Architecture, Regional Identity and Power in the Iron Age Landscapes of Mid Wales: The Hillforts of North Ceredigion 9781407311234, 9781407322636

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
PREFACE
Summary (English)
Crynodeb (Welsh)
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1 -- Introduction: Celts, research frameworks and the development of hillfort studies in Britain
2 -- The landscape background and history of research and enquiry
3 -- Settlements in the landscape: Chronology, topography and the Iron Age communities
4 -- Movement, trade and cultural contact: Iron Age links across central Wales
5 -- Bridges, bastions and bravado: A new field archaeology of the north Ceredigion hillfort gateways
6 -- Impressing the neighbours: Structure, display and the spread of regional architectural traditions
7 -- Hillforts and human movement: Approaching, entering, experiencing and passing the hillforts in the landscape
8 -- Discussion and conclusions: Towards a new Iron Age for mid and west Wales
Sites to Visit
Appendix 1
Bibliography
Index
About the Author

Citation preview

BAR 583 2013 DRIVER ARCHITECTURE, REGIONAL IDENTITY AND POWER

B A R

Architecture, Regional Identity and Power in the Iron Age Landscapes of Mid Wales The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Toby Driver

BAR British Series 583 2013

Architecture, Regional Identity and Power in the Iron Age Landscapes of Mid Wales The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Toby Driver

BAR British Series 583 2013

ISBN 9781407311234 paperback ISBN 9781407322636 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407311234 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Frontispiece: A hidden masterpiece of the mid Wales Iron Age: Castell Grogwynion, Trawsgoed. Aerial view from the north shows the uncompromising line of the northern terrace (running left to right on the near side of the fort), which defines the ‘landward’ side of this inland promontory fort. The very regular terrace, defined by an upper and lower rampart, incorporates and straddles a steep outcrop on the north-west (here, right-hand) side, climbing nearly 6.5m yet retaining its direction and symmetry. This study argues that the northern terrace at Castell Grogwynion is one of a series of ‘façade schemes’ implemented at disparate regional hillforts, regardless - and often despite - of severe local terrain. ‘Branding’ the hillfort with the façade of a regional architectural tradition proclaimed allegiance to, and membership of, a wider cultural group, sharing power and developing regional identity (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, AP_2007_4881). Cover: Pen y Bannau hillfort, Ystrad Fflur: the formidable north-eastern façade, view looking south-west (compare with figure 6.39. T. Driver 2012).

i

Architecture, Regional Identity and Power in the Iron Age Landscapes of Mid Wales: The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

PREFACE The origins of this volume lie in research undertaken for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Wales, Lampeter, in 2005 (Driver 2005). The doctoral research tackled a regional group of hillforts in mid Wales which, apart from one or two better-known examples, had never really featured in any national discussion about the Iron Age in Wales or the west of Britain. Being little known outside the county, and virtually unexcavated, the challenge posed was how to approach, research and interpret an undated group of hillforts. I decided to take on the challenge, preferring to see the hillforts not as ‘problems’ but as carefully built, long-lived structures, which had a good deal to teach us about the ways their builders thought about enclosure, defence, display, architecture and landscape prior to and during the Roman conquest of Wales. The resulting fieldwork and conclusions broke much new ground in the interpretation of later prehistoric communities in this part of western Britain. It became clear during the study that the Iron Age hillforts and defended settlements cannot be plucked from their wider landscape and studied in isolation. One hillfort needs to be studied against its local neighbours, and its regional neighbours; local and regional trends in hillfort design need to be set against the wider regions of Iron Age Wales, which were intensely interdependent. So the research grew into the complex and multifaceted piece of work contained within these covers. I am pleased to say that the study has been considerably reworked and updated since its initial completion as a thesis. Since completing the PhD one major paper about its findings has been published (Driver 2008) and another will form part of a future volume on Iron Age settlement in Wales (Driver, in preparation). A recent collaborative paper provided an opportunity to develop these ideas further in a new region, south Pembrokeshire (Barker and Driver 2011), and it is encouraging to see the north Ceredigion hillforts informing wider debate in the British Iron Age (Lock 2011, 361). Within mid Wales, excavations on regional defended enclosures in south Ceredigion (Murphy and Mytum 2012), at Darren hillfort within the study area (Timberlake and Driver 2006; Timberlake 2007), as well as the discovery of a Romano-British villa at Abermagwr (Davies and Driver 2012), have all had a bearing on the interpretation and dating of settlements in the region since the original research was completed. In 2011 a new collaborative PhD project began between the Royal Commission and the Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences (IGES), Aberystwyth University, to analyse ore residues and evidence for possible metal working at three of the north Ceredigion hillforts (Driver and Haylock 2012), and related monuments. Full acknowledgements follow below, but it remains to add that without the guidance and insight of my supervisor, Professor Andrew Fleming, the support of successive Secretaries and Commissioners of the Royal Commission, and the original encouragement to commence the PhD from my wife Becky, this volume would never have appeared. Toby Driver, Bontgoch, Aberystwyth, March 2013

ii

Hillforts of north Ceredigion Summary This is a study of the Iron Age hillforts of north Ceredigion (Cardiganshire), mid Wales. Over one hundred diverse and unusual hillforts and defended enclosures are known in this topographically distinctive landscape, framed between the west coast of Cardigan Bay and the eastern high ground of the Cambrian Mountains. This new research sheds light on their architecture, chronology and the dynamic use of the regional terrain in later prehistory, reaching conclusions that have resonance for the wider study of British hillforts. The core of the study is a detailed analysis of the architecture of the later prehistoric hillforts of mid Wales, focusing on north Ceredigion. The architectural subtleties and non-standard methods of construction employed during the Iron Age in this region have long defied conventional classification. Because of this, the hillforts have largely been ignored in Welsh and British studies apart from one or two key sites. To advance an understanding, generalisation is avoided in favour of a more in-depth analysis of the individual hillforts. This shows them to have been sophisticated three dimensional spaces, built within a set of regional architectural traditions far more complex than has previously been acknowledged. The hillforts have been analysed in the field in three dimensions, to identify their architectural components and potential shared façade schemes. New interpretations regarding the role and extents of architectural complexity and monumentality in hillfort façades, where construction work was driven beyond that required for practical enclosure and defence, are described. These show the transmission of wider architectural traditions and the existence of cohesive regional communities who shared particular approaches to hillfort architecture. This perspective differs from some previous studies, which suggest that rampart construction was a sober and functional defensive response to changes in attack strategy. This study challenges the existing model of ‘west Wales’ (the old county of Dyfed) as a coherent landscape unit for the study of Iron Age settlement. It also challenges the model that coastal trade along Cardigan Bay was the predominant means of contact with the wider prehistoric world. Instead, a model for overland ‘cultural contact’ across the high ground of Plynlimon and central Wales, linking mid Wales with other regions of the Severn and Wye valleys and western Britain, is proposed. The Cambrian Mountains were not barriers to communication, but were crossed by numerous valleys and passes fostering vibrant trade and contact between inland communities in the Iron Age, and throughout prehistory. This contact is fossilised in the spread of distinctive shared ideas of hillfort design and construction, traceable throughout central Wales and beyond. Supporting research includes a reassessment of the history of investigation, later prehistoric chronology and economic landscape of the region. A detailed record of the field archaeology of the hillforts is presented following a six year programme of field visits and survey. The use of quartz walling in hillfort defences is discussed and gateway typologies described. Through this study of a comparatively poorly-understood region of mid Wales, new methods of hillfort investigation have been developed. These will allow a better understanding of how cultural traditions shaped regional hillfort architecture in other parts of Britain where traditional methods of investigation have proved ineffective.

iii

Bryngaerau gogledd Ceredigion Crynodeb Astudiaeth yw hon o fryngaerau Oes yr Haearn yng ngogledd Ceredigion (Sir Aberteifi), canolbarth Cymru. Gwyddom am fwy na chant o fryngaerau a llociau amddiffynnol amrywiol ac anarferol yn y dirwedd neilltuol hon, rhwng arfordir Bae Ceredigion yn y gorllewin a thir uchel Uwchdiroedd Cymru yn y dwyrain. Mae’r ymchwil newydd hwn yn taflu goleuni ar eu pensaernïaeth a’u cronoleg ac ar y defnydd dynamig a gâi ei wneud o’r tir yn y rhanbarth hwn yn ystod y cyfnod cynhanesyddol diweddarach, a deuir i gasgliadau sy’n berthnasol i’r astudiaeth ehangach o fryngaerau Prydain. Prif bwyslais yr astudiaeth yw dadansoddiad manwl o bensaernïaeth bryngaerau cynhanesyddol diweddarach canolbarth Cymru, gan ganolbwyntio ar ogledd Ceredigion. Bu’r nodweddion pensaernïol amrywiol a’r dulliau adeiladu ansafonol a ddefnyddiwyd yn ystod Oes yr Haearn yn y rhanbarth hwn yn rhwystr ers tro byd i ddosbarthu confensiynol. Oherwydd hyn, mae’r bryngaerau wedi cael eu hanwybyddu i raddau helaeth mewn astudiaethau Cymreig a Phrydeinig heblaw am un neu ddau o safleoedd allweddol. I hybu dealltwriaeth, mae’r astudiaeth yn osgoi cyffredinoli ac yn darparu dadansoddiad manylach o’r bryngaerau unigol. Dengys hyn eu bod hwy’n lleoedd tri dimensiwn soffistigedig, wedi’u hadeiladu ar sail traddodiadau pensaernïol rhanbarthol a oedd yn llawer mwy cymhleth nag a gydnabuwyd ynghynt. Cafodd y bryngaerau eu dadansoddi yn y maes, a hynny mewn tri dimensiwn, er mwyn adnabod eu nodweddion pensaernïol a’u cynlluniau ffasâd cyffredin posibl. Cynigir dehongliadau o ffasadau bryngaer, o ran eu rôl, eu dosbarthiad, eu cymhlethdod pensaernïol a’u maint, a thynnir sylw at waith adeiladu a oedd yn fwy na’r hyn yr oedd ei angen at bwrpas amgáu ac amddiffyn yn unig. Dengys y rhain fod traddodiadau pensaernïol ehangach yn cael eu trosglwyddo a bod cymunedau rhanbarthol cydlynol yn bodoli a oedd yn rhannu syniadau penodol ynghylch pensaernïaeth bryngaerau. Mae’r safbwynt hwn yn wahanol i rai astudiaethau blaenorol sy’n awgrymu bod adeiladu rhagfuriau yn ymateb amddiffynnol doeth ac ymarferol i newidiadau mewn strategaethau ymosod. Mae’r astudiaeth hon yn herio’r model presennol o ‘orllewin Cymru’ (hen sir Dyfed) fel uned ddaearyddol gydlynol ar gyfer astudio anheddu yn Oes yr Haearn. Mae hefyd yn herio’r model sy’n honni mai masnach arfordirol ar hyd Bae Ceredigion oedd y prif ddull o gysylltu â’r byd cynhanesyddol ehangach. Yn lle hynny, cynigir model ar gyfer ‘cysylltiadau diwylliannol’ ar draws uwchdiroedd Pumlumon a chanolbarth Cymru, a oedd yn cysylltu’r canolbarth â rhanbarthau eraill yn nyffrynnoedd Hafren a Gwy a gorllewin Prydain. Nid oedd Uwchdiroedd Cymru yn llesteirio cyfathrebu, yn hytrach, roedd y dyffrynnoedd a bylchau niferus a oedd yn eu croesi yn hwyluso masnach a chysylltiadau bywiog rhwng cymunedau mewndirol yn ystod Oes yr Haearn, a thrwy gydol y cyfnod cynhanesyddol. Mae’r cysylltiadau hyn i’w gweld yn glir yn lledaeniad syniadau cyffredin ynghylch cynllunio ac adeiladu bryngaerau, y gellir eu holrhain ar hyd a lled canolbarth Cymru a thu hwnt. Mae ymchwil ategol yn cynnwys ailasesiad o ymchwiliadau blaenorol i’r rhanbarth, cronoleg y cyfnod cynhanesyddol diweddarach ac economi’r rhanbarth. Cyflwynir cofnod manwl o archaeoleg maes y bryngaerau yn dilyn rhaglen chwe blynedd o ymweliadau maes ac arolygon. Trafodir y defnydd o waliau cwarts yn amddiffynfeydd y bryngaerau a disgrifir y gwahanol fathau o byrth. Mae dulliau newydd o ymchwilio i fryngaerau wedi cael eu datblygu yn ystod yr astudiaeth hon o ran o ganolbarth Cymru y mae ein dealltwriaeth ohoni’n gymharol wan. Bydd y dulliau hyn yn gwella ein dealltwriaeth o ddylanwad traddodiadau diwylliannol ar bensaernïaeth bryngaerau mewn rhannau eraill o Brydain lle y bu dulliau ymchwilio traddodiadol yn aneffeithiol.

iv

Figure i. Main (south-west) gateway bastion at Castell Grogwynion, with entrance passage to right and figure for scale, November 2011 (T. Driver; Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

Figure ii. Rising from the bog, the fortified outcrop of Pen Dinas, Elerch, with its bastioned gateway visible at right, and earthworks of a second gateway, subsequently blocked, at far left (T. Driver).

v

CONTENTS Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... Summary (English) ....................................................................................................................................... Crynodeb (Summary - Welsh) .................................................................................................................... Contents............................................. ............................................................................................................ Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................

ii iii iv vi xi

CHAPTER 1. Introduction: Celts, research frameworks and the development of hillfort studies in Britain 1.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 A NEW IRON AGE: REBELLION AND REINVENTION.....................................................................1 1.3 DEVELOPING IRON AGE STUDIES IN BRITAIN.............................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Moving towards a national agenda............................................................................................ 3 1.4 SUB-RECTANGULAR? POLYGONAL? OVAL? UNIVALLATE? OUTMODED APPROACHES TO IRON AGE SETTLEMENT STUDIES................................................. 4 1.5 INTERPRETING IRON AGE COMMUNITIES: SOME CHANGING MODELS................................. 5 1.6 A FRESH START FOR MID-WALES .......................................................................................... 8 1.7 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: ‘THE HILLFORT AS ARTEFACT’..................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2. The landscape background and history of research and enquiry 2.1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………. 11 2.1.1 A note on chronology………………………………………………………………………… 11 2.2 LANDSCAPE, CLIMATE AND AGRICULTURE................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 The boundaries of the study area............................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Geology..................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Topography............................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.4 The major rivers and their characteristics................................................................................. 14 2.2.5 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.6 Agricultural potential................................................................................................................ 16 2.2.6.1 Soils........................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.6.2 Palaeo-environmental evidence................................................................................. 17 2.2.6.3 Bronze Age evidence................................................................................................. 17 2.2.6.4 Iron Age evidence...................................................................................................... 18 2.2.6.5 Historic and present-day agricultural regimes......................................................... 19 2.3 ASSESSING THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN: ANTIQUARIAN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH.............................................................................................................. 19 2.3.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 19 2.3.2 Early regional surveys of the Cardiganshire prehistoric earthworks ………………………. 20 2.3.3 Developments from the Second World War to the present day............................................... 20 2.3.4 Assessing the settlement pattern: recovering lost or destroyed sites using aerial photography.............................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.4.1 The contribution of cropmark evidence to the settlement pattern ............................ 22 2.3.4.2 Levels of evidence recorded from the air……………………………………………….. 24 2.3.4.3 The contribution of cropmarks to an understanding of the Iron Age settlement pattern.................................................................................................................. 25 2.4 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 27

