas of notable visitor erosion

Figure 16: Public rights of way, and key areas of other visitor erosion

6.31. Erosion from unofficial footpaths has relatively little impact on the scheduled monument. However, where visitors are crossing the southern ramparts, this may increase the likelihood of their collapse, and is thus considered to comprise a moderate threat.

Animal burrowing 6.32. Very little evidence for animal burrowing was identified during the survey, with only one clear instance recorded (Figure 15, 3). The lack of animal burrowing within the monument is likely due to the stony nature of the ground preventing burrowing. However, given the highly overgrown nature of the monument, it is quite possible that burrows are present that were not observable during the survey.

6.33. Due to the lack of any substantive evidence for animal burrows at Wolebury Camp, disturbance caused by animals is not considered to be a significant issue affecting its conservation.

Summary and potential measures 6.34. As noted with regard to heritage crime, the objective of the present report is to record the condition, and threats to, the scheduled monument: this may then inform the production of a management plan. Measures which may potentially be

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

considered, however, are highlighted in the summary table below. Again, these are not recommendations, but considerations.

Recorded Threat level(s) Recommendation heritage threat Trees and scrub could be removed from the key features of the hillfort as a matter of priority – Forestry and Slight / moderate particularly the ramparts and the central areas scrub growth / severe where the pits are focussed. Historic England may be contacted for advice on both tree removal, and ongoing maintenance to prevent regrowth. Structural remains of the hillfort, particularly the ramparts, could be stabilised as a matter of priority.

Collapse Slight / moderate It may be advisable to seek advice from Historic England prior to implementing any stabilising works. Existing formal footpaths could be cleared, better demarcated, and provided with information panels and facilities such as bins to encourage their use.

Provision of an additional footpath in the southern part of the hillfort might encourage use of formal Visitor erosion Moderate paths, and deter visitors crossing the southern ramparts, which may result in further collapse of the walls.

Footpaths could be monitored, potentially by the Worlebury Hill Fort Group. As above, footpaths could be well maintained in order to ensure appropriate access across Worlebury Camp, and to reduce instances of visitor Public danger Moderate erosion and improve the experience of the hillfort.

Footpaths could be monitored, potentially by the Worlebury Hill Fort Group. None – no significant threat identified. Monitoring Animal where possible, perhaps undertaken by the Slight burrowing Worlebury Hill Fort Group, would ensure that any change is identified and addressed in good time. Table 6.11: Summary of heritage crime and potential measures

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

7. THE WIDER SETTING OF THE HILLFORT

7.1. During the survey, the current condition of Worlebury Camp in relation to its setting was considered. The setting of a heritage asset is defined by the NPPF as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

Photograph 10: The view north from the hillfort to Sand Bay

7.2. As set out above, the extensive tree cover and undergrowth across the monument, first established as plantation in the 1820s, greatly limits internal intelligibility of the monument. Similarly, views out from it to the surrounding landscape are very restricted, and there is very little inter-visibility possible with other hillforts in the region (see Figure 3). It is from the periphery of the monument that the greatest appreciation of its setting is gained, with impressive views out to the sea and Sand Bay to the north (Photograph 10, above). Although its promontory location is a feature of the wider landscape, the form of the monument itself is not clear from the

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

surrounding landscape (although it can be appreciated, of course, for the initiated who know of its location).

7.3. It is thus the case that the plantation across the monument greatly reduces its setting (i.e. the surroundings in which it is experienced), and the contribution that setting makes to its significance.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

8. NOTES ON SCHEDULED MONUMENT LEGISLATION

8.1. List entries in the schedule of ancient monuments kept by the Secretary of State are designated as such under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of 1979. Scheduled Monuments are designated by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the advice of English Heritage. All works to scheduled monuments which fall within the definition of those specified in Section 2 of the 1979 Act require a prior application for consent to the Secretary of State, who is advised by English Heritage. Applications for consent should be made through the relevant regional English Heritage office. The scope of works requiring consent is defined within Section 2 of the 1979 Act as: “demolishing, destroying, damaging, removing, repairing, altering, adding to, flooding, or tipping material onto the monument”. Consent is frequently granted subject to conditions which determine specifications, working arrangements or schemes of archaeological work. Useful advice on scheduled monuments is provided within the English Heritage document Scheduled Monuments: A Guide for Owners and Occupiers, and within the document Scheduled Monuments: Identifying, protecting, conserving and investigating nationally important archaeological sites under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979, published by DCMS in 2010.

8.2. Class consent orders comprise categories of works for which permissions may be granted automatically, and for which re-application for scheduled monument consent is not necessary. These are described in the Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order, 1994 (IS 1381), and include ten categories of works. These are briefly itemised and described in Table 9.1 below.

