3 The Regional Pattern by Mark Corney and Andrew Payne The hillforts of Wessex: their P Williams Freeman. Both worked primarily morphology and environs in Hampshire, although Sumner also extended his survey work into neighbouring by Mark Corney southern Wiltshire and Dorset. His pioneer­ ing survey of Cranborne Chase (Sumner Introduction 1913) resulted in the presentation of plans produced to a very high standard of draughts­ The methodical study of Wessex hillforts has manship that had a profound influence on the its origins in the late 19th century and open­ graphic style of the early RCHM surveys in ing two decades of the 20th century and, West Dorset. (These were largely produced with the notable exception of Pitt Rivers’ during the 1930s but, owing to the outbreak excavations at Winkelbury, Wiltshire (Pitt of the Second World War, were not published Rivers 1888), initially developed as a non- until 1952.) Williams Freeman published sur­ intrusive survey tradition. Given that this veys of many Hampshire hillforts (1915) and volume is presenting the results of non-intru­ although his graphical style did not match sive methodologies it is worth pausing to that of Sumner, he provided an important review the development of this tradition in record of many sites as they appeared 100 Wessex. Although the late 19th century years ago (see for example the section on marks the main starting point for investiga­ Norsebury, pp 66–71). tions, any review must acknowledge the con­ This auspicious start to non-intrusive tribution of the superb surveys produced by investigation was to prove something of a false Philip Crocker on behalf of Sir Richard Colt dawn as the emphasis began to move rapidly Hoare. These plans (Fig 3.1) are a remark­ to hillfort excavation. In Wiltshire Maud able and accurate record of many monu­ Cunnington, assisted by her husband B H ments, including hillforts (Colt Hoare 1812, Cunnington, investigated a number of hill- 1819). They frequently depicted major hill- forts (Cunnington 1908, 1925, 1932a, forts and their environs thus presenting the 1932b, 1933; Cunnington and Cunnington first ‘landscape’ plans specifically executed 1913, 1917) as well as the important Early to record the extant archaeology. Iron Age settlement at All Cannings Cross Pitt Rivers was certainly aware of the (Cunnington 1923). In Hampshire it was C F importance of recording surface features C Hawkes who took the lead in hillfort exca­ and the Cranborne Chase volumes contain vation, investigating St Catherine’s Hill many plans of his sites prior to excavation (Hawkes et al 1930; Hawkes 1976), Buckland (eg Pitt Rivers 1888). In addition he also Rings (Hawkes 1936), Quarley Hill (Hawkes had scale models produced of many sites 1939) and Bury Hill (Hawkes 1940). that depict the condition of the monument Hawkes’ excavations in Hampshire were to be prior to excavation (Bowden 1991). Pitt central to his ‘ABC’ scheme for the British Rivers’ assistants, most notably Herbert Iron Age (Hawkes 1931, 1956, 1959). South­ Toms, were to develop this analytical survey west of our study area, in Dorset, Sir Mor- skill further (Bradley 1989). timer Wheeler and his team examined a Earthwork depictions of most of the hill- number of major hillforts at Maiden Castle forts in the Wessex region to a common spec­ (Wheeler 1943), Poundbury (Richardson ification were first produced by the Ordnance 1940) and Chalbury (Whitley 1943). Survey for the first edition 6-inch and 25­ The growth of aerial photography in inch maps (Crawford 1955; Phillips 1980). In archaeology in the decades following the opening years of the 20th century a small the Second World War had a profound number of fieldworkers began to produce impact in the region. The potential of this larger-scale, divorced surveys of many Wessex method had already been demonstrated by hillforts. In 1908 Allcroft published Earth­ Crawford and Keiller (1928) but it was not work of England, and of particular interest are until the formation of the Cambridge Uni­ the investigations of Heywood Sumner and J versity Committee for Air Photography and, 131 THE WESSEX HILLFORTS PROJECT Fig 3.1 The surveys of Oldbury and Barbury Castle published in 1812 by Sir Richard Colt Hoare in his Ancient History of Wiltshire, Volume 2 (from NMRC Library – The Ancient History of Wiltshire, Volume 2, North Wiltshire, Plate VIII, pages 40–41, originally published 1812, re-published 1975). 