vi

CHAPTER 3. Settlements in the landscape: Chronology, topography and the Iron Age communities 3.1 ESTABLISHING CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CEREDIGION................................... 29 3.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 29 3.1.2 Early forts in Wales and the borders: Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition: c.800-550 cal BC............................................................................................................................... 30 3.1.3 Potential hillforts of the later Bronze/Early Iron Ages in north Ceredigion............................. 33 3.1.3.1 Early forts in north Ceredigion: Rampart morphology and chronology ................ 33 3.1.4 The middle to later Iron Age in Ceredigion, c.400 cal BC – AD 70 ................................... 35 3.1.4.1 Settlement expansion................................................................................................ 35 3.1.4.2 Later Rampart morphology ..................................................................................... 36 3.1.4.3 Enlarged and developed hillforts ............................................................................. 37 3.1.4.4 Settled landscapes of ‘small enclosures’ in north Ceredigion................................. 38 3.1.5 Evidence from the Roman conquest......................................................................................... 39 3.1.5.1 Scapula’s campaigns AD 47-51 ............................................................................. 39 3.1.5.2 The population of Ceredigion at the time of Frontinus’ campaigns........................ 40 3.2 THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN.............................................................................................................. 40 3.2.1 Introduction: considering settlement patterns........................................................................... 40 3.2.2 Iron Age Wales and the borderlands: a regional overview....................................................... 41 3.2.2.1 The Roman record of the Welsh tribes...................................................................... 41 3.2.2.2 Regional variations in Welsh Iron Age settlement archaeology: an overview......... 42 3.2.3 Iron Age settlement in north Ceredigion: a review of the evidence......................................... 43 3.2.3.1 The agricultural economy......................................................................................... 43 3.2.3.1.1 Livestock and field systems....................................................................... 44 3.2.3.1.2 Transhumance ........................................................................................... 44 3.2.3.1.3 Redistribution and hillfort interiors........................................................... 45 3.2.3.1.4 Cattle and Iron Age status......................................................................... 45 3.2.4 Settlement patterns in north Ceredigion: the west coast ........................................................... 46 3.2.5 Settlement patterns in north Ceredigion: the lowlands.............................................................. 47 3.2.5.1 Lowland settlement: the Trawsgoed basin and Ystwyth valley environs.................. 49 3.2.5.2 The Llanfihangel y Creuddyn lowland basin............................................................. 50 3.2.5.3 The lowland basins north of the Rheidol ................................................................. 51 3.2.5.3.1 The Melindwr basin................................................................................... 51 3.2.5.3.2 The Leri basin small enclosure group..................................................... 52 3.2.5.4 The Cwm Gwyddyl group.......................................................................................... 52 3.2.6 Settlement patterns in north Ceredigion: plateau areas............................................................. 53 3.2.7 Evidence for stock management and corralling in the Bow Street basin, and comparisons in other parts of the study area .............................................................................. 53 3.2.7.1 Ancillary enclosures at north Ceredigion hillforts potentially representing pastoral enclosures................................................................................................................ 57 3.3 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 57 CHAPTER 4. Movement, trade and cultural contact: Iron Age links across central Wales 4.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 59 4.2 SHIFTING OUR PERCEPTIONS FROM SEA TO OVERLAND....................................................... . 59 4.3 REASSESSING THE VERACITY OF THE ‘DYFED MODEL’ FOR LATER PREHISTORIC STUDIES IN WEST WALES...............................................................................................60 4.4 NORTH CEREDIGION: REQUIRED OVERLAND TRADE CONTACTS IN THE WELSH BORDERLANDS AND CHESHIRE PLAIN................................................................................................ 62 4.4.1 Traded salt ............................................................................................................................... 62 4.4.2 The ceramic trade from the Malvern Hills ............................................................................. 64

vii

4.5 STRATEGIES FOR EAST-WEST MOVEMENT ACROSS THE CAMBRIAN MOUNTAIN RANGE ............................................................................................................. 65 4.5.1 Rivers and valleys for overland movement .............................................................................. 65 4.5.2 Lines of communication across the Plynlimon massif.............................................................. 66 4.6 MOVEMENT BETWEEN THE WYE/ELAN VALLEYS AND THE YSTWYTH/TEIFI VALLEYS........................................................................................................................ 67 4.7 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 68 CHAPTER 5. Bridges, bastions and bravado: A new field archaeology of the north Ceredigion hillfort gateways 5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 69 5.2 GATEWAYS AND ENTRANCE WORKS .......................................................................................... 69 5.2.1 Gateways with passages and crossing bridges.......................................................................... 70 5.2.2 Freestanding bastions and elaborate gateway elements ........................................................... 74 5.2.2.1 Castell Grogwynion: an example of a rediscovered complex gateway.................... 74 5.2.2.2 Pen Dinas, Elerch...................................................................................................... 76 5.2.2.3 Cnwc y Bugail............................................................................................................ 77 5.2.2.4 Notes on other elaborate gateway elements.............................................................. 77 5.2.3 Annexes and public areas ....................................................................................................... 77 5.2.3.1 Space for corralling and livestock management ................................................... 78 5.2.3.2 Public space for gatherings and control of human access ....................................... 80 5.3 STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY AT SMALLER HILLFORTS............................................................ 81 5.4 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 82 CHAPTER 6. Impressing the neighbours: Structure, display and the spread of regional architectural traditions 6.1 INTRODUCTION: RETHINKING THE ROLE AND PURPOSE OF HILLFORT DEFENCES.......... 83 6.1.2 New approaches to complexity.................................................................................................. 84 6.2 ARCHITECTURAL COMPLEXITY IN FAÇADE CONSTRUCTION................................................ 84 6.2.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 84 6.2.2 Structured internal building techniques and façade display..................................................... 85 6.2.3 Revetment walling as a method for display ............................................................................. 87 6.2.3.1 Stone walling and the uses of revetment for display................................................. 87 6.2.3.2 Quartz walling ....................................................................................................... 88 6.2.4 Hillfort appearance and physical alteration ............................................................................. 91 6.2.4.1 Levelling against the horizon.................................................................................... 91 6.2.4.2 Topographic incorporation....................................................................................... 91 6.2.4.3 Conspicuous construction and false multivallation.................................................. 92 6.3. FAÇADE SCHEMES IN HILLFORT CONSTRUCTION .................................................................... 94 6.3.1 The Pen Dinas façade scheme at the south fort, Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth............................... 94 6.3.2 The Pen Dinas façade scheme at Gaer Fawr, Lledrod ............................................................. 96 6.3.3 Parallels: the Pen Dinas façade scheme in north Ceredigion.................................................... 98 6.3.4 Parallels outside the region....................................................................................................... 100 6.3.5 Case study: elements of the Pen Dinas façade scheme employed at Castell Grogwynion............................................................................................................................ 101 6.3.5.1. Castell Grogwynion ................................................................................................. 102 6.3.6 Divergence: the Darren façade scheme .............................................................................. 102 6.3.7 The Cors Caron façade scheme ........................................................................................... 103 6.3.8 ‘Hybrid’ designs and the intermingling of architectural traditions ...................................... 105 6.3.9 Hillforts which cannot be readily grouped and concentric hillforts ....................................... 106 6.4 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 107 viii

CHAPTER 7 . Hillforts and human movement: Approaching, entering, experiencing and passing the hillforts in the landscape 7.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 109 7.2 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE SETTINGS OF NORTH CEREDIGION HILLFORTS............................................................................................................ 109 7.3 PRIME LOCATIONS: OWNERSHIP AND COMMAND OF PROMINENT LOCATIONS IN THE IRON AGE LANDSCAPE............................................................................................................... 110 7.3.1 Definition.................................................................................................................................. 110 7.3.2 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. A hillfort in a prime location............................................................ 111 7.4 HILLFORT FAÇADES AND THEIR RELATION TO TRACKWAYS, PASSES AND OVERLAND ROUTES .................................................................................................................................. 113 7.4.1 Hillfort façades at ‘Ponterwyd Junction’................................................................................... 113 7.4.2 Hillfort façades bordering Cors Caron...................................................................................... 115 7.4.3 Castell Rhyfel and its relationship to overland mountain passes.............................................. 116 7.5 APPROACHING SIX KEY HILLFORTS: MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE IN THE LANDSCAPE .............. .................................................................................................................. 118 7.5.1 Approaching six key hillforts .................................................................................................. 118 7.5.2 Movement from lowland to upland: Caer Lletty Llwyd and Pen Dinas, Elerch...................... 118 7.5.2.1 Summary................................................................................................................... 118 7.5.2.2 The two hillforts ....................................................................................................... 118 7.5.3 The long approach to Darren.................................................................................................... 120 7.5.3.1 Summary................................................................................................................... 120 7.5.3.2 The approaches ....................................................................................................... 120 7.5.4 Castell Flemish: facing out from Cors Caron.......................................................................... 122 7.5.4.1 Summary................................................................................................................... 122 7.5.4.2 The defences.............................................................................................................. 122 7.5.5 Incorporating topography: the approach to Castell Grogwynion ................................... 123 7.5.5.1 Summary................................................................................................................... 123 7.5.5.2 Description of the western outcrop........................................................................... 124 7.5.5.3 The monumental role of the western outcrop............................................................ 124 7.5.6 Cnwc y Bugail, Trawsgoed: a small fort with a major gateway annexe.................................... 126 7.5.6.1 Summary.................................................................................................................... 126 7.5.6.2 Monumentality at the hillfort..................................................................................... 126 7.5.6.3 The dynamics of the entrance approach.................................................................... 127 7.6 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 128 CHAPTER 8. Discussion and conclusions: Towards a new Iron Age for mid and west Wales 8.1 DEVELOPING A NARRATIVE FOR LATER PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT IN NORTH CEREDIGION............................................................................................................................. 129 8.2 RECOGNISING MONUMENTAL IRON AGE ARCHITECTURE IN NORTH CEREDIGION.... 129 8.2.1 The two principal regional façade schemes in north Ceredigion ....................................... 130 8.2.2 Topography and its influence on hillfort architecture........................................................... 131 8.2.3 Looking wider: tracing north Ceredigion architectural traditions in central and eastern Wales............................................................................................................................... 133 8.3 ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLISM: AN OVERVIEW........................................................................... 133 8.3.1 Hillfort architecture: defensive/utilitarian versus symbolic/non-utilitarian ....................... 133 8.3.2 Iron Age architectural symbolism .................................................................................. 136 8.3.3 Two halves don’t make a whole: Duality in later prehistoric architecture ........................ 137 8.3.4 Timber and rock: regional capability and engineering effort .............................................. 138 8.3.5 Front/rear symbolism in the hillforts of mid Wales ................................................................. 138 8.4 ‘CULTIVATING MEN AS WELL AS LAND’: HOW THE LANDSCAPE WAS ORGANISED...... 139 8.4.1 Territorial division in Iron Age landscapes: some primary issues ....................................... 139 ix

8.4.1.1 ‘Contemporary landscapes’ of later prehistoric settlement................................. 140 8.4.2 Land ‘ownership’ patterns and topography in the Iron Age .................................................... 141 8.4.3 Proximity and isolation: the settlement pattern north of the river Rheidol .......................... 142 8.4.3.1 Hillforts commanding ridges and valleys ................................................................. 142 8.4.3.2 Resourcing the ‘chiefly feast’................................................................................... 143 8.4.3.3 Ridges and routeways ........................................................................................... 144 8.4.4 Regional territorial divisions and cultural hillfort groups .................................................... 145 8.4.4.1 Pen Dinas and the regional landscape ................................................................. 145 8.4.4.2 Landscape division amongst potentially contemporary hillfort groups identified on the grounds of shared architecture ................................................................. 146 8.4.4.2.1 Articulating the Pen Dinas Façade scheme......................................................... 146 8.4.4.2.2 Articulating the Cors Caron façade scheme........................................................ 146 8.5 PROBABLE MODES OF SOCIAL ORGANISATION IN IRON AGE NORTH CEREDIGION......... 148 8.5.1 The architectural legacy............................................................................................................ 148 8.5.2 Evidence for social stratification............................................................................................... 150 8.5.3 Finding the ‘petty chiefs’: systems of regional power and control ....................................... 151 8.6 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................... 152 8.6.1 Ways forward: unlocking the hillfort heritage of mid Wales .................................................... 155 Sites to Visit.................................................................................................................................................... 157 Appendix 1. A list of hillforts and later prehistoric defended enclosures in north Ceredigion .............158 Bibliography................................................................................................................................................... 163 Index................................................................................................................................................................ 175

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was originally completed as a part-time PhD with the University of Wales, Lampeter, and was supervised by Professor Andrew Fleming who provided unwavering support and guidance, and no doubt lost many hours in the diligent reading of earlier drafts. The study would not have been possible without financial support and assistance from Peter White and Dr Peter Wakelin, successive Secretaries of the Royal Commission, and the Commissioners of the Royal Commission, to whom the author is indebted. I am also grateful for the support and feedback provided to me in 2006 by my external examiners for the PhD, Professor Colin Haselgrove and Professor Miranda Aldhouse-Green. I am grateful to Angharad Williams, Scott Lloyd and members of the Royal Commission’s Publications Committee for approving this British Archaeological Report as a collaborative volume with BAR. Patricia Moore proof-read the current volume and compiled the excellent index, whilst staff at BAR assisted throughout with the publication process. A number of Royal Commission staff helped during the original research including David Browne, Dr Stephen Briggs, Fleur James, Patricia Moore, Penny Icke, Cheryl Griffiths, Francis Foster and Susan Evans. I am indebted to Scott Lloyd for bringing sixteenth century references to Ceredigion hillforts to my attention (page 20). Thanks are due to Dr Jeffrey Davies for comments on the original text relating to the Roman occupation; to Ken Murphy and Harold Mytum for information on Castell Henllys and the south Ceredigion defended enclosure excavations, and the Very Reverend J Wyn Evans, Bishop of St Davids, for information on undergraduate work carried out on the north Ceredigion hillforts in 1967. Thanks are also due to Simon Timberlake who excavated at Darren hillfort in 2005, and to the Historic Environment Records of Dyfed, Clwyd-Powys and Glamorgan-Gwent. Michael Freeman, formerly at the Ceredigion Museum, provided much assistance over the years, while Richard and Angela Knisely-Marpole of RKM Archaeological Surveying assisted with the geophysical survey of the Ruel Uchaf enclosure and the 2002 topographic survey of Castell Grogwynion. Over the course of many years of field work in north Ceredigion, the author has encountered only interest and openness from landowners and farmers; particular thanks are due to Ceredig Thomas and Wendy Crockett at Pengrogwynion following numerous visits to their hillfort. I am pleased to be entering a new phase of study of the Ceredigion hillforts with other colleagues and have enjoyed many good discussions in the field with Professor John Grattan, Louise Barker, Keith Haylock and Dr Oliver Davis. It remains to dedicate the work to my family, Becky, Aric and Charlie, from whom the original impetus to begin the research came, and who have all given so much along the way to enable me to complete the work.

Full copyright statement for Ordnance Survey mapping for those figures which use, or are based upon, Ordnance Survey map data: Crown Copyright: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, 2012. Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database right 2012. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916

Editorial note Although this volume is published collaboratively with the Royal Commission, the majority of the GIS maps, diagrams and illustrations have been produced by the author. They are not meant to be representative of the graphic quality of official Royal Commission illustrations, but hopefully serve their purpose.

Finding out more Further details of the sites mentioned in this publication can be found online at COFLEIN (www.coflein.gov.uk), the Royal Commission’s online database for the National Monuments Record of Wales. THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL MONUMENTS OF WALES Crown Building, Plas Crug, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 1NJ Telephone: 01970 621200 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.rcahmw.gov.uk

xi

1: Introduction

1 Introduction: Celts, research frameworks and the development of hillfort studies in Britain

1.1 INTRODUCTION In studies of British hillforts there has been a tendency to discuss and classify three-dimensional entities in twodimensional terms; in two senses – in terms of the hillforts themselves, where morphological and classificatory schemes have been too dependent on plans; and in terms of their place in the landscape, which have been too dependent on maps, and, in the later twentieth century, on locational or ‘New’ geography. Such a perspective, heavily dependent on statistics and Thiessen polygons, has too often sought to generalise or standardise approaches to the study of hillforts and their landscape settings without due cognisance being paid to local and regional subtleties of design and construction, and considerable variation through time in the relationships of monuments to the landscape. Such generalised approaches have arguably bolstered core narratives for ‘Celtic’ Iron Age social structures, particularly in western Britain, which have long been dominant but have more recently been challenged by alternative models. The narratives of Cunliffe, and others, have seen the creation of a southwestern zone (Figure 4.3), classifying south-western England, and much of Wales, as a single cultural region; within Wales this has persisted as the ‘Dyfed Model’ whereby monuments within a single historic county in west Wales are deemed to have been culturally linked (Figure 4.2).