Class of works Notes

Class 1: Agricultural, Horticultural and Permitted works include those previously carried Forestry Works out lawfully, in the same position, and on the same spot within that location within the period of six years immediately preceding the date on which the works commence. Works not permitted include those likely to disturb the soil below the depth of 300 mm, sub-soiling, drainage works, the planting or up-rooting of trees, hedges or shrubs, stripping of topsoil,

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

sub-soiling operations and commercial removal of turf. In the case of gardening operations, the laying of paths, hard standings or foundations for buildings are not permitted.

Class 2: Works by British Coal Corporation or their licencees

Class 3: Works by British Waterways

Class 4: Works for the repair or maintenance of machinery

Class 5: Works urgently necessary for Works falling within this class consent order reasons of Health and Safety should be limited to the minimum measures necessary, and retrospective notice in writing should be provided as soon as practicably possible

Class 6: Works undertaken by the Commission (Historic England)

Class 7: Works of Archaeological These include archaeological works required to Evaluation inform an application for scheduled monument consent, and should be undertaken in accordance with a written specification approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State

Class 8: Works carried out under certain ie works for the preservation, maintenance or agreements concerning scheduled management of a scheduled monument or its monuments amenities being works executed in accordance with the terms of a written agreement between the occupier of the monument and the Secretary of State or the Commission

Class 9: Works grant-aided under Section 24 of the Act

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Class 10: Works undertaken by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England or the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales

8.3. In those cases where Scheduled Monument Consent is not required, it may still be necessary to obtain consents or permissions through the normal planning process. In addition, other consents or permissions may be required in addition to scheduled monument consent, and there may be a requirement for wider prior consultation.

8.4. Subject to the agreement of Historic England a number of minor maintenance and management works may qualify for inclusion within a Term Consent Scheduled Monument Consent, which may run for specified period and will avoid the need for repeated consent applications.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DTM 9.1. A key result of the condition survey has been the production of the Digital Terrain Model (DTM). Due to advances in technology a detailed image of the surface of the monument could be created in spite of the extensive tree cover and undergrowth. This has provided an insight into the overall form and layout of the monument, and its current state of repair, and detail on features such as the ramparts and internal pits not previously available. It has also illustrated just how accurate the 19th century surveys of the monument were: the layout of defences and pits on Dymond’s 1886 plan match remarkably closely with the DTM – no mean feat given the limited surveying equipment of the past.

9.2. The DTM is provided as a georeferenced digital file, and may be used as a tool for future monitoring and management of the monument.

9.3. The production of the DTM has enabled the results of the condition survey to be placed in context, and the results are also provided as geo-referenced points, lines and polygons with ‘clickable’ information fields. Again, these layers may be used for long-term management of the monument. The condition survey has highlighted several key themes.

Heritage Threats 9.4. The extensive tree cover across the monument was established from the 1820s, and has thus had some 200 years of growth and effect. By 1851, in fact, Warre observed ‘the trees which not only the rest of the hill, but unfortunately the area of the camp also has been planted, have grown so much as to render it impossible to perceive the plan of the fortifications at one view’.

9.5. The ongoing erosion of the monument by trees is the principal long-term threat to the monument. This is the result of root action, and is particularly destructive when a tree falls (of which many instances were recorded). The resultant damage is commonly more severe on the ramparts, where the stone make-up is easily dislodged and collapsed. Tree cover also limits the intelligibility and accessibility of the monument. Undergrowth and scrub vegetation presents a somewhat lesser physical threat, although its erosive effects on already vulnerable parts of the monument such as exposed rampart material can indeed be severe. This

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

undergrowth is in fact a greater hindrance on access and visibility of the monument in many areas than the tree cover.

9.6. A significant issue is areas of collapse of the stone ramparts. This is in fact largely also correlated to tree root and undergrowth effects, although weathering also has a role. Erosion by visitors (via footfall) is another factor, and is largely focussed on the footpaths and their immediate vicinity. Little evidence of damage from animal burrows was found.

Heritage Crime 9.7. Heritage crime comprises actions which, whether wilfully or not, affect the significance of the monument. An action of direct physical harm is the removal of stones from the ramparts, either just one or two, or extensively such as the new ‘cairn’ and the numerous fire settings scattering the site.

9.8. Other actions, such as fly tipping and littering, are not physically harmful to the monument, but greatly detract from the experience of the monument. Such instances can greatly reduce a visitor’s enjoyment, and even, in some cases, introduce an air of intimidation. Limited footpath maintenance, limited provision of footpaths in the south of the scheduled monument, and a lack of litter bins contribute to this issue.

