Bryan Moore 2006 Worlebury: The Iron Age Hill Fort at Weston-super-Mare.

Grid ref: ST 310 625 Lat: 51:21:23N (51.3565) Lon: 2:59:22W (-2.9894) NMR Number ST 36 SW 1

Introduction fort is a large multivallate fort located to the west of Weston Hill (known locally as Worlebury hill), Weston super Mare, . Weston Hill is a 109m high Carboniferous Limestone headland that is three miles long and 0.75 miles wide jutting out into the . The hill is surrounded by a flood plain with the town of Weston-super-Mare extending from the southern slopes.

Figure 1. Location of Worlebury. Source: Ordinance Survey.

Worlebury, which is a , is located at the westerly end of Weston Hill. The boundaries of the hill fort enclose an area of just over 4 hectares. The height of the enclosure varies from 64m to 82m and slopes toward the south. The eastern end is higher and the surface is irregular. The east of the enclosure has a linear ditch that runs

Page 1 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006 north-south forming the ‘annex’ (figures 2 and 4.) Worlebury’s interior had a maximum dimension of 690m from east-west and 200m from north-south.

Figure 2. Worlebury, based on Dymonds Plan of 1880. Source: Evans (1980, 21)

To the north there were natural defences overlooking steep natural sea cliffs. The west of the headland provided clear visibility over the Bristol Channel and inland marshes. The antiquarians believed there were three entrances to the site; the southern entrance (figure 2) is contemporary while the other two are not so conclusive. In addition, there may have been steps to the northwest leading down to fresh water at Spring Cove.

Collinson first described Worlebury in in 1791 as ‘Caesar’s Camp’ (Cunliffe, 1983, 12). It was one of the first hill forts to attract archaeological investigation in the country.

The first survey was conducted in 1805 by George Cumberland and the first known description of it occurred in the diaries of the Reverend Alexander Catcott in 1758 (Richards, 2006).

Page 2 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

History of Excavations. In 1851-1852, Reverend Francis Warre carried out excavations with a team of four friends (Edwin Martin Atkins, D. Tomkins, Reverend H.G. Tomkins, Dr Pring and Dr Thurnam) who excavated 93 pits and part of the ruined walls (Dymond, 1886, 8). Atkins surveyed and described the banks and ditches that disappeared after housing development that occurred prior to C.W. Dymonds work. In 1881, Dymond completed the most recent excavations of Worlebury.

Dymond believed that Warre’s conclusions had been built upon ‘erroneous data’ and ‘superficial examination’ (Dymond, 1886, 9). Dymond surveyed the site for five months starting in 1880 and completing his work in 1881. He exposed all the entrances, and some faces were exposed, measured and then re-covered. Ditches were ‘cleared out’ and sections of ditches and 50+ pits were emptied and ‘probed’. Dymond published his survey incorporating Atkins’ data (Figure 3).

Page 3 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Figure 3 Most Recent Survey of Worlebury. (Dymond, 1886, plate 2.)

Page 4 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

In 1987-1988 (Table 1) both cross ditches and banks were sectioned; however, only a single sheet was written up and printed for private circulation (Richards, 2006).

Subject(s) Period Intervention Project dates , pit, burial Iron Age. Excavation 1851 - 1852 Hillfort Iron Age. Excavation 1880 - 1881 Linear earthwork, cross dyke Iron Age. Excavation 1987 - 1988 Feature Post Medieval. Evaluation 1999 Table 1. History of excavations at Weston Hill. Source: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/search/resFormat.cfm, AHDS Archaeology, accessed 12th February 2006.

Figure 4. The interior cross ditch forming the 'annex'. Source: Bryan Moore

Page 5 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Occupation The first evidence of human activity comes from the earliest flint work that was pronounced by Roger Jacobi as dating from Late Upper Palaeolithic (Richards, 2006), with some flint arrowheads and stone axes dated to the Neolithic era (Figure 5) (Evans, 1980, 2).

Figure 5. Neolithic artefacts from Weston Hill (Evans, 1980, 2).

Evidence of human presence during the middle and late Bronze Age also exists. Bronze Age flint arrowheads, bronze spear heads and axe heads have been recovered from various locations upon Weston Hill (figure 6), and Bronze Age burial urns have been discovered on the southern slopes of Weston Hill. The ‘chieftain’s hut’ described by Evans is a Bronze Age barrow (Richards, 2006).

Figure 6. Middle and late Bronze Age artefacts from Weston Hill (Evans, 1980, 2).