The research in this volume attempts to develop new methodologies which work in three dimensions; both to examine critically the hillforts and defended enclosures as complex, three-dimensional architectural spaces, but also to place these static monuments in a dynamic landscape context. As a regional group, the investigation of these hillforts and defended enclosures has considerable potential to inform us on a complex set of issues regarding the promulgation and sharing of regional (and wider) design concepts in hillfort architecture, aspects of gateway and façade orientation, the relationships between hillfort ‘neighbours’, the existence and nature of inter-regional trade and human contact, and potential patterns of land ‘ownership’ and evidence for cultural identities and social complexity within the study area. All these diverse themes have helped to influence and shape the finished form, or changing forms, of the hillfort architecture; thus a complex narrative for later prehistoric settlement in north Ceredigion, and its wider contact regions, can be developed. 1.2 A NEW IRON REINVENTION

AGE:

REBELLION

AND

The present structure of, and debate within, British Iron Age studies owes a great deal to changes in direction initiated during the later 1980s. In 1989, Hill’s paper Rethinking the Iron Age signalled a major shift away from much contemporary opinion and sought to address the strange, complex and ‘other’ aspects of Iron Age society. Hill was plain in his opening statement (ibid., 16); ‘The Iron Age is boring, particularly when compared to earlier periods of prehistory, which seem stimulating and exciting’. At the root of Hill’s complaint was dissatisfaction with the prevailing trends which considered the Iron Age from a purely functionalist and materialist perspective. He also complained that aligning the Iron Age with the problematic perspective of ‘Celtic’ life and all it entailed, at once introduced familiar roles and images

A fresh approach is proposed, examining an area of mid Wales with enormous research potential. North Ceredigion (Figure 2.1), formerly north Cardiganshire, is a region that benefits not only from numerous site discoveries made over the last fifteen years, many involving the author, which have effectively doubled the known number of defended settlements from the publication of the last comprehensive list in the Cardiganshire County History (Hogg and Davies 1994), but also from a strongly demarcated topography bounded by coast, estuary and mountain and dissected by deep arterial valleys and areas of higher ground.

1

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 1.1 Faces from the past. When Professor Daryll Forde (holding hat) and local workmen began excavations at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, in 1933, J. Graham William’s notable 1867 study of the regional hillforts was over 60 years old. Some eight decades later Forde’s excavations, published in 1963 (Forde et al. 1963), remain the most sustained hillfort excavations in the county. Whilst a bold and well-executed campaign in its day, this view at the isthmus gate during the 1934 excavations shows the very traditional nature of the excavations and the problems inherent in interpreting some of the contextual and structural conclusions today (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, DI2010_1293). which robbed unfamiliarity.

later

prehistoric

Britain

of

any

differentiate (ibid, 2). The authors of the influential Research Agenda for the British Iron Age (Haselgrove et al. 2001) considered this realignment as ‘…a revolution in the 1990s in how we understand the nature of daily life in the period’ (ibid., C1). However, a cautionary note was offered in that ‘…it is important to recognise that not everything on an Iron Age site is explicable as ‘ritual’. The identification of such aspects always needs to be argued through in detail’ (ibid.).

Hill proposed a reinvention or realignment of Iron Age studies to develop ‘A Different Iron Age’ (ibid, 19) founded in a deeper appreciation of the complexities of ethnography and an enhanced theoretical approach to the material culture. Thus the Iron Age would become not ‘same’ but ‘other’, and Hill cited research that used ethnographic evidence to interpret space and rubbish deposition, altering an assumption that domestic evidence is ordinary. The concerns Hill expressed were not new. Champion (1987) had already raised doubts about the direction of Iron Age studies and the problems with Celtic analogies ultimately rooted in nineteenth-century thinking. Into the 1990s, settlement studies were realigned in favour of a more critical, cognitive approach to the study of Iron Age society. Gwilt and Haselgrove (1997, 1) described the new approach to Iron Age studies as being one which sought to discard the stricture of previous work and replace it with a more fluid approach. This new approach to Iron Age society proposed that clear lines, once drawn between the religious/ritual and practical/domestic spheres, were effectively removed to the extent that the dichotomy was increasingly hard to

1.3 DEVELOPING BRITAIN

IRON

AGE

STUDIES

IN

The twentieth century had seen Iron Age research effectively commence for some areas of Britain, and develop from a pastime to a science in others. ‘Modern’ Iron Age research owes its impetus to the publication of Hawkes’ influential 1931 paper ‘Hillforts’, together with a developing profile for major excavations, including Mortimer Wheeler’s campaigns at Maiden Castle. In Wales, work had already begun towards adopting a more scientific approach; Willoughby Gardner’s address to the Cambrians (Gardner 1926) demonstrated extensive progress in assimilation of evidence and the development of an understanding. Several authors (amongst them

2

1: Introduction

Cunliffe 1991; Collis 1994; 1996; Gwilt and Haselgrove 1997) recognise at least three main phases in the development of Iron Age research. Hawkes’ classificatory scheme for the British Iron Age into A, B and C, was hugely influential (1931). It described a sequence of invasion, assimilation and ‘immigrant cultures’ (ibid., 64), and the ensuing excavation campaigns on hillfort defences and gateways sought to establish chronologies and gain evidence for invasion events and regional cultural sequences.

initially in the form of Celtic clientship models developed by Cunliffe for Danebury (1984a & b). A constant presence through this critical period of change has been Cunliffe’s formidable four editions of Iron Age Communities in Britain (1974; 1978; 1991; 2005). Cunliffe’s basic approach to the data has not greatly altered. He has remained concerned with the sites, with the material culture and what it can tell us, and to provide an overview of aspects of economy, farming, industry and social systems for Britain; all this without being diverted by excessive detail for any given region.

Even by the end of the 1950s, problems were emerging with the models presented by Hawkes (Frere 1960). The inevitable increase in finds and field data since Hawkes’ original paper began to suggest the existence of regional differences and subdivisions of the Iron Age, far more complex than the tripartite scheme originally proposed. These developments led him to publish a revised version in 1959, but already major revisions and new models were being proposed, principally by Hodson (e.g. 1960; 1964). These papers both challenged the restrictive nature of Hawkes’ classificatory scheme and questioned the role of invasions and immigration in the development of British Iron Age communities, particularly the amount of continental material actually represented in Britain (Megaw and Simpson 1992).

1.3.1

Moving towards a national agenda

During late 1990s and into the new millennium, many papers and volumes dealing with the British Iron Age have appeared illustrating the new vibrancy which has come to encompass the discipline (e.g.: Hill and Cumberpatch 1995; Champion and Collis 1996; Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 1997; Bevan, ed., 1999; Haselgrove et al. 2001; Haselgrove and Moore, eds., 2007). This plethora of papers, synthetic volumes, conference proceedings and reports can be seen as a significant attempt to synthesise and understand the accumulated field data through the increased application of theory, coupled with a renewed emphasis on local and regional events and mechanisms. In the words of the subtitle of the Northern Exposure volume (Bevan, ed., 1999), this is ‘interpretative devolution’; a fracturing of nationwide synthesis to bring regional diversity and unorthodox interpretation to the fore.

The decades after these developments became dominated by the processual approach, characterised by site-focused, often problem-orientated fieldwork and the integration of scientific methods in sampling and dating. This new processual approach to the Iron Age was symbolised by Hill and Jesson’s (1971) volume (and see Harding, ed., 1976), in which landscape research based on locational geography was exemplified by the use of Thiessen polygons by Hogg (1971b) to postulate hillfort territories south of the Thames (ibid., Figs 28-30), and by Cunliffe (1971) for hillfort territories on Salisbury Plain, emphasising the economic and social power of the ‘central place’ and its role in redistribution in the Iron Age landscape. Despite subsequent developments and refinements to the study of territory and landscape, Thiessen polygons and comparable devices for measuring area (or territory) continue to be prevalent (Burrow 1981, Fig. 5; Collens 1988; Olding 2000, Fig. 47). More recently, Dodgshon (1998b, 3) noted “… relatively few would now defend a view of human geography that seemingly dehumanized landscape by reducing it to a patterning of equilibrated systems…’.

In reviewing the history of Iron Age research during the twentieth century, Collis (1994) identified areas for future study, including social structure, the need for paradigms, regional studies and a continuing respect for our unparalleled settlement archaeology. These formed some of the priority themes for research identified in subsequent publications, although the topic of settlement archaeology has only found prominence more recently. The Research Agenda (Haselgrove et al., 2001) set out five themes for research: (1) chronological frameworks (2) settlement patterns (3) material culture (4) regionality and (5) socio-economic changes. Theoretical approaches to material culture predominate, as in preceding publications (e.g. Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 1997). In Section C ‘Settlements, Landscapes and People’ discussion about settlements and landscapes runs to just over six pages. In Section D, ‘Material Culture’ runs to nearly eleven pages, with detailed sections on particular strategies, for example, ‘studying artefacts in context’ and ‘priorities for particular resources’. Closer inspection reveals that four of the six paragraphs relating to settlement actually concern themselves with strategies for recovering and interrogating material culture and samples from settlements. It is a truism that to understand a settlement one must understand the finds and environmental data recovered from it, but at the same time

During the 1970s, general excavation strategy shifted from the gateways and defences (often explored in order to establish local/regional chronologies) to the interiors, to answer socio-economic questions posed by the models of the 1960s. Here the focus shifted to local processes, the foundation of the hillfort and its function (e.g. Collis 1994, 131; Guilbert 1981). From these changes emerged more detailed discussion of the way societies may have inhabited and used the later prehistoric British landscape,

3

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

the ramparts, houses, gateways and other structural elements cannot simply be seen as ‘containers’ of more interesting patterns of material deposition.

1.4 SUB-RECTANGULAR? POLYGONAL? OVAL? UNIVALLATE? OUTMODED APPROACHES TO IRON AGE SETTLEMENT STUDIES

A significant omission from the Research Agenda (Haselgrove et al., 2001) was a strong Welsh component. Major publications, including the 1998 BAR report on Llawhaden (Williams and Mytum 1998), which was a milestone for Wales, were omitted. There were further omissions in Table 3 (Haselgrove et al., 2001), where the ‘Existing knowledge of the Iron Age in different parts of Britain’ was quantified, with Cardiganshire and South Powys ranked as ‘Black Holes’ where ‘…archaeological understanding of the Iron Age has barely begun… [there are] few known Iron Age sites, with little or no coherent history of investigation…’ (and see Gwilt 2003, 112-3). The more modern county inventories for these regions (e.g. Davies and Hogg 1994; Hogg and Davies 1994; RCAHMW 1986), whilst not at the cutting-edge of Iron Age research, nonetheless stand as solid regional syntheses, which deserved recognition and inclusion, if only to counter the assertion that nothing of any worth had been achieved in these ‘Black Holes’.

The persistence of outmoded typologies for hillforts and settlements has its origins in the traditional classificatory systems, which informed the majority of post-war, processual studies which sought to interpret the complexity of settled landscapes (see Haselgrove 1999, 265). Whilst post-war schemes were justified in tackling a considerable body of unsorted data in a ‘scientific’, processual fashion, there is less justification for these outmoded approaches persisting today. Such approaches include the basic categorisation of particular elements of the hillfort or enclosure, including its size, (usually expressed in hectares), the number of ditches present, or the degrees of ‘vallation’ from uni- to bi- and multivallate, and the generalised morphology (pear-shaped, rectangular etc.). In addition, a further set of very general topographic models is commonly used to classify hillforts and seem to appear in almost every general study (e.g. Davies and Lynch 2000, 148); these usually include the terms ‘contour’ and ‘promontory’ forts. Whilst there may at times be some practical merit in the application of these terms, they are often used in lieu of any better approach (Bowden and McOmish 1989; Davies and Lynch 2000, 146-7).

It is encouraging that in the recent substantial two-volume overview of the Iron Age in Britain (Haselgrove and Pope (eds.), 2007; Haselgrove and Moore (eds.), 2007), attention is drawn to the inclusion of regional studies beyond the ‘...’hotspots’ of southern England’ (ibid., 5). Papers on the Welsh Marches and South Wales feature in the second volume on the Later Iron Age; yet the editors note that ‘...lacunae remain’, including ‘...some highland areas of Wales...’ (ibid.). In 2003 Gwilt (2003, 107) offered a strong voice for Wales by noting: ‘Unfortunately, the Iron Age archaeology of Wales currently occupies a marginal position within a wider consciousness of the British Iron Age, despite the richness and diversity of hillfort and settlement evidence here visible…’. Within a British context, this new study of the mid Wales Iron Age seems long overdue.

Despite obvious problems with a simplified approach to the complex issue of settlements, enclosure size formed the basis of a study of ‘Space and Society’ in north-east England by Ferrell (1997). Rank size analysis was used to tackle the ‘extensive, but dull, domestic settlement record’ of the area (ibid., 228) where ‘Settlements are rank ordered from largest to smallest with the largest settlement being ranked number one.’ Jackson’s (1999) study of the size distribution of hillforts in the Welsh Marches built on earlier work by Hogg (1972). Whilst some shortcomings of the research approach were aired by Jackson (1999, 200), the difficulties in using size alone to draw conclusions about social organisation were obvious. Distribution maps for this landscape remain chiefly maps of ‘archaeological discovery’, rather than complete maps of original settlement, because of the inherent biases of soils and geology and the effect this has on the formation of cropmarks, which can reveal ‘lost’ archaeological sites from the air (see section 2.3.4 below and Figure 2.29). Jackson’s study concluded, for example, that society in Zone 2, Powys and West Shropshire, (where aerial discoveries of small enclosures have been significant), was segmented, with the focus on individual households (ibid., 212); whilst society in the Clwydian Zone 3 (where aerial access and unresponsive soils have hindered cropmark discoveries), was by contrast characterised by little social stratification, with individuals drawing together into large communal hillforts. This topic was robustly tackled more recently by Wigley (2007, 176), in a new survey of the same region.

It may be that because settlements, particularly hillforts, have dominated much of the modern study of the Iron Age in the British Isles (e.g. Hill and Jesson, eds., 1971; Hogg 1975 & 1979; Harding, ed., 1976; Cunliffe 1974, 1984a & b, 1991; Bowden and McOmish 1987 & 1989; Avery 1993b), many may feel it is time to look to other, more pressing, agenda. However, later papers (e.g. Mytum 1996; Hamilton and Manley 1997 & 2001; Armit 1997; Fitzpatrick 1997; Oswald 1997; Taylor 1997; Willis 1999; Chadwick 1999; Giles and Parker Pearson 1999; Wigley 2007; Frodsham et al. 2007; Brown 2009) clearly demonstrate that the potential for new settlement studies is by no means exhausted and, if sufficiently advanced from the often traditional hillfort-dominated studies of the 1970s and 1980s, offer equal potential for new theoretical insight and landscape analysis (Gwilt 2003, 106-9).

4

1: Introduction

It is questionable whether such approaches could ever be effectively applied in north Ceredigion. Enclosure size in itself cannot be used as a reliable indicator of strength or ‘power’. It is true that the larger hillforts are generally those in commanding summit positions, with complex defences (see discussion of ‘prime locations’, discussed in Chapter 7), but not all forts were free to expand exponentially on their chosen sites. Rather, some large forts appear to have been constricted by their situation. In these instances, taking command of exceptionally prominent hills and outcrops may have been the central, important social statement.