Long-term management 9.9. The purpose of this report has been to set out the present condition and form of the monument, and to identify ongoing and potential threats to its significance. It will inform future management plans, which will comprise a separate piece of work. It may be concluded, however, that measures may certainly be taken which would reduce the threats to the monument, and which could improve public appreciation of it. The proximity of a monument to a major urban centre may act as a negative factor: but it may also be used as a positive one. A large number of potential visitors live, work and holiday in close proximity to the hillfort, which is an excellent example of its type with an impressive coastal location. If management measures increased public access; enjoyment; and visitor footfall, instances of fly tipping, removal of stones and anti-social behaviour might all be expected to decrease.

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

10. REFERENCES

Brown, I. 2009 ‘Beacons in the Landscape: The Hillforts of England and Wales’

Cunliffe, B. 2005 (4th Edition) ‘Iron Age Communities in Britain

Dymond, C. W. and Tomkins, H.G., 1886 Worlebury: An Ancient Stronghold in the County of Somerset. Printed by the Authors: Bristol

Dymond, C. W. 1902 Worlebury an Ancient Stronghold in the County of Somerset. Bristol: W. Crofton Hemmons

English Heritage, 2011 Introduction to Heritage Assets: Hillforts [Online] available at https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha- hillforts/hillforts.pdf/ [Accessed February 2018]

Harding, D. 2012 ‘Iron Age Hillforts in Britain and Beyond’

Hogg, A.H.A. 1975 ‘Hillforts of Britain’

Langton, W. H. P. G., 1852 Fourth Annual Meeting – Secretary’s Report. Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Proceedings During the Year 1852. pp. 1-17.

Moore, B., 2006 Worlebury: The Iron Age Hill Fort at Weston-super-Mare (Unpublished document)

Payne, A., Corney, M. and Cunliffe, B. 2006 ‘The Wessex Hillforts Project’

Rutter, J., 1829 Delineations of the north western division of the county of Somerset, and of its antediluvian bone caverns, with a geological sketch of the district. Oxford: Oxford University

School of Archaeology, University of Oxford., 2016 Atlas of Hillforts [Online] available at https://hillforts.arch.ox.ac.uk/ [Accessed February 2018]

Warre, Rev. F. 1851 Worle Camp. Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Proceedings at the General Quarterly & Annual Meetings Held During the Years 1849 and 1850. Pp.64-85

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

APPENDIX 1: HERITAGE CRIMES

(See Figure 13)

Threat Crime Threat Damage Area of Ref. Type Description Level Level Monument Comments 1 Dumping Fly tipping Slight Slight General waste 2 Dumping Littering Slight Slight Rampart General waste 3 Vandalism Graffiti Slight Slight Rampart Spray paint Stones removed; Removal of possibly used for a fire 4 Vandalism objects Slight Slight Rampart pit Condom wrappers, Sexual Southern soiled condom, blanket, 5 Vandalism paraphernalia Slight Slight ramparts litter North 6 Fire Fire setting Moderate Moderate parapet Fire setting 7 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Slight General waste 8 Fire Fire setting Moderate Slight Pit Fire place 9 Dumping Littering Slight Slight Rampart General waste Stones removed to 10 Fire Fire setting Slight Slight Rampart make firepits 11 Dumping Fly tipping Slight Slight General waste 12 Vandalism Fire setting Moderate Moderate Annexe Stones used for fire pit 13 Vandalism Graffiti Moderate Moderate Spray paint North 14 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight facing cliff Can Removal of Stones moved to build 15 Vandalism objects Moderate Severe Annexe makeshift wall 16 Dumping Littering Slight Slight General waste 17 Vandalism Fire setting Moderate Moderate Pit Stones removed 18 Fire Fire setting Moderate Moderate Fire pit, littering Southern 19 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Moderate ramparts Domestic waste 20 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight Cans, plastic bags Edge of southern rampart near Victorian Broken glass & 21 Dumping Littering Slight Slight wall domestic waste 22 Dumping Littering Slight Slight Glade General waste Southern 23 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight ramparts Plastic carrier bags 24 Fire Fire setting Moderate Severe Surbiton 25 Vandalism Fire setting Moderate Moderate Glade Stones used for fire pit Southern 26 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Moderate ramparts General waste 27 Dumping Fly tipping Slight Slight Pit General waste Southern Camping debris - 28 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Slight ramparts tarpaulin 29 Dumping Littering Slight Slight Glass bottles 30 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Slight Glade General waste Southern 31 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight ramparts General waste 32 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Slight General waste