Page 6 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

There was a tumulus at the base of the westerly tip of Weston Hill, and one to the south of the hill. The tumulus to the east is Castle Batch and was a Norman Motte (Figure 7). The tumulus to the west of Weston Hill was described in 1829 by John Rutter (cited by Dymond) as “surrounded by a low ditch”, but had disappeared by 1881.

Figure 7. Weston Hill in 1881. (Dymond, 1881, viiii)

The excavations to date have not determined the chronology of the site. However, based on knowledge of other Iron Age hill forts, parallels with Worlebury can be made. There is evidence the site was redeveloped sometime between 300 and 100 BC (Costen, 1992, 16), which is contemporary with reorganisations discovered at other sites, such as Maiden Castle (Shaples, 1991, 17), Danebury (Cunliffe, 1983, 76), and Cadbury Castle (Alcock, 1972, 133).

Two 2m deep interrupted ditches run north-south across the Weston Hill; the western ditch may have continued to curve clockwise to meet the ditch that runs through

Page 7 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Worlebury (figure 4), while the eastern ditch sweeps eastward then back to the hill fort (figure 2). The ditches are not on the same alignment as the hill fort and may be earlier. The ‘annex’ might be an earlier phase that was then extended and elaborated prior to 100 BC.

The walls

Figure 8. South Wall, facing east from the entrance. Bryan Moore

Today the walls of Worlebury are large heaps of local limestone (figure 8). The individual stones are small enough to have been hand carried. Dymond cleared some of the stone near to the south entrance and recorded the remaining construction (figure 10). He recorded two buttresses 1.2m in height either side of the central 5m high and 11m wide wall, (Green, 1996, 61) (figure 10). The wall to the east, being the most vulnerable to attack, was elaborated with an additional stone wall with a series of five ditches and banks (figures 11, 12). There was also evidence of similar elaborations (figure 3) noted at the western entrance by Atkins in 1852.

The structure of the dry stone walls of Worlebury had parallels with other structures due to its maritime connections with Brittany and southern Gaul (Harding, 1976, 269). These constructions are well represented in walled promontory forts in western and southern

Page 8 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Ireland (Harding, 1976, 269) and are characterised by multiple built faces, known as a murus duplex construction (Green, 1996, 63) (figure 10), which also occurs in Gwenedd at Pen-y-Gaer, (Harding, 1976, 269). Dymond compared the wall thickness of Pen-y-Gaer and found similarities with Worlebury (Dymond, 1886, 52). The evidence therefore suggests there was a connection with Gaul and Ireland. Doleburys’ stone walls were not a murus duplex construction.

Figure 9. Wall to the west of the south entrance. Bryan Moore.

At regular positions along the wall, there was evidence of widened platforms, interpreted by Dymond as being for using slings (figure 3). Dymond also recorded several concave ‘bowls’ constructed in the top of the wall at regular intervals (figure 10); their purpose is not understood, nor are the triangular platforms ‘scattered in assailable positions’ outside the walls (Dymond, 1881, 6).

Page 9 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Figure 10. Sections of the walls. (Dymond, 1886, Plate V)

There was probably a timber gate entrance, although no evidence of this has been uncovered. The arrangement of the entrance was a passage of just under 17m long and 4m wide (Evans, 1980, 12). The passage ran northwest to southeast, with the outer wall extending to the eastern end along the southern wall, ensuring that the unprotected right side of the visitor would be exposed upon entry (figure 9). There may also have been guard chambers at the entrance (Evans, 1980, 12).

Page 10 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Figure 11. Banks and ditches at eastern end of Worlebury looking East. Bryan Moore

Figure 12. Section of banks and ditches at eastern end of Worlebury looking South. Bryan Moore.

Page 11 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

The Interior The interior of Worlebury is characterised by many pits (figure 13); Warre had emptied many of these pits in 1850. The underlying geology of the limestone rock determined the shape and size of the pits.

Figure 13. Pits in the interior of Worlebury. Bryan Moore.

The pits vary in diameter from 1.8m to 2.4m, with a depth of 1.8m (Evans, 1980, 5). Of the 93 pits excavated, information exists on nine. One of these can be identified today: ‘pit 9’ (figure 2), the ‘steined pit’, which has a stone lining that reduces in diameter at the base where a ‘quantity of wheat mixed with barley’ was found (Evans, 1980, 5).