During his final reports, Cunliffe (1984a & b) developed a model that interpreted Danebury as a central and longstanding redistributive centre during the early and middle Iron Age, showing no evidence for a break in occupation for 450 years, between c.550 and c.100 BC (Cunliffe 1984b, 559). Cunliffe provided evidence to demonstrate that ‘… the status of the fort became enhanced as its productive capacity increased.’ (ibid.). Cunliffe presented a model for Iron Age society based on texts which described early Irish society in the first millennium AD and that of Wales from a later, historical, period. In summary, the basic unit of the tribe, or the land the tribe inhabited, was ruled by a king who was linked by rules of allegiance to both higher and lower kings. He was supported by noble warriors and skilled men, of high status. Below these sat the ordinary freeman or farmers who paid a tithe of their produce to the king (paraphrased from Cunliffe 1984b, 560-1). The system of clientship (célsine in Irish documentation) provided the laws for production and exchange within which these status differences in society were articulated. Cunliffe noted that the Welsh model differed slightly, perhaps illustrating the degree of variation found across ‘Celtic social structure’ (and he went on to develop distinct socio-economic zones for Iron Age Britain in 1991, described below). Nevertheless, models for two possible tripartite social structures based on the king, the nobles and the freeman farmers were presented for Danebury. Danebury, and other ‘paramount’ hillforts, were postulated by Cunliffe (ibid., 560-62) as the settlements of tribal kings and their entourages, with their nobles either residing in the main hillfort or in surrounding small ‘vassal’ hillforts, and the king’s residence serving as a high status centre for the collection of taxation or tribute and its subsequent distribution or exchange.

In these instances it is the complexity of the defences which signal power, political competence to harness communal labour, and the incorporation of cultural traditions (see discussion in Chapters 6, 7 and 8). Collis’s (original, now superseded) model for hillfort defences in Hampshire (Collis 1977, Fig. 1, cited in Collis 1996, 89), where ‘…big hillforts have big ramparts, small hillforts have small ramparts’, would not be a good starting point for architectural analysis in north Ceredigion. Figure 2.3 below, which depicts all hillforts in the study area by their enclosed size, is included solely for completeness, and perhaps also to satisfy the continuing expectation for such maps to be associated with studies of Iron Age settlement patterns. 1.5 INTERPRETING IRON AGE COMMUNITIES: SOME CHANGING MODELS Undoubtedly the prominence of Iron Age settlements in the British landscape has contributed to their dominance of the study of the British Iron Age since serious scientific excavations and discussion began in the 1920s and 1930s. There have been many changes in approach, drawing on culture-history, process, the application of statistics and models from New Geography and more recently the development of ‘post-processual’ and cognitive approaches. These changes in the approach to settlement studies have been discussed above. At present, there are a number of models of Iron Age settlement and society. The main recent (post 1970s) approaches are briefly discussed and compared in this section.

These themes were further developed in the 1984 volume Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain (Cunliffe and Miles, eds.). Here, Hingley (1984) explored at length the complex theoretical possibilities for reconstructing ‘Celtic’ society in the Upper Thames Valley (400-0BC), partly based in Marxist social theory and ethnographic examples, but with a strong emphasis on the literary evidence. Both classical accounts and sources from early historic Ireland were cited to support a view of society which had a degree of social ranking. Hingley (ibid., 75-6) proposed that chieftains/kings with fairly restricted powers operated within centralised Celtic societies which, in the absence of a strong political/administrative elite class, may have relied on kinship to structure access to territory.

The principal social model for Iron Age Britain to emerge during the 1970s and early 1980s was that of Celtic clientship, developed to interpret settlement patterns in the landscapes of southern England where powerful ‘central places’, the residences of the elite, would support a strictly hierarchical society of noblemen, retainers and workers in the landscape around. Although there are earlier references to these ideas (e.g. Cunliffe 1971; Hogg 1971b) the principal development of this narrative is found in Volume 2 of Cunliffe’s report on the Danebury excavations (Cunliffe 1984b). Here, Irish and Welsh models and sources were cited to support a ‘Celtic’ view of how society operated at Danebury.

Williams (1988), and then Williams and Mytum (1998), used these models of Celtic society and status divisions as the theoretical basis for interpreting the Llawhaden sequence in Pembrokeshire, west Wales. A social narrative was developed to interpret the different small hillforts which were excavated within a restricted area. Enclosed farmsteads, with their massive, monumental defences and reduced internal areas were deemed to 5

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

denote ‘high status’, non-working ‘consumer’ sites occupied by a Celtic elite, supported by production of surplus from mixed farming in the lowlands, and upland pastoralism. Smaller enclosures and rectilinear sites with weak defences and large internal yards, were thought to be the low status ‘producer’ sites, the true farms in the landscape. Clearly, Williams’ work at Llawhaden presented a very useful social model for the Iron Age of south-west Wales, and Cunliffe went on to promote a single socio-economic system for the whole of his Southwestern zone (see Figure 4.3; Cunliffe 1991, Fig. 20.2 & 536-539), incorporating the south-western peninsula of England along with much of south, south-west, south-east and mid and north Wales (see further discussion below). The model has been further developed in, among other publications, Celtic chiefdom, Celtic state (Arnold and Blair Gibson 1996), in which the classical models for ‘Celtic’ society are revisited (e.g. Dunham 1996) and in a European context such models remain in vogue, although with an increased recognition of the role of regional diversity to counter homogeneity (e.g. Kristiansen 1998a, Chapter 7). Recent work on the Celtic origins of the Atlantic west has been given fresh energy by a synthesis of archaeology, linguistics and genetics, chiefly led by Cunliffe and Koch (see Cunliffe and Koch 2010), which continues to stir debate amongst prehistorians (Karl 2010).

project, was of Cunliffe’s espousal of ‘Central Place’ archaeology. He called instead for a regional approach, not solely focussed on one site; Palmer’s (1984) air photo mapping of the Danebury environs had demonstrated a wealth of complex, regional settlement data that did not appear to support a simple explanation of Danebury’s role as a paramount hillfort central to a ‘producing’ landscape of satellite farms. Stopford’s (1987) paper provided an alternative interpretation of the Danebury evidence and proposed not a ‘paramount’ hillfort or a permanent residence of a king and his retainers, but rather a collective grain storage facility utilised on a seasonal basis, based on the evidence for a religious focus, the temple structures, the temporary nature of many of the stake-built roundhouses, and the quantity of storage pits in the interior, unmatched by a similar density of permanent settlement structures. Stopford (1987, 74) further proposed: ‘… that the defences at Danebury were a corporate response to a series of crises, rather than a long term plan.’ Despite this reinterpretation of the evidence, the whole complex at Danebury does appear too much of a coherent defensive/settlement structure, with numerous clear, well executed phases in the rampart and gateways (Cunliffe 1971, Fig. 17 & 1993, 46-50), to have been little more than a communal focus for grain storage and seasonal worship.

This model of Celtic society still presents a useful, and attractive, framework against which to interpret patterns of later prehistoric settlement in Britain (see Gwilt 2003, 107). As Millett (1992, 35) comments on the Late PreRoman Iron Age (LPRIA) communities: ‘we cannot doubt that they were sophisticated organisations with developing social hierarchies and internal differentiation, based on tribute networks.’ Cunliffe was clearly aware that in describing and interpreting the great mass of data which comprised the Danebury excavation archive, his was only one interpretation of several which would fit the available data. In what has become an oft-quoted phrase he concluded the Danebury publications with an admission of the limits of a personal interpretation:

More direct criticism of the ‘Danebury’, or ‘Celtic’ model, was voiced by Champion in 1987, by Hill in 1989, by Collis in 1994 and again by Hill in 1995. Collis’s (1994) view did not favour a wealthy elite ruling Iron Age Wessex, rather ‘rich farmers’ (ibid., 139); he explained ‘warrior’ burials as ‘burials with weapons’, making no assumptions about the social organisation lying behind the deceased. Collis found ‘no evidence for a wealthy elite… differentiated by the possession of wealthy goods’, particularly as gold was declining into the Middle Iron Age and finds of swords, shields and chariots were ‘widely dispersed throughout society’ (ibid., 140).

‘The writer is aware that much in this section is purely speculative and that alternative explanations have not been fully explored, but the intention has been to parade some of the broader implications of the Danebury evidence. Rather than serve as a conclusion let it be the opening salvo of a continuing debate.’ (Cunliffe 1984b, 563).

Among the most radical new narratives to be provided for the southern British hillforts was that by Hill (1995), where his opening list of ‘What if?’ questions stated that the existence of a generalised form of Celtic society is probably a myth, and that hillforts and oppida may not be able to be understood using Central Place Theory. Hill’s demolition of Cunliffe’s interpretation of hillforts was lengthy and comprehensive (ibid., 45-49). Hill questioned in particular the rationale of ‘Biggest is Best’ in relation to the ways hillforts were occupied and operated, and he also rejected the model of ‘Celtic society’ used to interpret the Iron Age of southern Britain because it was fraught with assumptions and generalisations. The assumption of a single model for society, wrote Hill, allowed for little discussion of the enormous diachronic social change during 1,000 years of later prehistory, and the great variety of interpretation which can be exercised when reading ‘ideal Early Medieval Irish society’ (ibid., 47).

In the event this invitation to debate was followed by work by a number of individuals including Haselgrove (1986), Stopford (1987) and Hill (1996b). Haselgrove (1986, 364) questioned the relevance of a model for Celtic society drawn from Irish analogies when ‘…the organization of Celtic-speaking communities was largely variable in both space and time’. One of his main criticisms, developed from a discussion relating to the accuracy of the original research design for the Danebury

6

1: Introduction

Hill’s concluding models for southern British Iron Age society proposes Atomised Relations of Production, where the strength of individual producing households is paramount, with property held by the lineage or clan. In this more egalitarian model, water and grazing land were communal resources. The ‘military’ assumption behind the functioning of hillforts was questioned at length and generally rejected in favour of a symbolic role for nearly all hillfort defences; thus hillforts became communal meeting places and ‘symbols of community’ (ibid., 53). Certain themes of this major paper were followed up in Hill (1996b); and see Hill (1996a). The non-military assumptions were recently tackled afresh by Armit (2007). A striking characteristic of the work of Cunliffe, Hill, Bradley (1984, 129) and others in the sphere of social models for the later first millennium BC was that they were all chiefly grounded in the landscapes and monuments of southern England. Bradley (ibid.) preferred to discuss aspects of the later prehistoric social system of Britain with principal reference to southern England, preferring an area with ‘…already enough evidence to discuss…’ to northern Britain where ‘…so much modern fieldwork is currently being prepared for publication…’. Despite reasonably well-established models for northern settlement types such as Atlantic Roundhouses (see Armit 1997, 1999), and intensively studied central British landscapes such as West Heslerton (Powlesland et al. 1986; Bevan 1997), Haselgrove (1999, 270) still saw ‘basic questions’ remaining unanswered about the settlements of central and northern Britain. He called for ‘…sustained research on these sites and their environs on a similar scale to work in southern England…’ and by this he stressed that new work should be more wide-ranging than simply ‘hillfort archaeology’. Detailed regional models, Haselgrove argued, should be developed within the overarching social models developed by Bradley (1984) and Hill (1995) to provide data to address a suite of social and economic questions. These focus particularly on the complexities of fragmentation and regionalism at the start of the Iron Age, and the growth of territories based on increased agricultural consumption and the effects on status and power.

Figure 1.2 Ieuan Hughes’ plan of Pen Dinas Aberystwyth (site 7), published in his 1926 regional overview of north Cardiganshire earthworks (Hughes 1926, 44). This represents a good basic survey of this hillfort coupled with sections showing the scale of the defences. As a thought-provoking study grounded in original fieldwork, Hughes’ paper remains something of a milestone in the development of Welsh Iron Age studies (courtesy of Ceredigion Historical Society). enjoyed easier contact by sea with continental Europe than with the rest of Britain (ibid., 526-528). Whilst sea trade was no doubt vital and routine to the later prehistoric communities of the Atlantic coast, this long-standing view continues to underestimate the role of durable overland trade routes whilst on occasion ignoring their existence altogether (see Chapter 4) . Cunliffe treated the south-western settlement material with a degree of generalisation, unavoidable in a British study, for example suggesting that most of the larger hillforts in the upland zone of west Wales may have been linked to seasonal exploitation of the uplands (1991, 537) as opposed to permanent, year-round occupation. He also proposed that the land-locked nature of tribal groups in the south and west of Wales, recorded by Roman authors, which were ‘…geographically distinct… [and] divided from each other by mountains or the sea’, mitigated against conflict or a desire to exert ethnicity, presumably also thus reducing the possibility of extra-regional contact (see discussion to the contrary in Chapter 3, section 3.2.2.1 below, and arguments for longer overland trade routes and extra-regional contact in Chapters 4 and 7). Further assumptions appear to stress the homogeneity of

The development of a regional narrative built upon a detailed understanding of architectural and settlement developments lies at the heart of what my research attempts for the north Ceredigion region of mid Wales. In the past, mid Wales has been too readily absorbed into the broader ‘cultural regions’ of south-west Wales or southwest Britain. Cunliffe was not entirely comfortable with discussion relating to the south-west of Britain, part of the ‘…vast expanses of Britain…’ (1991, 180; 2005, 201) which he described as lying beyond the peripheral zone of coin-issuing tribes. Perhaps for this reason his ‘Southwestern zone’ (ibid., Fig. 20.2; see Figure 4.3 below) was conceived, effectively drawing together Cornwall, Devon and much of south, west and north-west Wales into a single socio-economic system. Further he argued that the south-western region, along with other coastal regions, 7

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

the south-western social system based on ‘Celtic’, and thus early Medieval, social models.

long been the subject of empirical research in Wales (including Hogg 1972; Spurgeon 1972; RCAHMW 1976; Savory 1976; RCAHMW 1986; Cunliffe 1991; Avery 1993b; Davies and Hogg 1994; Jackson 1999; Davies and Lynch 2000, 144-177). New themes - such as ‘local blueprints’ (Oswald et al. 2002) and ‘hillfort design’ (Frodsham et al. 2007) - seen to link the architecture of regional hillfort groups, along with the recognition of monumentality and non-functionality as integral aspects of hillfort defences (e.g. Collis 1996; Mytum 1996; Hamilton and Manley 1997 & 2001; Gwilt and Haselgrove 1997; Armit 1997; Willis 1999, 90-92; Driver 2008; Barker and Driver 2011), have been emerging over the previous decade and more. At the same time, comparatively new areas of archaeological research such as the study of cosmology, concern over the orientation of house structures and hillfort gateways and the potential ceremonial aspects of hillfort architecture (Bowden and McOmish 1989; Hill 1995; Oswald 1997; Fitzpatrick 1997; Taylor 1997; Willis 1999, 93-100; Chadwick 1999; Giles and Parker Pearson 1999; Gwilt 2003, 107; Lock 2011) have re-focussed thought on the non-utilitarian role and meaning of monumental Iron Age architecture (and see more detailed discussion on architectural symbolism in section 8.3 below). As yet, few studies have systematically examined the entire corpus of monuments from a clearly defined region; therefore it is hoped that this study will show the potentials for such work.

All these assumptions, which tend to argue for an insular later prehistoric society occupying mid Wales, can be heavily critiqued in the light of this present research, which offers quite different potential models for, and stronger evidence in support of, cultural interaction and contact across the regions of central Wales to western England (Chapters 4, 7 and 8). This study also briefly addresses the problems inherent in using Iron Age tribal groupings as described by Roman authors (Chapter 3, 3.2.2.1). The main themes tackled by this research, and drawn together during the discussion (Chapter 8), attempt to investigate the social models we can use to interpret the settlement evidence and hillfort architecture under examination in north Ceredigion. 1.6 A FRESH START FOR MID WALES Prior to this research, the study of the Iron Age settlements of north Ceredigion had probably advanced as far as traditional academic approaches to unexcavated and under-studied hillforts would allow. The Royal Commission’s survey of the Brecknock hillforts (RCAHMW 1986), for example, did not exploit the full potential offered by field archaeology, instead noting: ‘Significant analytical work on these monuments is severely hampered by the lack of extensive excavations…it is not worthwhile to offer more than a few, vague deductions concerning the form and function of the sites. This is… preferable to making too facile comparisons with other regions of Wales and the Welsh Marches.’ (ibid., 9)

1.7 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: ‘THE HILLFORT AS ARTEFACT’ This study interrogates the abundant, existing field archaeological and landscape data to fundamentally advance an understanding of the Iron Age monuments in north Ceredigion as a geographically and morphologically coherent group of mid Wales hillforts; and, by implication, to provide methodologies to interrogate the monuments of other regions of Iron Age Britain.