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

Southern 33 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Slight ramparts Garden tool 34 Vandalism Littering Slight Slight General waste Southern 35 Vandalism Fire setting Moderate Slight ramparts Fire setting Southern 36 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Slight ramparts Sheet metal 37 Dumping Littering Slight Slight General waste Southern Stones removed to 38 Vandalism Fire setting Moderate Moderate ramparts make fire pit; litter Southern Food wrappers, plastic 39 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight ramparts carrier bags 40 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Moderate Pits Domestic waste 41 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight General waste Suspicious grey Drug Southern package, box for used 42 Vandalism paraphanalia Severe Moderate ramparts needles, 43 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Slight Bing bags, bed sheets 44 Dumping Littering Slight Slight General waste 45 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight General waste 46 Fire Fire setting Slight Slight General waste 47 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight Broken glass, plastic Plastic food packaging, 48 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight wrappers, plastic bottles 49 Vandalism Fire setting Moderate Severe Glade Stones used for fire pit 50 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight General waste 51 Dumping Littering Slight Slight General waste 52 Vandalism Fire setting Slight Moderate Fire setting 53 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight Tin can, looks burnt 54 Dumping Littering Slight Slight General waste Glass bottles, 55 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight aluminium cans Plastic bags, bottles, 56 Dumping Littering Slight Slight cans, glass bottles Corrugated sheet metal 57 Dumping Fly tipping Slight Moderate + litter Plastic tubs, plastic 58 Dumping Fly tipping Slight Slight bags & plant pots, et al Fire pit of stones, burnt 59 Vandalism Fire setting Slight Moderate logs Bike, trolley, camping debris, plastic bottles, 60 Dumping Fly tipping Slight Slight clothes 61 Vandalism Fire setting Slight Moderate Stones used for fire pit Aluminium cans, plastic 62 Dumping Littering Slight Slight bags, plastic bottles 63 Dumping Fly tipping Slight Slight General waste Plastic bags, bottles, 64 Dumping Littering Slight Slight wrappers 65 Dumping Littering Slight Slight Plastic bags 66 Dumping Littering Slight Slight Plastic, glass Plastic bags, plastic 67 Dumping Littering Slight Slight wrappers 68 Dumping Littering Slight Slight General waste North Pile of logs & separate 69 Vandalism Fire setting Moderate Moderate facing cliff stone fire pit 70 Dumping Fly tipping Slight Slight North Clothing, bicycle parts

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

facing cliff 71 Dumping Littering Slight Slight 72 Dumping Littering Slight Slight Plastic bottle 73 Dumping Fly tipping Moderate Moderate Fire setting 74 Vandalism Fire setting Moderate Moderate Fire setting 75 Vandalism Fire setting Moderate Moderate Stones used for fire pit 76 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight Dog bag 76 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight Dog bag Unauthorized 77 Forestry metal detecting Slight Slight Slight holes/disturbance Food wrappers, plastic 78 Dumping Littering Moderate Slight bottles, plastic bags Removal of Southern 79 Vandalism objects Moderate Severe rampart Cairn

Worlebury Camp Hillfort, North Somerset, Archaeological Condition Survey © Cotswold Archaeology

APPENDIX 2: HERITAGE THREATS

(See Figures 14-15)

Damage Ref. Threat type Threat level Level Area of monument Comment Fallen trees, shrubs, 1 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Rampart. Possible pit bramble 2 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Entrance Tree & shrubbery 3 Animal burrowing Slight Slight Possible animal burrow 4 Plant growth Severe Moderate Rampart Heavy growth 5 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 6 Plant growth Slight Slight Holly tree 7 Forestry Severe Severe Parapet Fallen trees 8 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 9 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Possible pit Heavy growth 10 Plant growth Moderate Slight Bramble 11 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Rampart Uprooting stones Structure on SE Collapse of wall - stone rampart/parapet c.1m may have been 12 Collapse Moderate Moderate tall removed for a fire pit 13 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Heavy growth Fallen tree loosened 14 Forestry Moderate Moderate Annexe stones 15 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree on path 16 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree Leaning tree at risk of falling & uprooting 17 Forestry Moderate Moderate Parapet stones 18 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 19 Forestry Slight Slight Parapet Fallen tree 20 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Pit Heavy growth 21 Forestry Moderate Moderate Rampart Leaning tree 22 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Bramble 23 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Pit Heavy growth Tree stump on edge of 24 Plant growth Severe Severe Pit pit and scrub 25 Plant growth Severe Moderate Pit Heavy growth 26 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree 27 Forestry Moderate Moderate Parapet Mature tree 28 Forestry Moderate Moderate Fallen tree 29 Natural erosion Moderate Moderate Erosion 30 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree on path 31 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree Leaning tree upturning 32 Forestry Moderate Slight Rampart stone Falling trees uprooting 33 Forestry Moderate Moderate Parapet stones Bramble, fallen tree, 34 Plant growth Severe Moderate Pit scrub 35 Forestry Slight Slight Parapet Fallen tree Fallen tree, bramble, 36 Plant growth Severe Severe Pit ivy 37 Forestry Slight Moderate Fallen tree Fallen tree, uprooted 38 Forestry Moderate Severe stones