132 THE REGIONAL PATTERN somewhat later, the Air Photography Unit lation. Whatever the undoubtedly complex of RCHME that the intensity and complex­ factors behind the choice of location might ity of the later prehistoric landscape in Wes­ have been, there were clear preferred loca­ sex could be fully appreciated. Collin tions within the landscape and strong Bowen (1975, 1978) began the elucidation regional trends can be discerned over much of this landscape by using the results of air of the area covered by this study. There is a photography and ground survey. Building tendency to view Wessex hillforts as part of upon this came a landmark study with the the classic chalkland prehistoric landscape. publication of a major air photographic However, even a cursory glance at the map of study of the Danebury environs (Palmer Wessex hillforts immediately shows that the 1984). Using only air photographic sources, great majority are located on the limits of the an area of 450 sq km was mapped at a scale chalk, either on the escarpment edge or over­ of 1:10,000 with select windows at 1:5000 looking the major valleys such as the Avon, and 1:2500. This study set a new standard Test, Kennet and Wylye. Only a relatively in air photographic analysis of extensive small number are within the main chalk mas­ relict landscapes that has been repeated sif and even here it is possible to discern pre­ since over many areas of the country (eg ferred locations in certain regions. Bowen 1990; Stoertz 1997). It must be stressed that many of those In addition to pure air survey, multidisci­ sites grouped together below have had little plinary extensive projects within Wessex if any modern excavation and the detailed using air photography, earthwork survey chronology is far from clear. It will be seen, and geophysics were undertaken by the for­ though, that there are certain common links mer RCHME (now part of English Her­ in the morphology of these groupings. Obvi­ itage). Studies of southern Wiltshire (NMR ously none of these sites will have existed in archive) and Salisbury Plain (McOmish et al isolation; the other components of the envi­ 2002) demonstrate the level of detailed rons of those hillforts examined by this pro­ analysis attainable by these means and were ject, and noted in the preceding section, instrumental in stimulating further projects must be borne in mind (see also pp 139–41). (eg Bradley et al 1994). Escarpment locations The morphology of Wessex hillforts There are two major groups occupying north-facing escarpments: The main morphological characteristics of the hillforts of the British Isles have been The Ridgeway/Marlborough Downs examined in detail by numerous authors in Group recent years (eg Cunliffe 1991, 312–70; The largest group within this category is Forde-Johnston 1976; Hogg 1975). These located on the north-facing escarpment of studies looked at the phenomenon of hill- the Berkshire Downs and Marlborough forts from both national and regional per­ Downs – along the route of the ‘Ridgeway’ – spectives. In Wessex work has continued at a comprising ten hillforts: Blewburton Hill number of levels; ranging from major pro­ (Harding 1976), Segsbury, Rams Hill, Uffin­ jects involving large scale excavation, such gton Castle, Hardwell Camp, Liddington as at Danebury, to intensive non-intrusive Castle, Chiseldon (a ploughed out univallate survey utilising multi-disciplinary method­ site known only from air photographs (see ologies. Among the latter there have been a Fig 2.53) and Barbury Castle. The latter large number of earthwork and air photo­ three also overlook the junction between the graphic surveys that have added both a con­ Og Valley and the northern chalk escarp­ siderable amount of detail and important ment, allowing easy access from the chalk observations that, until now, have remained massif to the upper Thames Valley. Beyond largely unpublished. The following section Barbury Castle there is a gap in the Avebury is largely based upon this work. area and then two western fringe outliers of the group: Oldbury and Oliver’s Camp. Location North Hampshire Escarpment The choice of hillfort location cannot be con­ This group comprises six hillforts and over­ sidered as a random decision. The correlation looks the middle reaches of the Kennet Val­ between hillforts and earlier monuments is ley with extensive views to the north. The well known – even though there is still consid­ westernmost outlier of the group, Forest erable debate on the significance of this corre­ Hill near Marlborough, is possibly a Late 133 THE WESSEX HILLFORTS PROJECT Iron Age construct (Cunliffe 1991, 153; River Nadder are Chiselbury (Clay 1935), Corney 1997) while the remainder; Wal­ Wick Ball Camp, Castle Ditches (Tisbury) bury, Beacon Hill, Ladle Hill, Bowry Walls and Castle Rings (Donhead). North-east of and Winklebury occupy the main escarp­ the confluence with the Avon, the high ment edge set back some distance from the ground overlooking the valley of the River Kennet Valley. Bourne has Figsbury Ring (Cunnington Smaller scarp edge clusters can be dis­ 1925; Guido and Smith 1982), the major cerned in a number of areas. The north­ complex on Boscombe Down West western escarpment of Salisbury Plain in the (Richardson 1951) and Sidbury. Warminster area has four hillforts – Scratch- bury, Battlesbury, Bratton Castle (McOmish The River Stour, Dorset et al 2002) and Cley Hill – forming a discrete The Stour and its tributaries host a number cluster.