For the north Ceredigion hillforts, largely unexcavated and with few modern surveys, the most recent description by Davies and Hogg in 1994 was unable to draw any significant conclusions about their development, cultural contexts, parallels and functions. Despite a thorough and wide-ranging discussion, the search for traditionally classifiable criteria, usually constructed with reference to some of the largest and most complex hillforts of Britain along the Welsh Borderlands and in Wessex, failed to address the structural subtleties and non-standardised architectural forms of this region of western Britain. All but a handful of sites were considered to be unremarkable relative to standard classificatory systems. Of the north Ceredigion group, Hogg surmised; ‘The entrances are uninformative. Most, so far as the surface evidence goes, are simple gaps’ (1994, 236). In the light of this impasse, where an entire regional landscape of hillforts can be regarded as unworthy of sustained analysis, how is one to advance a deeper appreciation of Wales’ rich, complicated and interesting later prehistoric monumental settlement archaeology, namely its hillforts?

Whilst the lack of a robust chronological framework, artefactual data or ceramic assemblage is frequently seen as a hindrance to an archaeological understanding of Iron Age monuments in mid Wales (e.g. Davies and Lynch 2000; Haselgrove et al. 2001; Gwilt 2003, 105, 109-112; Gwilt 2007), the hillforts and defended enclosures themselves are abundant and very well preserved. They are, in many respects, vast and complicated artefacts in their own right and require careful evaluation, description and recording to be fully understood. At present they are under-exploited. Whilst traditional approaches will reduce a hillfort to a plan, and derive conclusions based on twodimensional morphology (e.g. Jackson 1999), an understanding can only really be advanced if the forts are studied as three-dimensional artefacts in their landscape settings.

Hillfort architecture is increasingly seen as a topic for detailed consideration in its own right. The subject has

This research centres on an analysis of ‘architectural complexity’, a non-utilitarian approach to construction

8

1: Introduction

found at many forts across the region. This is coupled with the identification of potential shared ‘façade schemes’, regional vocabularies for building comprised of key ‘architectural components’ which, it is argued, may either be found coherently implemented at ‘comprehensive’ hillforts, or selectively employed in a piecemeal fashion to reference elements of architectural tradition (presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7). Supporting research includes a review and new interpretation of the landscape, topography, environment and history of research for the study area (Chapter 2), the chronology and characteristics of the settlement pattern (Chapter 3), and issues relating to trade, movement and communication (Chapter 4). These new investigations into the later prehistoric settlement pattern of a previously under-researched region allow progress towards a more comprehensive understanding of the Iron Age of mid Wales, and similar regions of the west of Britain.

9

10

2: The landscape background and history of research and enquiry

2 The landscape background and history of research and enquiry ‘In the limited space bounded by the river Rhydol on the south and the Dovey on the north, is a remarkable group of encampments which show the great military science and practical foresight of the early inhabitants of this district...’ (J. G. Williams, 1867, 284).

2.1 INTRODUCTION x

This chapter establishes the essential background to the past, and ongoing, study of the landscape and later prehistoric archaeology of Ceredigion. It is broadly divided into three themes; (1) the land, its structure and its agricultural potential; (2) a review of past research into the Iron Age of north Ceredigion, and, (3) the impact of archaeological aerial reconnaissance on the ‘rediscovery’ of many of the later prehistoric settlements in the county.

x x x x

The Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition: c.800-550 cal BC. The Early Iron Age: c.550-400 cal BC. The Middle Iron Age: 400-150 cal BC. The Late Iron Age: 150 cal BC to the Roman conquest. Roman conquest of Wales finally achieved during the campaigns of Frontinus (AD 74-7).

Haselgrove and Moore (2007, 2) have additionally suggested a ‘Later Iron Age’ in Britain from c.400-300 BC onward until the Roman conquest, which they feel is ‘... more appropriate to the many regions of the British Isles... that lack a distinctive Late Iron Age horizon...’. 2.2 LANDSCAPE, CLIMATE AND AGRICULTURE 2.2.1 The boundaries of the study area North Ceredigion is bordered on two sides by water, by the high ground of the Cambrian Mountain range to the east, and by the Mynydd Bach plateau to the south (Figures 2.1 & 2.8-2.9). The western and eastern limits of the study area are well-defined topographically. The variable coastline of Cardigan Bay forms the western boundary offering opportunities for sea travel, trade and the supply of seafood (Figure 2.5). The high plateau bordering the east of the county presents inhospitable land for settlement. The high mountain and moorland around Plynlimon in the north-east is continued south in a high, rugged plateau, forming a watershed between the major rivers of Ceredigion, the Rheidol, Ystwyth and Teifi, and the east-flowing valleys of the Severn and the Wye of Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire (Figure 2.7). Two hillforts in north Ceredigion, Dinas near Ponterwyd and Castell Rhyfel near Tregaron, mark the easterly limits of prehistoric settlement and are sited on the fringes of the high plateau. Communication

Figure 2.1 North Ceredigion. Location of the study area within Wales (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

2.1.1 A note on chronology Dating and chronological issues are examined in Chapter 3. However, it should be stated early on that this research has followed the date ranges published in Chapter 4 of Prehistoric Wales (Davies and Lynch 2000). The date ranges are given thus: 11

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

and later periods. There are four main routes: the route now followed by the A44 from Ponterwyd east along the Wye valley, together with the route of the B4574 connecting the Ystwyth valley to the Elan valley (through Cwmystwyth), both were guarded by Roman forts or camps, Cae Gaer at the head of the Wye valley east of Ponterwyd, and Esgair Perfedd on the mountain route linking Cwmystwyth with Rhayader in the east. The Abergwesyn pass to the east of Tregaron and the ‘Monk’s Trod’ trackway crossing the mountains to the east of the Teifi Pools provide routes of communication across high ground in the south of the study area. In Iron Age times, easterly communication may very well have followed these, or alternative routes (see Chapters 4 & 7). The northern and southern limits of the study area are equally well defined. To the north, the hospitable, lowlying coastal plateau narrows dramatically to the north of the present day village of Talybont. Watson (1957, 304) noted ‘… the low coastal plateaux which characterise south-west Wales narrow away and end at Borth… This contrast is reflected in both the past and the present human geography of the region… The hill-forts of the Iron Age…are strongly represented in the Coastal Plateau but are less in evidence north of the Dovey.’ The expanse of Cors Fochno, Borth Bog, to the northwest, the wide sands of the Dyfi Estuary to the north, and the encroaching high ground to the east leave only a narrow north-south corridor for settlement and communication, characterised today by the main Aberystwyth to Machynlleth road and narrow, linear villages (including Furnace and Tre Taliesen). On the basis of present levels of recognition, no hillforts or small enclosures were built north of Caer Lletty Llwyd, (see 7.5.2 below) and Ynyscapel (site 106), showing how this ‘funnelling’ of the landscape had a great bearing on the northerly extents of Iron Age settlement. The Roman fortlet at Erglodd, (NPRN 303601) only 0.5km north of Talybont (Davies 1976; Burnham and Davies 2010), presumably commanded a strategically strong position acknowledging the northern limits of coastal Ceredigion and the start of the mountainous high ground of south Merionethshire, and was probably associated with the recently discovered timber trackway and industrial complex linking Erglodd to Llangynfelin island (Poucher 2009).

Figure 2.2 Hillforts and defended enclosures in south-west Wales: map created by the Dyfed Archaeological Trust for the Cadw-funded pan-Wales survey of prehistoric defended enclosures. The north Ceredigion hillforts form a distinct group. (© Dyfed Archaeological Trust; (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

The southern limits of the study have been drawn along an approximate line connecting Cors Caron, Tregaron Bog, to Llanon on the west coast (Figure 2.9). In his previous study of the distribution pattern of hillforts in the county, Hogg (1994, 234) drew the line between the northern and southern groups along Cwm Wyre (the well-defined line of the geological ‘Ystwyth Fault’, see Figure 2.6; and Bowen 1994), noting that the easterly continuation of this line was more problematic, leaving Penyffrwdllwyd and Pen y Bannau ‘… arbitrarily assigned to the southern group’. A later footnote to the section notes that ‘…no convincing archaeological arguments… can be made for retaining this division’ (ibid. 234).

Figure 2.3 North Ceredigion: Distribution of hillforts and enclosures according to their enclosed size (in hectares). Key arranged thus; Concentric circles of decreasing size; multivallate sites greater than 4.0 ha, greater than 2.2ha, 2.1ha-1.1ha and 1.0 or less. Single circles of decreasing size; univallate sites greater than 2.2ha, 2.1ha-1.1ha, 1.0ha-0.3ha and less than 0.2ha. Squares; univallate rectangular enclosures. Triangles; sites of uncertain size. Crosses; place name sites. (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

eastwards across the high ground can only have followed the established mountain routes well-used in the Medieval

12

2: The landscape background and history of research and enquiry

Figure 2.6 Ceredigion: solid geology and fault lines, from the Cardiganshire County History (after Bowen 1994, Figure 3).

Figure 2.4 North Ceredigion; Distribution of hillforts and enclosures shown according to mode of preservation. Key as follows: Circles – earthworks. Triangles – cropmarks and parchmarks. Crosses – place name records. Contours shown at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (compare with Figure 2.29, (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown

within the study of north Ceredigion as it is a well-defined landscape zone around which are clustered a group of hillforts sharing architectural traits. This group must be included in the study as they are geographically, and perhaps morphologically, closely associated with those sites which fall within the catchment of the Ystwyth valley to the north.

copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

2.2.2 Geology The solid rocks of north Ceredigion/Cardiganshire are of Lower Paleozoic age, their patterning quite closely following the three east-west landuse belts identified by Watson (1957; see 2.2.3 above). A belt of Silurian rocks occupies the coastal fringe to some 10km inland, from Borth in the north, south to Lledrod, comprising Aberystwyth Grits formation and the sandstones of central Wales. The band is crossed in the south by the east-west Ystwyth Fault, a prominent landscape feature today which cuts far inland to the high ground west of the Elan Valley lakes in Powys. Inland from this, the Silurian rocks change to mainly mudstones, in a broad north-south band occupying the whole of the north of the county, and narrowing slightly to the south, extending as far inland as Tregaron. This band closely follows the north-south Teifi anticline, which manifests itself as a depression or concavity in the landscape visible in the northwards route of the Rheidol between Devil’s Bridge and Plynlimon, and to the south in the great depression of Cors Caron/Tregaron Bog and the headwaters of the Teifi.

Figure 2.5 Aberystwyth, and the location of Pen Dinas hillfort (centre-left), viewed from the south-east over the river Ystwyth near Llanfarian (lower centre left), showing the general characteristics of the coastal plateau. The valley of the Ystwyth opens in the foreground, flowing to the sea below Pen Dinas (left centre, on coast; Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001-cs-0633). The Llanrhystud sites, south of Cwm Wyre, must be included in a study of the north Ceredigion forts for two reasons. Firstly, to ignore a major group of coastal hillforts on the southern boundary of the study area would adversely effect an analysis of site distribution across the area; second, Cwm Wyre may have been an important route of communication from the coast at Llanrhystud inland to the Ystwyth valley at Trawsgoed, thereby linking Llanrhystud to the heartland of north Ceredigion (see Figures 3.16 & 4.1). Cors Caron has been included

Inland from Tregaron, the central Wales syncline is manifested as a SSW/NNE belt of high ground formed of the Aberystwyth Grits and sandstones of central Wales Silurian rocks. Older Ordovician rocks outcrop in the high ground to the far north of the county (general source: Bowen 1994). On the present appearance of these geological bands, Bowen (ibid., 6) notes that ‘During the Silurian the rocks were deformed along ENE-WSW lines, 13

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

southern boundary. The landscape of north Ceredigion is the essential context for the study of its hillforts. Ceredigion/Cardiganshire has been described as a ‘… vast upland plain or series of plains at different elevations’ (Bowen 1994, 10). D. Q. Bowen sums up the structure of the landscape in his opening words on the ‘Land of Cardiganshire’ (ibid., 3) thus: ‘In conventional and elementary terms the topography of Cardiganshire can be described as a series of dissected plateaux. From most vantage points the eye beholds level horizons and gains an impression of a stepped landform, from sea-level to the hilltops of central Wales. Below these ‘upland plains’ lie the valleys and coastal lowlands of Cardiganshire.’ Topographically, the landscape is well-defined. Watson (1957, 294), in describing the land-use pattern of north Ceredigion, identified three main east-west belts ‘… running more or less parallel to the coast’. These were: (1) the low or coastal plateaux of the coast and middle Teifi valley (including the lower valleys of the Rheidol and Ystwyth); (2) the mountain grazing area of the High Plateau and the Upper Rheidol basin; and (3) the hillfringe zone, where valley and ridge, mountain grazing and unimproved land intermingle. This hill-fringe zone in the lands to the north of the river Rheidol comprises a series a east/west spurs, each bearing a hillfort, which serve to connect highland to lowland with easily traversable ridges (see Chapter 8). The progression of the landscape, from the low-lying coastal fringe on the west, to the high ground and bare uplands to the east, appears to have shaped patterns of human settlement and land-use in this area during prehistory.

Figure 2.7 Towns and major rivers in north Ceredigion. The main market towns of Aberystwyth and Tregaron are named. Smaller towns and villages thus; A. Borth. B. Talybont. C. Capel Bangor. D. Ponterwyd. E. Llanilar. F. Llanrhystud. G. Bronnant. H.Llanafan. I. Cwmystwyth. J. Pontrhydfendigaid. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

the trend that is so dominant in rock outcrops and the ‘grain’ of Cardiganshire notably exemplified by the trend of its coastline…’. He goes on to note that the Silurian rocks are immediately overlain by Pleistocene clays, gravels and sands, and Holocene or postglacial marine deposits, valley alluvium and hillslope colluvium ‘… which provide the parent materials for the soils.’ (ibid., 9) A map of the surface morphology of north Ceredigion, published as part of the Wales National Atlas in 1989 (Carter, ed., 1989, 1.3a), shows occasional evidence for glacial meltwater channels, characterised as narrow channels, which are now passes through hills, running from north-east to south-west across the dissected coastal plateau. They are chiefly found to the south of Talybont, and on the west coast just to the north of Llanrhystud.

2.2.4 The major rivers and their characteristics North Ceredigion is a region fundamentally defined by its rivers and drainage system. The two major rivers, the Rheidol and the Ystwyth, form corridors through the hills providing both fertile meadows and good farming land on high valley floors, and also facilitating movement far inland and connecting communities on the coast with the hinterland. River valleys which penetrate the high mountains along the east of the region, such as the Castell valley in the north, or the Groes Fawr in the south (see Chapters 4 and 7), also appear to have provided vital through-routes into, and across, the mountains, facilitating long distance overland movement and, ultimately, trade with the Welsh borderlands and beyond.