39 Plant growth Moderate Severe Rampart General tumble of 40 Collapse Moderate Moderate Parapet stone observed Ivy, fern; tree trunk in 41 Scrub growth Severe Moderate Pits side of pit 42 Forestry Slight Moderate Keep Fallen tree Ieaning trees & shrubbery loosening 43 Plant growth Severe Severe Parapet stones 44 Forestry Slight Moderate Southern ramparts Felled tree Fallen tree, stones 45 Forestry Severe Severe Pit dislodged Fallen tree, stones 46 Forestry Severe Severe Pit dislodged 47 Forestry Slight Slight Keep Fallen tree on footpath 48 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen tree on footpath Leaning/fallen trees 49 Forestry Moderate Moderate uprooting stones 50 Scrub growth Severe Severe Southern ramparts Ivy, saplings, fern 51 Forestry Slight Slight Fallen trees on footpath 52 Forestry Moderate Slight Fallen tree on footpath 53 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Pit Heavy growth Tree rot; 2 tree trunks 54 Forestry Severe Severe Pits fallen over pits Tree growing on edge 55 Forestry Severe Severe Pit of pit 56 Plant growth Severe Severe Pit Bramble & scrub 57 Forestry Severe Severe Pit Trees fallen into pit 58 Forestry Severe Moderate Glade Fallen trees 59 Forestry Severe Moderate Glade Fallen tree 60 Plant growth Severe Moderate North facing cliff Brambles Tumble of stone (also 61 Collapse Moderate Moderate Southern ramparts covered with scrub) 62 Plant growth Severe Moderate Pit Heavy growth 63 Scrub growth Severe Severe Possible pit Heavy growth Rampart, 64 Plant growth Moderate Moderate depressions/pits Heavy growth Tree on edge of pit, ivy, 65 Plant growth Severe Severe Pit scrub growth 66 Plant growth Moderate Severe Oblong pit/chamber Trees and shrubbery 67 Plant growth Severe Moderate Pit Fallen tree, bramble, 68 Plant growth Severe Severe Pit ivy 69 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Pit Heavy growth 70 Plant growth Slight Slight Pit Heavy growth Trees on edge of pit, ivy, bramble, scrub 71 Plant growth Severe Severe Pit growth 72 Forestry Moderate Moderate Southern ramparts Fallen tree 73 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Pit Heavy growth 74 Forestry Moderate Moderate Pit Tree on edge of pit 75 Plant growth Severe Severe Pit Saplings, ivy, bramble Tree stump on edge of 76 Forestry Moderate Moderate Pit pit Tree stump on edge of 77 Forestry Moderate Slight Pit pit 78 Plant growth Severe Severe Pit Trees, fallen trees, ivy,

bramble, shrub Tree trunk on edge of 79 Forestry Moderate Slight Pits pit Fallen tree leaving 80 Forestry Moderate Moderate Southern ramparts c.2m of trunk in ground 81 Plant growth Severe Moderate Structural cut(?) Ivy, tree, bramble 82 Plant growth Severe Moderate Structural cut(?) Ivy, tree, bramble Tree stumps on edge of 83 Forestry Moderate Slight Pit pit Fallen tree, stones 84 Forestry Severe Severe Surbiton uprooted 85 Scrub growth Severe Moderate Pit Heavy growth 86 Forestry Moderate Slight Southern ramparts Tree stumps 87 Scrub growth Severe Moderate Pit Ivy, bramble Brambles + trees 88 Plant growth Severe Moderate North facing cliff scaling cliff face 89 Scrub growth Severe Severe Pit? Some collapse/tumble Tree growth; roots dislodging stones; 90 Forestry Severe Severe Pit fallen trees Tree stumps & roots 91 Forestry Severe Severe Pit disturbing pit feature 92 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Pit Bramble 93 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Depression Heavy growth 94 Plant growth Slight Slight Pit Heavy growth Saplings, ivy, bramble 95 Plant growth Severe Severe Pit and litter 96 Forestry Slight Moderate Fallen tree Fallen trees; uprooted 97 Forestry Moderate Moderate Glade stones Brambles & scrub extending c.10m+ 98 Plant growth Severe Severe Southern ramparts north, east & west 99 Plant growth Severe Severe Glade Scrub & tall bramble 100 Plant growth Severe Moderate Western entrance Heavy growth Tree stump & roots 101 Forestry Severe Severe Southern rampart upturning stones 102 Forestry Severe Severe Surbiton Fallen tree 103 Natural erosion Moderate Moderate Possible pit on rampart Erosion Extends c.10m either side; ivy, bramble, 104 Scrub growth Severe Severe Southern ramparts saplings 105 Forestry Moderate Moderate Fallen tree c.10m Fallen trees; uprooted 106 Forestry Moderate Moderate Glade stones Fallen tree, loose 107 Forestry Severe Moderate Southern ramparts stones 108 Plant growth Severe Severe Possible pit Saplings, ivy, bramble Loose stones from 109 Collapse Moderate Moderate Pit rampart 110 Forestry Severe Moderate Glade Fallen tree c. 7m Leaning tree loosening 111 Forestry Severe Moderate Glade stones 112 Forestry Severe Moderate North facing cliff Fallen tree Fallen tree c.14m in 113 Forestry Severe Moderate Glade length 114 Plant growth Severe Severe Possible pit Ivy, shrub