Page 12 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Figure 14. Pit 9 and contents. (Evans, 1980, 5)

Grains, including barley, spelt wheat, oats, and brome, were also present in other pits (Evans, 1980, 5). The pits are larger than pits uncovered in other contemporary hill forts. In discussions between Chris Richards of Woodspring Museum and the author there was agreement that Worlebury was fundamentally a ‘warehouse’ used prior to trade. Some of these pits had human remains; pit 9, for example, contained three bodies showing evidence of violence, each exhibiting wounds to the face and back of the head (figure 15); possibly ritual killings similar to findings in other . Dymond discovered portions of eighteen individuals (Dymond, 1881, 77).

Page 13 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Figure 15. Skulls from Pit 9. (Dymond, 1886, plate XI)

The human remains discovered in antiquity were examined more recently showing additional evidence of ‘savage use’ of weapons on the skulls, legs and collarbones (Bailey, 1966). In other pits, various remains of animal bones were found, including pig, ox, horse and water fowl, as well as limpet shells (Dymond, 1881, 78), also found were items of bronze, glass and lead as well as pot shards. In addition, hoards of pebbles, rings of iron, spearheads and bronze finger rings were found, suggesting that some personal items were lost during their usage.

Page 14 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Conclusions Weston Hill would have been ideal to inhabit, as sources of food would have been rich for hunters, farmers and traders. The hills and the marshy levels would have provided good hunting for fowl and course pasturage (Bailey, 1966). The local resources included seaweed for fertiliser, iron ores, lead-ore, ochre, lias limestone flags for flooring (as in pit 9), siliceous sandstone, quartz conglomerate for quern stones, and abundant spring water for cattle along the south edge of the hill (Richards, 2006).

Worlebury was not alone in the landscape at this time; there were contemporary settlements at Cadbury in Congresbury, Brent Knoll, Cadbury Tickenham and Dolebury. However, Worlebury was uniquely different in its construction and bore similarities to locations in Gaul and Ireland. There is also evidence that the coastline would have been further inland in the Iron Age providing good harbour (Dymond, 1881, 18).

There is evidence that Worlebury was refortified about the time of the Roman arrival, which would be unusual for the Dobunnic location, which was recognised as being supportive of Rome. This raises the question of whether Worlebury, under the command of Corio, separated from the northern Dobunnic king Bodvic (Evans, 1980, 3).

Worlebury may be very significant in telling us more about society up to the middle of the first century AD, but requires modern techniques to be applied to determine the chronology.

The differences in construction, indicating possible cultural differences to other local hillforts, are intriguing, and there are similarities to other hill forts elaborating at the same time; however, the chronology needs to be confirmed.

It is not known when the site was built, or if the large linear ditches are contemporary with the site, but Worlebury may have a wider importance to the understanding of the local trade and politics with Ireland, Cornwall and Gaul. A difference in construction techniques and refortification circa 43 AD raises the question of whether the inhabitants were Dobunnic tribesmen or an annex of Celts from Gaul or Ireland. This question is

Page 15 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006 also borne out by some of the evidence discussed with Chris Richards, such as the character of the Bronze Age and Iron Age burials at that have parallels with Glamorgan and the Isles of Scilly, a fogou at Walton St Mary, Bronze Age pottery in Weston and Cornish and Channel Islands. Finally, Chris Richards also pointed out that the coast was a control zone in the introduction of gold from Southern Ireland.

{2081 Words}

Page 16 of 17 Bryan Moore 2006

Bibliography http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/search/resFormat.cfm for this page ADS hosts AHDS Archaeology, accessed 12th February 2006.

Alcock, L., 1972. Was this Camelot? Excavations at Cadbury Castle. Stein and Day. New York.

Bailey, J., 1966. “How this great Worlebury camp was built”. Weston Mercury. 11th February 1966.

Bailey, J., 1996. “Drama of Worlebury’s violent overthrow”. Weston Mercury. 28th February 1966.

Costen, M., 1992. The origins of Somerset. Manchester University Press. Manchester.

Cunliffe, B., 1983. Danebury, Anatomy of an Iron Age Fort. BT Batsford. London.

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

Evans, J., 1980. Worlebury. The story of an Iron Age Hill-fort at Weston-super-Mare. Woodspring Museum Publications. Weston-super-Mare.

Green, M.J., 1996. The Celtic World. Routledge. London.

Harding, D., 1976. Hillforts. Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and Ireland. Academic Press. London.

Meeting and emails with Chris Richards, Research Assistant at North Somerset Museum Service and North Somerset Council Ranger.

Page 17 of 17