2.2.3 Topography A general description of the topographic boundaries to the study area has been given above in 2.2.1. This brief section describes something of the structure of the land. In plan, the study area of north Ceredigion has the appearance of a four-sided polygon; the concave sweep of the coast and Cardigan Bay forming the western side, the low-lying bog and saltmarshes bordering the Dyfi estuary forming the northern boundary, the formidable terrain of the Cambrian Mountains, including Plynlimon, mid Wales’s highest mountain (752m), forming the eastern boundary and the ‘backbone’ of the county. A line drawn between the low-lying coastal plateau at Llanon inland to the great basin of Cors Caron to the east, completes the

The Rheidol rises from Plynlimon and runs due south to Devil’s Bridge first as a mountain stream, then via a deep rocky gorge. The gorge forks west at Devil’s Bridge, widening slightly to provide a flat valley bottom below the wooded sides between Pencnwch (SN7278) and Capel Bangor. The valley bottom meadows are sheltered but receive sunlight for much of the year, providing good grazing, and possibly agricultural, land well into the hilly interior. At Capel Bangor, the valley of the lower Rheidol broadens considerably and becomes flanked by wider,

14

2: The landscape background and history of research and enquiry

Figure 2.8 North Ceredigion: topography and the author’s key named plateaux and lowland areas; north section. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Figure 2.9 North Ceredigion: topography and the author’s key named plateaux and lowland areas; south section, showing southerly extents of the study area. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

15

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

The Aeron headwaters rise on Mynydd Bach, just west of Cors Caron and the Teifi, and leave the south of the study area. 2.2.5 Climate The prevailing climate in north Ceredigion, particularly along the coastal plateau and the western parts of the hill fringe, greatly benefits both from its proximity to the sea and to the presence of a sheltering belt of high ground along the east side. In a plotted annual average of the mornings with snow lying between 1912-1938 (in Melvyn Howe 1956, Fig. 29), less than five a year were recorded along the coastal plateau of north Ceredigion, with only 510 mornings in the hill fringe zone contrasting with 30-50 mornings a year with snow lying on the highest ground of the Plynlimon range to the east. Watson (1957, 290-1) drew attention to the most beneficial aspects of the west coast region being ‘…its exposure to maritime air-streams and its shelter by a mountain barrier from continental influences’. The effects of these two aspects are chiefly twofold; the existence of a narrow coastal belt where frost and snow are rare and a high proportion of sunshine throughout the year. This data is further quantified by Jones and Taylor (1989) where mean daily temperature for January for an approximate coastal strip of 6 miles in from the coast is maintained between 5-5.5 degrees centigrade (Figure 1.4h, (i)). Fowler (1983, Fig. 5, 24; citing N.D. Johnson) notes that the west coast of Wales, including Llǔn, Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire and west Glamorgan has a growing season in excess of 300 days in common with much of Devon and Cornwall and the south coast of England as far east as the Isle of Wight. The agricultural potential of the coastal belt of the study area thus bears comparison with areas of south-west Britain, which are renowned for their growing climates.

Figure 2.10 North Ceredigion: Drainage pattern with major and minor rivers. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

gravelly lowlands with lush, low-lying and partially boggy meadows. Its final course before the coast winds through a broad floodplain, which is now heavily developed on the outskirts of Aberystwyth, but was once a boggy area with numerous river channels (Browne and Driver 2001, 7). It issues into the sea at Aberystwyth harbour adjacent to the Ystwyth. The Ystwyth follows a more direct east-west course. Rising in the hills beyond the county boundary to the east, above the Elan valley, it cuts a wild, narrow course, often flanked by high rocky sides. Between Cwmystwyth (SN7873) and Llanafan (SN6871) it broadens and begins to deposit gravel, but still lies in a deep gorge. At Trawsgoed, after the river has fallen through more than 250m, its valley widens considerably into a series of gravel-bottomed basins flanked by well-grazed gentle hillslopes. Between Trawsgoed and Llanfarian (SN 5977), numerous small fertile side valleys open off from the dominant ‘corridor’ of the Ystwyth valley. Between Llanilar (SN6275) and Llanfarian the river today passes through rich meadow land and land suitable for cultivation. The Ystwyth narrows again after Llanfarian, winding around bluffs and promontories before issuing into the sea at Aberystwyth harbour, meeting the waters of the Rheidol.

In terms of annual rainfall, the coastal belt of north Ceredigion running c.10km (c.6 miles) inland of Aberystwyth is one of the drier regions of Wales, having an average rainfall of 8-1200mm like most of western and southern Pembrokeshire, Anglesey, south-west Llyn and the length of the Welsh Borderlands (Jones and Taylor 1989, Fig. 1.4a). 2.2.6 Agricultural potential 2.2.6.1 Soils The soils of the study area (information gathered by the Soil Survey of England and Wales 1 (Rudeforth 1989)), are fairly uniform brown earths (Brown soils group), a welldrained loamy non-calcareous soil along the coastal plateau contrasting with distinct areas of stagnogley, poorly drained clayey soils (surface-water gley soils group), bordering the northern shores of the Rheidol

The Teifi is a small river when it leaves the study area, having risen via a series of streams in the high ground to the north-east of Cors Caron/Tregaron Bog, above Strata Florida. As it gathers momentum between Pontrhydfendigaid and Tregaron it cuts a broader, more sinuous course through the peat bog, before meandering south-west through the fertile and lower-lying hills which flank the Teifi Valley to reach the sea at Cardigan.

1

At both 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 scales for north Ceredigion

16

2: The landscape background and history of research and enquiry

Figure 2.11 Ceredigion, agricultural potential. Main map shows MAFF/WOAD land classification from Grade 3 to Grade 5. Urban areas are shown solid black. The best agricultural land is shown striped and broadly conforms to the densest distributions of prehistoric enclosure cropmarks, particularly in south Ceredigion along the coast and Teifi corridor, and north of Aberystwyth. Whether the lowland enclosures were sited in areas of most productive land, or conversely, whether the modern presence of arable crops helps to reveal cropmarks of prehistoric enclosures in these areas, remains unresolved. The inset map shows the generalised distribution of enclosed grassland in central Wales suitable for agriculture. (Sources: Main map redrawn from National Assembly for Wales 2003a, Digest of Welsh Local Area Statistics, Table 9.1 Agricultural Land Classification (by grade). Inset shows extract redrawn from Carter 1989, National Atlas of Wales, map 5.1c Agricultural Land; T. Driver). between Aberystwyth and Capel Bangor and across the greater part of the plateau between the Ystwyth and the Wyre rivers, eastwards inland to the Trawsgoed Basin. The major river corridors of the Rheidol and Ystwyth are characterised by clayey alluvial gley soils. The higher ground of the hill fringe to the east is chiefly composed of brown podzolic soils. Rudeforth (1994, 24) noted that Cardiganshire’s most extensive soils, the brown earths, provide the best land for livestock farming, being both firm and well supplied with moisture. He goes on to note that the surface-water gley soils are poorly drained or even waterlogged, offering little cultivation potential and a limited grazing period unless careful management and drainage is used to improve the land. However, it must be said that the nature of the soils during later prehistory may have been different, particularly in the lowlands and along river valleys, from those of today. Some soils may have deteriorated from an agricultural point of view, with nutrients having leached down through the profile, and

others may have been improved by the high-input agriculture of the past two centuries. 2.2.6.2 Palaeo-environmental evidence Our best evidence for Iron Age farming regimes, or at least episodic clearance, in mid and west Wales is drawn from several pollen core sites from north Ceredigion and neighbouring regions sampled in recent decades. 2.2.6.3 Bronze Age evidence The Bronze Age data, particularly well sampled at two sites at Penrhyncoch (SN 687 857) and Penbont (SN 672841; both in Taylor 1973, 289-295 with later comments by Caseldine and Murphy, 1989, 4), suggests a predominance of mixed woodland of Corylus (hazel), Quercus (oak) and Tilia (lime) prior to a Bronze Age clearance episode (at 21cm depth), followed by a rise in 17

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 2.13 Detail from the 1834 Ordnance Survey map of north Ceredigion, drawn at a scale equivalent to 1 inch to the mile. Hillforts are shown schematically despite restrictions of scale. Some, including this plan of Castell Grogwynion (site 48), would have stood as tolerable schematic records had the site been destroyed. suggestive of a change in agricultural practice and increased ploughing (ibid.). This series of pollen samples from north of the Rheidol suggests that limited woodland clearance for agriculture was already well-practised by Bronze Age populations (Briggs 1994, 132-33). Figure 2.12 Part of the manuscript map of the ‘mannor of Perveth’ drawn in c.1745. Morris accepted the major hillforts as integral landscape features. At bottom right ‘Dinas’, is Banc y Castell (site 41). Centre left, the ‘Fort’ at Cwm y Darren is Darren hillfort (site 38), showing the mines which cut the fort on the west side. At top centre is Pen y Castell (40), correctly shown on a knoll surrounded by hills alongside a minor river. The ‘Old fort’ shown at the top right above Lluest y trafle, is an interesting addition. The natural bank on this summit is not an antiquity but looks similar to other hillforts when viewed from below. (By permission of Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru/National Library of Wales: RM A118).

2.2.6.4 Iron Age evidence Iron Age environmental data suggest a pattern of largescale clearance of lower-lying valley slopes for pasture or arable from the fifth to the first centuries BC (e.g. Savory 1980, 293) and particularly into the Roman period, a trend which can be observed across much of central Wales (Moore 1994, 40-41). Davies and Hogg (1994, 230) however, citing an absence of arable-related pollen from the pre-Roman buried soils under the Trawscoed vicus, noted that clearance could also have been associated with a search for building timber or firewood. The clearance evidence in the study area is chiefly provided by pollen sampling from Tregaron Bog, which demonstrated deforestation in the neighbourhood of the bog c.400 BC (Turner 1970), taken by Davies and Hogg (1994, 220) as evidence for a growing population pressure in the Tregaron area at this time, and woodland clearance along the lower slopes of the Ystwyth valley during the third century BC. Evidence for ‘severe deforestation’ (Taylor 1980, 332) along the Ystwyth valley in the late Iron Age/early Roman period is further demonstrated by a soil profile from the Ystwyth Forest site sampled by Rudeforth (in Taylor 1973, 293-5). A charcoal layer at 6162cm depth provided radiocarbon dates of 2133 ± 110 BP (Q. 814), a date in the middle of the second century BC. According to Taylor, this showed ‘active deforestation’ (ibid., 293) during the late Iron Age with a temporary drop in Quercus and Corylus pollen. The presence of arable and grass weeds both before and after clearance provides evidence for a mixed farming economy in the region at this time.

grass and arable pollens. Environmental data was also obtained from the excavation of a burnt mound at Troedrhiwgwinau (SN 6195 8237; Caseldine and Murphy 1989), which lies just east of Commins Coch near Aberystwyth and produced calibrated radiocarbon dates of 1685-1459 cal. BC (at a 1 sigma range) and 1740-1412 cal. BC (at a 2 sigma range). Although there were problems with the pollen analysis due to the predominantly alluvial environment in the original vicinity of the burnt mound, local vegetation appears to have been dominated by alder carr with deciduous woodland of oak, elm, lime and ash supporting an understorey of hazel and other shrubs (ibid., 4). However, weed taxa pollen such as Plantago lanceolata (plantain) and Rumex acetosa (sorrels) ‘…suggests that there was already some disturbance of the forest cover and agricultural activity in the area from the beginning of the pollen record.’ (ibid.) Monolith G at Troedrhiwgwinau indicated later environmental changes in the form of silty clay deposits abutting and partially overlying the mound,

18

2: The landscape background and history of research and enquiry

Further pollen analysis from the south-east bog at Cors Caron (core TRE98, sampled by Morriss in 1998 (Morriss 2001), reported in Hughes et al. 2001) has provided further evidence for a mixed agricultural economy during the Roman period, including arable cultivation and associated disturbed ground, either on a small-scale basis close to the mire or more extensively at some distance (ibid., 91). Pollen evidence suggested a return to a ‘protracted period of scrubby woodland regeneration during the ‘Dark Ages’…’ following the Roman withdrawal (ibid., 91). Indeed it is acknowledged that the Iron Age and Roman woodland clearances were so extensive that ‘…the ratio of tree to non-tree pollen fell to levels resembling those of the present day.’ (Moore 1994, 40) This shows a high level of agricultural activity and land management during later prehistory which provides useful data against which to study the settlement sites in their landscapes, explored in Chapter 3. Initial analysis of a peat core from the Plynlimon ridge sampled in 2012 suggests a permanent phase of woodland clearance commenced at the end of the Bronze Age c. 885 Cal BC lasting through to c.465 Cal BC with regeneration continuing into the Roman period. The more peripheral location of this core in the upland moorland and mountain to the east of the main settled coastal lowlands is probably reflected in the lack of clearance evidence from the later Iron Age, settlements generally being focussed on lowerlying coastal valleys to the west (Mighall et al. 2012, 1416).

coastal plateau to the west. The land is hilly, rounded, and almost bare of trees…’ (ibid., 84-5). He also (ibid., 86) went on to describe the people and farming practices of the uplands, or ‘… the high plateau top where very extensive farms are given over entirely to sheep. The area is remote and distinctive. It is “the mountain”, and its folk are “mountain people”…’. As for the present-day agricultural productivity and land quality of this west coast region, the National Assembly for Wales’ map of Grades of Agricultural Land (2003b) shows the majority (58.1 thousand hectares) of the coastal plain of Cardiganshire to be classed as Grade 4 agricultural land, which can be defined as poor quality, mainly suited to grass with occasional arable crops (Figure 2.11; National Assembly for Wales 2003a, Table 9.1). There are limited areas (8.1 thousand hectares) of higher Grade 3 land (classed as good to moderate quality land with moderate limitations affecting crop yield and the times of cultivation and harvesting, ibid.), this being the highest rated land in the county, and found in more favourable coastal locations such as the Rheidol-Talybont inland coastal depression north of Aberystwyth, the coastal plain at Llanrhystud, and much further south along the Cardigan-Aberporth coastal plain, but also inland at the Trawsgoed Basin on the Ystwyth valley. That said, the majority of Welsh pastoral and arable zones are classed as Grade 3, with higher Grade 2 land only found in pockets in south and north-east Wales, and the highest Grade 1 land (excellent quality, with no or very minor limitations) limited to parts of Gower, east Cardiff and the Vale of Clwyd. This good agricultural land in the lowlands clearly contrasts with higher ground classed as ‘Other nonagricultural’, chiefly the rough-grazing moorlands of the high plateau in the east of county. Statistically speaking, of a total of 105,000 hectares of ‘arable land and permanent grass’ suitable for agricultural purposes in Ceredigion in 2003, only 16,700 hectares was classed as arable land against 88,300 hectares of permanent grass, showing the region’s dependence on pastoralism (information from National Assembly for Wales 2003b, Table 1.4).

2.2.6.5 Historic and present-day agricultural regimes In 1808, Meyrick (17) provided a useful summary of the relative productivity of the Cardiganshire landscape for his county history, which can be compared quite favourably to the situation which prevails today; ‘Cardiganshire is a maritime county…It is well supplied with fish from the sea, particularly cod, herrings &c., and its rivers afford the finest salmon and salmon trout. The country is in general mountainous, though there are very extensive plains, which, however, are boggy… The hills in general are covered with short grass, but the valleys are extremely fertile. The lands consist of wood, chiefly fir… and pasture and meadow. The commons of heath and small furze.’

These historic and present day agricultural facts and figures provide a useful background against which to consider the later prehistoric settlement pattern of the region but they do not necessarily relate closely to the situation which prevailed in the centuries before the Roman conquest. Further detail on the potential nature of the later prehistoric farming regime in the study area is more fully discussed in the context of the settlement pattern in Chapter 3, section 3.2.3.1.

Parkinson (1985, 120) also commented on the landscape in his article on settlement patterns in west Wales 15001800. He noted the fertility of the riverine lowlands; ‘…in the 1830s the Vales of Ystwyth, Tywi and Teifi were notable for their heavy yields of wheat…’; he continued: ‘But the real wealth of the farmers lay in their livestock. The uplands and mountains were primarily used to pasture cattle and sheep… In many areas of Cardiganshire [in the latter 1700s] there were twice as many sheep as cattle…’ (and compare with section 3.2.3.1 below). In Jones’ (1962) sociological study of Tregaron and area (‘ardal’), the cattle-rearing potential of the west coast plateau was described; ‘Cattle-rearing is the basis of farming on the

2.3 ASSESSING THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN: ANTIQUARIAN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH 2.3.1 Summary This research, including much of the fundamental groundwork, would not be so far advanced without the 19

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

work of A. H. A. Hogg, together with the important early work of I. T. Hughes in the 1920s and 1930s (Hughes 1926; 1933), and of the perceptive antiquarians J. G. Williams (1867) and F. S. Wright (1912; 1914; see Figure 2.14). The earliest references to the hillforts of Ceredigion seem to be those made by Sion Dafydd Rhys in his defence of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae in Peniarth 118, written around 1597 (described by Grooms 1993, 242-3). The detailed literary geography of Welsh giant lore describes sites of their strongholds, including hillforts and medieval castles in Ceredigion, or ‘the country of Aberteifi’ (ibid., 305). Pen Dinas is mentioned as the abode of ‘...Maylor the giant, and the place in which he dwelt is still called Castell Maylor which is built on a high hill or high bank named ‘y Dinas’ on one side of the river Ystwyth within the common lands of Aberystwyth.’ (ibid., 309). Despite the mix of folklore and giant tales, these early references are vital to understanding sixteenth century perceptions of Ceredigion’s earthworks. Lewis Morris included the hillforts to the north of the Rheidol on his map and surveys of the metal mines of the ‘Mannor of Perverth’ (Figure 2.12; Bick and Wyn Davies 1994) and in the last two centuries there has been growing interest in the hillforts of Ceredigion. Work has ranged from individual site surveys and excavations (e.g. Forde et al. 1963), to regional surveys of the sites and monuments (Williams 1867; Wright 1914; Hughes 1926; Hogg 1962; Hogg and Davies 1994). The intervals between these major surveys, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, show the fluctuating nature of interest.