Tree in centre of 115 Plant growth Severe Severe Possible pit depression, ivy, shrub 116 Plant growth Severe Severe North facing cliff Heavy growth 117 Plant growth Severe Moderate North facing cliff Heavy growth 118 Plant growth Moderate Slight Bramble Leaning trees, uprooting stone 119 Forestry Severe Severe structure Fallen tree loosened 120 Forestry Severe Moderate Glade stones 121 Forestry Severe Moderate Fallen tree lifting stones Scrubs, brambles & 122 Plant growth Severe Moderate trees 123 Forestry Severe Severe Tree stump 124 Plant growth Severe Severe 125 Forestry Moderate Slight North facing cliffs Fallen tree 126 Plant growth Severe Moderate Pit Heavy growth 127 Plant growth Severe Severe Heavy growth 128 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Heavy growth 129 Plant growth Severe Severe Heavy growth 130 Forestry Severe Severe Tree uprooting stones 131 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Rampart Heavy growth 132 Plant growth Severe Moderate Rampart Heavy growth 133 Visitor erosion Moderate Slight Southern parapet Erosion 134 Visitor erosion Moderate Moderate Keep/rampart Erosion 135 Visitor erosion Moderate Moderate Edge of annexe Erosion 136 Visitor erosion Moderate Moderate Entrance & rampart Erosion 137 Public danger Moderate Slight Erosion 138 Visitor erosion Moderate Slight Surbiton Erosion 139 Visitor erosion Moderate Moderate Erosion 140 Scrub growth Severe Moderate Heavy growth 141 Visitor erosion Moderate Moderate Nw Erosion 142 Plant growth Severe Severe Ramparts Heavy growth Collapse of stones from 143 Collapse Slight Moderate Rampart ramparts Brambles over 144 Plant growth Severe Severe Rampart ramparts Trees & shrubs over entire area including 145 Plant growth Severe Severe Chariot's entrance ramparts Brambles & shrubbery; area so overgrown pits cannot be seen easily - 146 Plant growth Moderate Severe Pits danger to public safety Sapling growth on edge 147 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Pit of pit 148 Plant growth Moderate Moderate Pit Brambles in area of pits General scrub growth 149 Scrub growth Severe Moderate Southern ramparts observed Overgrown with 150 Plant growth Moderate Slight brambles General scrub growth 151 Scrub growth Severe Moderate observed 152 Forestry Severe Moderate Trees uprooting stones

APPENDIX 3: ADDITIONAL DTM VIEWS

North-East View

North-West View

APPENDIX 4: PHOTOGRAPHIC ARCHIVE

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 1

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 2

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 3

17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 4 HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 5