Figure 2.14 Early hillfort surveys in north Ceredigion: Comparisons with Wright (1914) and Hughes (1926), which illustrate the good quality and detail of these early surveys. As a research resource for north Ceredigion these comparative surveys are invaluable. Caer Pwll Glas (site 30; Wright 1914, Figure 9; Hughes 1926, Figure 7); Pen y Castell (site 40; Wright 1914, Figure 10; Hughes 1926, Figure 6); Pen Dinas, Elerch. (site 39; Wright 1914, Figure 11; Hughes 1926, Figure 5). Hughes figures courtesy of Ceredigion Historical Society.

2.3.2 Early regional surveys of the Cardiganshire prehistoric earthworks The first decades of the twentieth century saw the publication of two regional surveys. While Wright’s 1914 paper, ‘Some Ancient Defensive Earthworks near Aberystwyth…’, presented descriptions and surveys for 11 hillforts and one motte and bailey, Hughes’ 1926 ‘Regional Survey of North Cardiganshire Prehistoric Earthworks’ described a further 15 omitted by both Wright and Williams in 1867 (Figure 2.14, and see Figures 2.17 & 2.18). Both were forward-looking in their approaches, Wright noting that: ‘… when the survey is more complete we may know enough to make trial excavations.’ (1914, 45) This attitude was shared by Hughes; accurate plans (for their day) accompanied the piece and they ‘… possess a value which is two-fold. They help to interpret the earthwork; they remain as reasonably accurate records of sites liable to destruction.’ (ibid., 1926, 22). Hughes called for the excavation of ‘…not only a large earthwork like Pendinas, but also a small and simple one’, to allow comparison of the results (1933, 17). In July 1933 Professor Daryll Forde of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, commenced excavations for six weeks in the south fort of Pen Dinas with the support of the Board of Celtic Studies (Cambrian News, Aug 25th, 1933, 6). The excavations continued for a further four seasons until 1937 (Figures 1.1, 2.15 & 2.16;

Forde et al. 1963). They still represent the most extensive and sustained programme of excavation on any prehistoric site in north Ceredigion. The style of Forde’s approach, involving running sections through the defences and regular slot-trenching around the north gate of the south fort (ibid., Figs 6 & 8), mirrored Wheeler’s contemporary excavations at Maiden Castle (in progress between 1934 and 1937; see Sharples 1991, 17). 2.3.3 Developments from the Second World War to the present day Following the Pen Dinas excavations, similar work on other hillforts in the county was not seen again for nearly 50 years. The hillforts were systematically planned by the Ordnance Survey during the 1960s and 1970s, usually at 1:2500 (see Figure 2.18). A small excavation of Hen Gaer, Bow Street (site 28), undertaken by the Archaeological Section of the Cardiganshire Antiquarian Society (Cardiganshire Antiquarian Society 1967), was never fully published. The work was initiated by C. Houlder at 20

2: The landscape background and history of research and enquiry

Figure 2.15 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Excavation of the south gate of the south fort in 1933, viewed from inside the fort (Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

Figure 2.17 Castell Grogwynion (site 48): as planned by Ieuan Hughes in 1926 (figure 22), depicting the western outcrop but lacking detail for the north-east gateway (after Hughes 1926; by courtesy of Ceredigion Historical Society).

Figure 2.18 Comparative plan of Castell Grogwynion: an Ordnance Survey ‘Antiquity Model’ of 1974, the basis for the plan published on current Ordnance Survey mapping. There is much fine detail depicted in this plan, but the crucial topography of the western outcrop is omitted

Figure 2.16 Excavations in progress at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, summer 1934, showing the north gate of the south fort and the isthmus gateway. This vertical aerial photograph was probably flown by the 210 squadron based at Pembroke Dock and is a rare survival. This photograph is invaluable in showing the exact extents of the excavation trenches. The lower trenches have been opened over the north gate of the south fort, while those at upper right show excavation of the isthmus gateway. North is to the top. (Crown Copyright MoD 1934, 2000/313/2, from RAF vertical 210 865 V).

(Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

of slag) are uncertain. Houlder’s involvement may have initiated the dramatic reconstruction of Hen Gaer (Wakelin and Griffiths 2008, 76-7) drawn for the pupils of Rhydypennau school, Bow Street, and still on display there.

RCAHMW and taken forward by J. Wyn Evans, who included the provisional excavation results in his undergraduate thesis of 1967/8 (Evans, undated; see Figure 2.19). The location of the finds (including a lump

In the 1980s a handful of sites in Ceredigion were excavated (Caer Cadwgan, Cellan, Austin et al. 1984-6 & 21

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Thorburn 1987), completing new surveys of Pen y Castell and Pen y Daren (Darren) hillforts. The last survey of the county’s hillforts prior to this present study was for the Cardiganshire County History Volume 1 (Davies and Hogg 1994 (synthesis); Hogg 1994 (settlement pattern); Hogg and Davies 1994 (gazetteer); Davies 1994a (the finds)). This scholarly work, many years in gestation (reviewed by Bell 1998), provided an authoritative statement following nearly two centuries of survey and recording, yet confirmed how little research had been done during the twentieth century. More recently, work was carried out on the Prehistoric Defended Enclosures survey of sites in Ceredigion by Cambria Archaeology, as part of their wider survey of Dyfed (see Figure 2.2; Murphy and Manwaring 2004; Murphy 2007). There have also been several projects including Simon Timberlake’s trial excavations at Darren hillfort in 2005 (Figure 8.17; Timberlake and Driver 2006) with the Early Mines Research Group. 2.3.4 Assessing the settlement pattern: recovering lost or destroyed sites using aerial photography 2.3.4.1 The contribution of cropmark evidence to the settlement pattern The most significant contribution to our knowledge of the distribution of Iron Age enclosed settlement in north Ceredigion, and the wider regions of Wales, during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has been made by archaeological aerial reconnaissance after c.1961, when work by Cambridge University (CUCAP) began. Until the advent of this type of survey work, the study of Iron Age communities in central Wales had been limited to hillforts and surviving earthworks. In 1962, Hogg’s ‘List’ recorded the extent of knowledge prior to aerial discoveries. The gradual discovery of cropmark sites after this date 2 revealed a pattern of varied monuments including smaller hillforts, lightly-defended enclosures and ancillary structures, and has provided a more balanced view of the density of later prehistoric settlement than one dominated by hillforts alone (see Figure 2.29; Driver 2003, 190; Driver 2007b).

Figure 2.19 Provisional plan of Hen Gaer (Broncastellan; site 28), probably completed in 1968 following the campaign of survey and trial excavation by J. Wyn Evans and C. Houlder. The figure 5a refers to an illustration in J. Wyn Evans’ thesis (National Monuments Record of Wales ©, C. H. Houlder; Evans (undated)). Lampeter 1987; Bryn Maen Caerau, Cellan, Williams and Caseldine 2001). Limited excavations were carried out at Odyn Fach enclosure (Murphy 1989), Pen Dinas Lochtyn hillfort at Llangrannog in 1992 (Scott and Murphy 1992), Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, (Murphy 1992) and Darren, Trefeurig (Figures 5.17 & 5.18; Driver 1996a & b). The excavation at Odyn Fach (Figure 2.24, bottom) was carried out under particularly difficult conditions. Murphy (1989, 44) noted; ‘… the work at Odyn-fach… is published here to highlight what little is known of Iron Age settlements in mid Wales, and also to demonstrate the dangers inherent in assuming a single section across a defensive ditch will answer all questions concerning the nature and date of a site.’ During the later 1980s the Ceredigion Archaeological Survey (CAS) examined three landscape blocks in north Ceredigion, Capel Bangor (Thorburn 1988), Capel Dewi and Ysbyty Ystwyth (see

North Ceredigion is not traditionally regarded as a ‘cropmark zone’, having neither the lowland plains of well-drained subsoil nor the extents of arable cultivation which account for greater cropmark formation elsewhere in Wales, particularly in south Wales and along the Welsh borderlands. In his summary map of ‘main results of air photography, to 1994’, Musson (1994, 22), showed ‘Productive areas for cropmark photography’ as the Welsh borderlands, including Shropshire, the Haverfordwest to Carmarthen corridor, and the coastal zone north-east of Cardigan. Areas for ‘recent or more scattered cropmark 2

by J K St. Joseph and later David Wilson of CUCAP (until c1980), Terry James of the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (until the later 1980s), Chris Musson (1989-1997) and Toby Driver (1997 - ) both of RCAHMW

22

2: The landscape background and history of research and enquiry

by Cambridge University (CUCAP) aerial photographers in the drought summers of 1975 and 1976 (Figure 2.32; St. Joseph 1975; Davies 1976; Driver 1998a) and the area has undoubtedly responded to timely air photo work by the author over the last decade (Driver 2007b). The predominant way that buried sites in Ceredigion are seen is through parchmarks occurring in very dry grassland during prolonged drought (e.g. Figures 2.20, 2.22 & 2.23). A more rare phenomenon occurs when rain falls on freshly-harvested grassland stubble during otherwise dry weather, allowing re-growth of grass and weeds as cropmarks over buried ditches (starkly illustrated by ground photographs of the Dollwen barrow cropmark, Goginan, from 2006 in Driver and Davis 2012, 14). This was first noted as a phenomenon by James (1984) in regions of inland Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire where remarkable Iron Age enclosures are only revealed in the most rare of drought conditions, last seen widely across west Wales in 2006 (see the Brechfa Iron Age landscape in Driver 2007a, 166-7 & Driver 2007b). This is a transient source of evidence. As James (1984, 13) noted, ‘If a field is constantly grazed, then the cropmark-producing lush green growth in otherwise parched grass, is immediately destroyed by the feeding animals. If, however, a field is not grazed, but retained for hay or silage, then obviously cropmarks develop unhindered.’ Such marks may also be quickly erased by a few days of rain which can return the ‘brown background’ of the dry field to green.

Figure 2.20 Gaer Fawr, Lledrod (site 17), from the southsouth-east under parching in July 2003, revealing ploughdenuded, outer lines of defence at the west (left) end along with the lines of buried ditches flanking the main gate at the east (right) end. The parching is such that it also illustrates parts of the interior where deeper deposits of soil are preserved (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2003-cs1404).

Success in aerial discovery has been seen across mid Wales in recent years during aerial reconnaissance by the author for the Royal Commission, by focussing drought reconnaissance time away from ‘traditional’ areas of cropmark discovery, which include Montgomeryshire and the Welsh borderlands. In 1994 Musson (ibid., 13) noted that extreme drought which can cause grass marks to show in ‘the bleached brown of the parched pasture… happens, for the most part, for only a few days two years in ten, whereas cropmarks in grain can be seen… throughout a period of six to eight weeks almost every other year.’ Yet in recent years (2009-2012) mid Wales has enjoyed a series of drought springs, when early cropmarks may be seen during March to May, well in advance of the traditional ‘window’ of late June to July. These early droughts have benefited rates of discovery in mid Wales at times when, in the past, aerial archaeologists may not have been actively searching for such markings. Parchmarks in grasslands along the western coasts of Wales are further encouraged by the drying effect of coastal winds (Figure 2.21), a phenomenon which increases the likelihood of discovery even in poorer, wetter, summers, yet leaves the aerial archaeologist frustrated at the ‘unresponsive’ ground further inland along the central core of Wales in which extensive drought is rare.

Figure 2.21 North Ceredigion: limits of cropmark susceptibility. Cropmarks in arable and parchmarks in grass will only usually occur between the coast and up to 13.5 kms inland, where the drying effect of coastal winds can parch the lower-lying hillslopes. Extensions of this zone inland to the Trawsgoed basin along the Ystwyth valley, and into Cwm Gwyddyl (the zone on the southern edge of the study area) towards the head of the Aeron valley are clearly linked to the penetration of warmer air inland along valley corridors. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

returns’ were highlighted in south-west Wales, south and south-east Wales and areas in north Wales. Infact cropmark discoveries comprise nearly 50 percent of known later prehistoric defended enclosures in the study area and more targeted reconnaissance in the region, and across central Wales, since the later 1990s has shown its plough-levelled potential. Principal discoveries were made

No single flight will record all the potential buried sites, and cropmark discoveries since 1990 have continued to 23

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

summer fields, following a silage cut in late June/early July (Appendix 1). This rate of discovery shows that the potential for further plough-levelled discoveries in the region is not exhausted, and that future aerial reconnaissance for cropmarks in Wales would be well targeted in areas previously considered unprofitable, particularly along the coast and, in good drought conditions, along grassy, inland valleys. Long-established technologies such as LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) are only now yielding dividends to archaeologists as GIS layers with Digital Surface Models (DSMs – ‘first return’ data showing vegetation and buildings in the landscape) and Digital Terrain Models (DTMs – ‘last return’ data showing a ‘stripped’ view of the underlying landscape) being made more freely available under licence by the Environment Agency and other providers. This data is particularly effective for showing up unrecorded earthwork enclosures which have escaped detection from the air, either through the application of ‘virtual’ shadows across the data from north-west or north-east sun angles in a GIS environment, or as newly-identified sites beneath permanent woodland on a vegetation-stripped DTM (Driver and Davis 2012, 20-21).

Figure 2.22 Glan Ffrwd (site 29), aerial photograph showing parchmarks in grass, 1995, revealing the plan of the fort and traces of potential prehistoric field boundaries and other enclosures to the south-east (top). (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, DI2005_0263).

2.3.4.2 Levels of evidence recorded from the air The larger hillforts of the region have survived more or less intact as earthworks since the Iron Age (see Chapters 5 and 6) but a number of quite substantial smaller forts are known solely from aerial photography. Odyn Fach (Figure 2.24) and Glan Ffrwd (Figures 2.22-2.24) were substantially built in their day, but today they preserve no surface topography. Many aerial discoveries represent more lightly-defended, ephemeral enclosures of the Iron Age landscape. Narrow ditches in the circuits of Ruel Uchaf (see 3.2.7 below). Pant Drain and other sites are interpreted as the footings for palisades, similar to those recorded from the air for the concentric antenna enclosures of south-west Wales (James 1990; section 3.1.3.1 below). Their buried foundations can never have been substantial. Sub-surface structural details within and around the defensive circuits can also be revealed when parching conditions are exceptional. The plough-levelled promontory fort at Glan Ffrwd (Figures 2.22 – 2.23) was first photographed in exceptional drought conditions by CUCAP photographers in 1975 (St. Joseph 1975; see Browne and Driver 2001, 11). Information from this, and later sorties, shows not just the outline of the fort ditches, but a scatter of rock-cut pits within the fort, and a series of boundary ditches on the south side perhaps defining an entrance annex, field boundaries, or trackways. The site was visited on the ground during parching conditions in July 1999 (Figure 2.23) when it was possible to measure accurately the ditches and pits which became visible as clear-cut patches and lines of lush growth in parched pasture (see Appendix 1, site 29).