33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 6

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 7

49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 8

57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 9

65 66 67 68

69 70 71 72

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 10

73 74 75 76

77 78 79 80

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 11

81 82 83 84

85 86 87 88

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 12

89 90 91 92

93 94 95 96

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 13

97 98 99 100

101 102 103 104

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 14

105 106 107 108

109 110 111 112

113 114 115 116

117 118 119 120

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 15

121 122 123 124

125 126 127 128

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 16

129 130 131 132

133 134 135 136

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 17

137 138 139 140

141 142 143 144

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 18

145 146 147 148

149 150 151 152

HERITAGE THREATS: Sheet 19

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

HERITAGE CRIME: Sheet 1

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

HERITAGE CRIME: Sheet 2

17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

HERITAGE CRIME: Sheet 3

25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32

HERITAGE CRIME: Sheet 4

33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40

HERITAGE CRIME: Sheet 5

41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48

HERITAGE CRIME: Sheet 6

49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56

HERITAGE CRIMES: Sheet 7 HERITAGE CRIMES: Sheet 8

57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64

65 66 67 68

69 70 71 72

HERITAGE CRIMES: Sheet 9

HERITAGE CRIMES: Sheet 10

73 74 75 76

77 78 79

APPENDIX 5: PROJECT DESIGN

Archaeological Condition Survey of Worlebury Hillfort Weston-super-Mare

Project Design

For North Somerset Council

CA Project: 6496

January 2018

Archaeological Condition Survey of Worlebury Hillfort, Weston-super-Mare

Project Design

CA Project: 6496

prepared by Richard Morton, Principal Heritage Consultant

date January 2018

checked by Alan Ford, Senior Heritage Consultant

date January 2017

approved by Richard Morton, Principal Heritage Consultant

date January 2017

issue 01

Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover Exeter Building 11 41 Burners Lane South Stanley House Unit 53 Kemble Enterprise Park Kiln Farm Walworth Road Basepoint Business Centre Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover Yeoford Way Gloucestershire Buckinghamshire Hampshire Marsh Barton Trading Estate GL7 6BQ MK11 3HA SP10 5LH Exeter EX2 8LB t. 01285 771022 t. 01908 564660 t. 01264 347630 t. 01392 826185 f. 01285 771033 e. [email protected] © Cotswold Archaeology Archaeological Condition Survey, Worlebury Hillfort: Project Design

INTRODUCTION

1.1. This Project Design sets out the objectives, targets and methodology of the condition survey to be carried out on Worlebury Hillfort, North Somerset.

1.2. The condition survey has been commissioned by North Somerset Council. The project has been tailored to meet the requirements of the Specification issued by the Council, within the Request for Quotation (RFQ).

1.3. This Project Design has been prepared in accordance with the best practice recommended in the Historic England publication ‘Understanding the Archaeology of Landscapes: A Guide to Good Recording Practice (Second Edition)’, which states (page 4) that: ‘Every project should have clear objectives and targets that should be set out in a formal or informal project design’.

THE EXTENT OF SURVEY AND THE MONUMENT

1.4. The survey area is depicted on Fig. 1, and comprises the Scheduled Monument of Worlebury Hillfort (HE List No. 1011260).

1.5. The survey will address the redline extent of the Scheduled Monument, illustrated above. It comprises an area of approximately 10.2ha, comprising the defences and interior of the hillfort.

1.6. Historic England describes the monument as ‘an outstanding example of its class’. LiDAR imagery indicates that it’s defences remain well-defined. Its location is somewhat unusual as hillforts on this scale are rarely situated on coastal promontories. The site is one of a number of examples surviving in the area. There have been a number of investigations of the hillfort in the past. Excavations of the interior were carried out as early as the 1850s by Warre, and the 1900s by Dymand.

1.7. The Scheduled area is predominantly under mature tree cover, with the exception of two small clearings towards the central-eastern part of the hillfort interior. The area is defined by the steep multivallate banks and ditches enclosing the hillfort interior: numerous small banks and quarries/pits are observable on the LiDAR imagery in here.

OVERARCHING PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1.8. The overarching objectives of the project are to:

 Complete a topographic survey (Digital Terrain Model) of the hillfort. The area of study will comprise the Scheduled Monument, annotated on Fig. 1  Complete a condition survey inspection of the monument, identifying areas of varying condition and erosion/threat  Complete other informing research, including overview of historic maps and previous archaeological investigations in the hillfort  Prepare a Condition Survey Report and Figures

1.9. The purpose of the Report is to provide comprehensive information on the current form and survival of the hillfort; areas of damage; areas of ongoing erosion; and areas of future threat. This information will allow appropriate management recommendations to be prepared by the Council.

DATA-DRIVEN APPROACH

1.10. The fundamental basis of the project will be data-driven. Under this approach, field observations are collated systematically and then validated to inform the condition

survey report and conclusions. Mobile GIS will be used to collect robust, standardised field data. This allows systematic and consistent data-gathering which is compliant with relevant data standards. The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH) terminology and standards will be used as a key guide, which will ensure the results may suitably, if required, feed into larger programmes such as Heritage at Risk and North Somerset Historic Environment Record.

1.11. The software used for a project is fundamental to both the presentation and potential use of the data. In the present case, ArcView GIS (using .shp files) is proposed as a basis for the project. This format may be used for both field survey and office-based research. This approach will allow relevant information from multiple sources to be brought together, interrogated, and presented in the most useful fashion. The resultant geo-located shapefiles may then be a part of the report product, and utilised by the Council. The format is one which is suitable for future data archiving.

1.12. A standard database will be utilised for data, either Excel or Access. The report itself will be produced in Microsoft Word, and figures in Adobe Illustrator. The final report will be provided as a single Adobe PDF.

THE ASSESSMENT STAGES Documentary research

1.13. Documentary research will examine the current baseline data for the hillfort. This will allow the report to place the findings in the proper context, and will also provide relevant information pertinent to the condition survey itself. Principal sources will comprise:

 The Historic Environment Record  Historic England Archives  Historic maps – principally geo-referenced Ordnance Survey maps, but examination of maps at the Somerset Records Office will be included  Available reports and information on the early investigations (including Warre and Dymand) in the hillfort

1.14. A database gazetteer will be created which will be linked to an ArcGIS shapefile layer. Historic maps will be geo-referenced into the ArcGIS Workspace. These

results will inform the survey itself, and will be viewable in the field via the field survey software.

Digital terrain Model

1.15. A series of overlapping scans using a GeoSLAM Zeb-Revo will be carried out, comprising a handheld laser scanner which uses a simultaneous localisation and mapping technology to automatically create a 3D point cloud. The system allows the surveyor to walk through the survey environment and rapidly record points at a rate of 43,200pts/sec with an expected accuracy of 0.02m. The rotating design of the scanner allows for scanning with a 360° field of view and can capture points at a range of up to 30m.

1.16. Targets will be set up over a minimum of 3 points and located in the scan areas to relate the point cloud to British National grid. The targets will be located using a combination of an RTK GNSS rover and Leica Total Station. To ensure complete coverage, the scans will be undertaken on a grid based system and where necessary overlapping scans will be taken.

1.17. The laser scanning will be carried out in conjunction with Historic England guidelines ‘3D Laser Scanning for Heritage 2nd Edition 2011’.

1.18. The scan data will be processed and quality assured using GeoSLAM Desktop. The resulting 3d point clouds will be geolocated and processed in Cloud Compare to produce relief models (DTM) with an expected resolution of 0.1m. From this, slope and hill shade models can be rendered in GIS to act as a backdrop to the condition survey.

Site condition survey

1.19. The ‘study area’ of the site condition survey will also comprise the Scheduled Monument. It will be informed by the preceding stages of documentary research and topographic survey.

1.20. The terrain of the hillfort is challenging, and the tree cover extremely dense. For these reasons the condition survey will be informed by the preceding survey stages, and the DTM in particular. Thus specific features may be targeted in the office during the data analysis, and ‘ground-truthed’ in the field.

1.21. The condition survey will be undertaken by a minimum of two archaeologists. The survey will be GPS based, and will use rugged hand-held devices. Specific areas of relevance to the condition survey will be geo-located; written notes made; and photographs taken. Cotswold Archaeology ‘Condition Survey’ pro-forma sheets will be used, which prompt key information on form, condition, on-going threats, etc. This information will feed into the project database and ArcGIS files. Each specific area of note will be coded.

Production of the Condition Survey Report

1.22. The Condition Survey Report will comprise the following key elements:

 Introduction and project background  Methodology and professional best-practice  The archaeological and historical context  A description of the topography (a description of the results of the topographic survey)  Analysis of the monument’s condition. This will include: overall summary of the condition survey; a typology of different forms of erosion and threats; analysis of different levels of erosion and threat; analysis of key areas of erosion or threat  Key conclusions regarding the current form and survival of the monument, and current threats and opportunities

The product  Text-based report  Illustrations. These will include figures generated from the ArcView GIS data and databases, as well as useful additional material such as historic maps and figures  Appendices. The key Appendix will be the Gazetteer of notable features compiled for the condition survey. This will include the data on the form of erosion or threat; the level of threat; its location; and at least one key photograph as required. This appendix is likely to be extensive  The report, figures and appendices will be provided as a PDF format. The Word report and GIS Shapefiles will also be made available – both for archive purposes and for long-term use

KEY GUIDANCE  Historic England 2017: ‘Understanding the Archaeology of Landscapes: A Guide to Good Recording Practice (Second Edition)’

 Historic England 2011: ‘3D Laser Scanning for Heritage 2nd Edition’

STAFF AND TIMETABLE

1.23. Cotswold Archaeology is a Registered Organisation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA).

1.24. The Condition Survey will be managed by Richard Morton MCIfA, Principal Heritage Consultant, and Jo Robinson, Heritage Consultant. The geomatics elements will be managed by Jonathan Bennett, Principal Geomatics Officer.

1.25. The Draft Condition Survey report will be issued by Friday, 30 March 2018.

HEALTH AND SAFETY

1.26. CA will conduct all works in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and all subsequent Health and Safety legislation, together with the CA Health, Safety and Welfare Policy (2012, last reviewed 2016).

INSURANCES

1.27. CA holds Public Liability Insurance to a limit of £10,000,000 and Professional Indemnity Insurance to a limit of £5,000,000. No claims have been made or are pending against these policies in the last three years.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

1.28. CA is a Registered Organisation (RO) with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (RO Ref. No. 8). As a RO, CA endorses the Code of Conduct (IfA 2008) and the Code of Approved Practice for the Regulation of Contractual Arrangements in Field Archaeology (IfA 2008). All CA Project Managers hold either full Member or Associate status within the CIfA.

1.29. CA operates an internal quality assurance system in the following manner. Projects are overseen by a Project Manager who is responsible for the quality of the project. The Project Manager reports to the Chief Executive who bears ultimate responsibility for the conduct of all CA operations. Matters of policy and corporate

strategy are determined by the Board of Directors, and in cases of dispute, recourse may be made to the Chairman of the Board.