Figure 2.23 Glan Ffrwd (site 29), July 1999. Parchmarks as seen on the ground showing the line of the ditch around the north-western tip of the fort. 1m scales (T. Driver). add to the corpus of cropmark monuments (Appendix 1 where post-1990 discoveries are separately appended to the site list). Site discoveries made by aerial reconnaissance during the 1980s by the Dyfed Archaeological Trust and RCAHMW included the Glas Crug enclosures (sites 56 and 57) and Penlan-isaf fort (site 62; Figure 6.31). Between 1990 and 1999 a further 10 defended enclosures were discovered including the forts at Cwm Rhydyfelin (site 87, Figure 3.1), Bow Street (site 71), Pantdrain (site 82, Figure 3.34) and Berth-lwyd (site 74, Figure 3.7). A brief spell of hot weather in the summer of 1999 revealed six further sites including the Cyncoed hillfort (site 86, Figure 3.35) and two further enclosures in the Llanfihangel y Creuddyn lowland basin (sites 78 and 79). Two discoveries were made in the hot summer of 2003, these being a second defended enclosure near Llwyn-bwch farm on the western fringes of Cors Caron (site 73) and an upstanding, though plough-damaged, hillfort in the Rheidol valley at Pant Da wood (Figure 2.27; Driver 2004a & c). The severe drought of summer 2006 revealed further new sites in north Ceredigion, most being revealed as cropmark regrowth in drought-ridden

24

2: The landscape background and history of research and enquiry

Figure 2.24 Cropmark discoveries: air photo mapping of the evidence. Glan Ffrwd,(site 29) and Odyn Fach (site 31; (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All

Figure 2.25 Cropmark discoveries: air photo mapping of the evidence. Caer Argoed (site 12) and Banc y Gaer (site 6; (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights

rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Valuable evidence for internal rock-cut features have been mapped from air photographs for Caer Argoed, Banc-yGaer (both on Figure 2.25) and Odyn Fach (Figure 2.24). More remarkable has been the recognition of palisade trenches within and around hillforts. These are chiefly recognised at Caer Argoed and Banc-y-Gaer (see Figures noted above). There is the potential for similar hidden structural ad†‹–‹‘• –‘ —’•–ƒ†‹‰ Š‹ŽŽˆ‘”–• ‹ –Š‡ Š‹ŽŽ ˆ”‹‰‡ ƒ† —’Žƒ† zone, to which parching has never extended. Severe parching of Gaer Fawr hillfort in 2003 (Figure 2.20) confirmed the lines of additional ploughdenuded defences on the west side which continue the main north terraced façade around to flank the west facing minor gate.

examples, often setting new standards in survey and mapping, include the Solway plain, Cumbria (Bewley 1994), the Danebury environs (Palmer 1984), the Welsh borderlands (Whimster 1989), the complex ploughlevelled landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds (Stoertz 1997) and the Iron Age and Romano-British landscapes of the north midlands (Chadwick 1999). The examples cited have all been in landscapes where more complex ploughlevelled archaeology is represented than is found in Wales, including dense enclosure groups and widespreading field systems. Bewley, Palmer and Whimster pioneered and published methods of morphological analysis designed to tackle the great mass of undated, mapped cropmark evidence with which they were confronted, subsequently developed in the ‘MORPH’ system of recording and analysis used for the National Mapping Programme (see Edis et al. 1989).

2.3.4.3 The contribution of cropmarks understanding of the Iron Age settlement pattern

to

an

In Wales archaeological aerial reconnaissance has formed a powerful prospection method since the late 1950s when Cambridge University made early sorties over the

Numerous studies of later prehistoric landscapes have demonstrated the fundamental contribution which can be made by aerial photography. Standard published 25

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

leadership of Chris Musson, considerable progress was made (for the development of the discipline in Wales see Driver 2007a, 1-24 & Driver and Davis 2012, 9-25). Wales has been able to develop strong research-led landscape projects, which have investigated Iron Age cropmark discoveries through excavation; for example on the southern Llǔn peninsula (Ward and Smith 2001) and in recent years in south Ceredigion (Murphy and Manwaring 2004; Murphy et al. 2004; Murphy and Mytum 2006, 2007 & 2012) and Gwynedd (Smith 2003) particularly as part of the Cadw-funded thematic project examining later prehistoric defended enclosures. Individual enclosures and defended settlements are usually all that is recorded in mid Wales. Evidence for potential prehistoric field systems in the form of pit alignments is limited to the Montgomeryshire borderlands around Four Crosses (for a general summary see Musson 2011, 84-5), although the Pen-y-Gaer field system probably represents a genuine Iron Age survival in the region (see Fig. 3.13 below). The fact that enclosures are the most common type of cropmark site to be recognised from the air raises inevitable questions about identifying unenclosed settlement, or non-standard settlement types from later prehistory using aerial photography. Aerial archaeologists will only document features that they recognise to be enclosures or settlements, and this is a universal problem in the discipline.

Figure 2.26 North Ceredigion: Aerial discoveries made after 1995, illustrating the number of sites discovered both from archaeological aerial reconnaissance by RCAHMW (circles) and from the systematic analysis and interpretation of vertical aerial photographs, for this research, taken during cropmark seasons (stars). (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Distribution of cropmarks is affected by environmental factors, principally the extent to which drought conditions penetrate inland from the west coast during dry summers (Figure 2.21; see Ward and Smith 2001, 79). In Figure 2.29 the relative distribution of Iron Age sites in the study area, with and without the presence of cropmarks, can be examined. In north Ceredigion, grassland has never parched sufficiently to show buried sites away from the coastal hills and hillfringe, at a distance usually greater than some 7-9 km inland. The inland parts of the county along the middle-upper Ystwyth and around Cors Caron are dominated by upstanding hillforts with only two cropmarked enclosures recorded at Llwyn-bwch in the Cwm Gwyddyl group (Figure 3.26). It can be probably assumed that the dense pattern of settlement seen in the coastal regions to the north continued some way inland, and should infill present gaps between the dispersed earthwork hillforts if the true extent of settlement were discovered. Only in the drought summer of 2006 were dispersed cropmarks revealed in inland positions in central Ceredigion along the Teifi valley, including rare discoveries including a bivallate defended enclosure west of Llanybydder at Cefnrhuddlan Uchaf (NPRN 405309), in a summer which saw further discoveries as the drought penetrated central Wales (Driver and Davis 2012, 203). In the lowlands, certain areas of settlement, best classed as ‘small enclosure zones’, show sites so closely spaced that the appearance of a well settled later prehistoric landscape is given (e.g. Figure 3.24, and see discussion in section 3.2.5 below). In reality, contemporary settlements may

Figure 2.27 Pant Da wood (NE) hillfort (site 84). While the main rampart survives as an earthwork, the complete plan was revealed only by advanced parching of the surrounding grassland. It was joined in 2012 by a second hillfort barely 40m to the south-west, only revealed under woodland on LiDAR data (site 115; Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Principality and was further developed to great effect within the four regional Welsh Archaeological Trusts from the late 1970s. With the establishment of a dedicated aerial reconnaissance programme for the whole of Wales by the Royal Commission in 1986, under the focussed

26

2: The landscape background and history of research and enquiry

Figure 2.28 Banc Troed Rhiw Seiri defended enclosure (site 63). This denuded enclosure, visibly overlain by ridge and furrow cultivation, survives in the hill-fringe grassland near Bontgoch at 220m O.D. If such a site became completely plough-levelled in this environment it is unlikely that summer parching of the grassland would ever be sufficient to reveal the buried ditches and it would also lie beyond the reach of high-resolution LiDAR, which relies on surface topography. It appears to represent the footings of a fragile palisaded site. The bank and ditch run around the perimeter of a pronounced hillside hollow, perhaps to facilitate the penning of stock (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001/5092-60).

Figure 2.29 North Ceredigion hillforts and defended enclosures: site survival (Cropmarks (triangles) and upstanding earthworks (circles)). The current sparse survival of Iron Age hillforts and defended enclosures in the upland fringe tells us very little about the potential original density of enclosed (and unenclosed) settlement. Upstanding hillforts are shown as black circles, with plough-levelled smaller forts and farmsteads shown as triangles. The plough-levelled sites are most numerous in the coastal lowlands and river valleys near Aberystwyth where they have been recorded as cropmarks during dry summers. Moving into the uplands closer to Tregaron, in the bottom right of the map, there is a marked reduction in cropmarks. Larger, upstanding hillforts, dominate the map but are clearly widely-spaced, a settlement density that contrasts with parts of the study area where both upstanding and plough-levelled sites are recorded. At present, there is no satisfactory way of prospecting for the plough-levelled minor farmsteads and ancillary structures in between the upstanding hillforts in the hill fringe and upland zones, because the inland grassland never suffers parching severe enough to yield summer cropmarks and parchmarks (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright.

have been far more isolated from one another, with the total settlement pattern developing over centuries (see section 8.4 for full discussion). Unenclosed settlement evidence from the Iron Age may also exist in the study area. None is currently recorded, although stray finds of spindle whorls, one of the few characteristic artefact types which may be of Iron Age date and survive to be picked up in the acid soils, may indicate sites of settlements, manufactories, or transient activities (Davies 1994a; Hancox 1999). Excavations in advance of the Talybont-Llanbadarn Fawr gas pipeline in 1986 (Dyfed Archaeological Trust 1986) uncovered two buried enclosure sites, which remain invisible to this day from the air; these were the discovery of parts of a pair of parallel ditches to the north-west of Caer Lletty Llwyd (site 37), and the discovery of a 4m deep ditch close to a farm called Gaergwydd (site 27; a place-name site originally recorded by Hughes 1926), indicating the likely survival of a buried hillfort on a prominent domed summit between Bow Street and Penrhyncoch. Without a complete approach to reconnaissance, in the air, on the ground and utilising a range of survey and remote sensing techniques in combination, including airborne LiDAR (see Fig. 2.27) and geophysical prospection, our understanding of the extent of prehistoric settlement in Wales will always be biased by particular factors of environment and preservation.

All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

2.4 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS While Chapter 1 provided a broad overview and introduction to the history of research in Iron Age Britain, this chapter has introduced the study area, including sections on topography, drainage, climate and agricultural factors and, chiefly, the history of archaeological research including major advances made by aerial reconnaissance. With the introduction of the research context, landscape and regional research background established, Chapter 3 will move significantly forward to review archaeological and chronological issues specific to the later prehistoric monuments of the study area, before examining the settlement pattern in north Ceredigion in greater detail.

27

28

3: Settlements in the landscape

3 Settlements in the landscape: Chronology, topography and the Iron Age communities

3.1 ESTABLISHING CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CEREDIGION 3.1.1 Introduction When establishing frameworks of understanding for the later prehistoric settlement pattern of north Ceredigion, it is vital to assess the potential chronological range that the settlements represent. Cunliffe wrote (1991, 185) that ‘Any consideration of the cultural groupings and developments in Wales during the first centuries BC and AD is likely to be fraught with difficulty, largely because of the lack of large-scale excavation and the almost total absence of datable cultural material.’; even today, this statement remains true. Considering Wales, Gwilt (2003, 105) noted that; ‘Interpretations cannot progress, without improvements in the essential chronological ‘backbone’ for the first millennium BC.’ The situation has been helped in Ceredigion by Timberlake’s Middle-Late Iron Age dates for Darren hillfort (Timberlake 2007) and new dates for sites in south Ceredigion (Murphy and Mytum 2012). This chapter attempts a degree of synthesis from the available evidence.

1991, 536-7; Williams and Mytum 1998; Davies and Hogg 1994; Children and Nash 1994; Davies and Lynch 2000; Olding 2000, 56). This is thought to have manifested itself in the depopulation of much of central Wales, resulting in a cessation of, or delay to, widespread settlement until well after the Early Iron Age period. By contrast, in the borderlands climatic deterioration is seen as a causal factor behind the construction of later Bronze Age hillforts in the warmer, lowland areas where social tensions may have been exacerbated by an influx of displaced populations (Davies and Lynch 2000, 150; see 3.1.2 below). This is seen most pertinently with the construction, in the later Bronze Age, of the substantial hillforts of the Breiddin (Musson 1991) and Llwyn Bryn Dinas (Musson et al., 1992) in the Marches. Likewise, Dale fort in coastal Pembrokeshire is thought to have been established during this early period in the warmer coastal fringes (Davies and Lynch 2000).

The great variety of hillforts and settlements (Figure 2.3), from the very small (less than 1 ha) to the large (more than 4 ha), from the unelaborated to those clearly enlarged during one or more episodes, to truly complex sites where the exact sequence of expansion or reduction is unclear from surface evidence, points to a chronological sequence spanning several centuries. Given the good evidence for trade and contact between north Ceredigion and the Welsh borderlands (explored in Chapter 4), chronological comparisons must be sought east to west across the central belt of Wales, and south-east into the Brecknock region, as well as within the convenient region of ‘west Wales’ or Dyfed (this ‘traditional’ study region is further examined in Chapter 4).

The following discussion on chronology will argue that this model of Later Bronze Age settlement owes as much to historical patterns of excavation (a point made by Gwilt 2003, 107) as it does to the potential climatic situation in the Later Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. Historically favoured regions for excavations, in Pembrokeshire and the borderlands, together with greater developmentorientated research in Montgomeryshire (see excavations/finds potential discussed in 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 below) have provided a sequence of early dates confirming a pattern of early hillfort foundation. In contrast, upland hillforts in central Wales have traditionally seen little or no excavation work, with research priorities focussed elsewhere and developer funded schemes rare. Where excavations have occurred, at Caer Cadwgan (Austin et al. 1984-86; Lampeter 1987), Bryn Maen Caerau, Cellan (Williams and Caseldine 2001) and across south Ceredigion (Murphy and Mytum 2012) early dates from this important, transitional period in later prehistory have been revealed.

The standard, widely accepted model shaping perceptions of the start of hillfort building in Wales during the later Bronze and Iron Ages is that of the later Bronze Age abandonment of the central, upland heartland of Wales in the face of climatic deterioration (e.g. Taylor 1980; Collens 1988, Vol. 2, 328-9; Williams 1988; Cunliffe

29

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

3.1.2 Early forts in Wales and the borders: Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition: c.800-550 cal BC The traditionally-held understanding of the settlement and climatic situation which prevailed in west Wales during later prehistory is that the upland, northern reaches of the county, chiefly mid and north Ceredigion along with much of upland Carmarthenshire, were effectively abandoned during the middle or later Bronze Age. By contrast, the number of sites with early origins excavated in the extreme south-west of Pembrokeshire has been held to suggest society maintaining a ‘foothold’ here against adverse climatic conditions 1 . Williams and Mytum (1998, 140) suggest the Dyfed settlement pattern: ‘… may indicate an increased environmental, demographic and social impact of sub-Atlantic climatic deterioration… in wetter western areas of Wales. The construction of sites in the extreme south-west perhaps reflects the more benign micro-climate of the area.’ Davies (in Davies and Lynch 2000, 150), describing the more populous landscape of the northern and central Marches, argues that the Late Bronze Age climatic crisis precipitated not an abandonment of the landscape but the construction of some of Wales’ earliest late Bronze Age/early Iron Age hillforts as a response to the tensions in society bought about by movements of population down from the uplands (and see Stanford 1991, 48-58). Davies cites the early origins of the Breiddin hillfort (ninth-seventh centuries cal BC), Llwyn Bryn Dinas (eighth century cal BC) in the Tanat Valley (and Musson et al. 1992), and what appear to be ‘early palisades’ forming the primary construction phases at a suite of Marches hillforts including Ffridd Faldywn at Montgomery (a double palisade under a timber-laced rampart), Old Oswestry (a single palisade associated with post-ring round houses), Moel y Gaer in Flintshire and Dinorben on the north Wales coast (see 3.1.3.1 below, and Avery’s (1993b) comments on palisades). Indeed, Cunliffe (1991, 313) noted that palisades form ‘One of the earliest kinds of defensive barrier on sites of hillfort size…’. 2 Evidence from Caynham Camp near Ludlow is less clear, with ceramic evidence dating back to 870 cal BC (following

Figure 3.1 Two lowland univallate hillforts known only from cropmark evidence. (top) Cwm Rhydyfelin, Trawsgoed (site 87), discovered in 1995 by RCAHMW (compare with Figure A1.17) and (bottom) Bryngwynmawr (site 33), discovered in 1975 by CUCAP (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Some understanding of the expected structural sequence will also be attempted; there is a general presumption of a simple to complex development from the later Bronze Age to the Middle Iron Age (at least), followed by a degree of settlement change and a proliferation of smaller, complex farm settlements in the Romano-British period with a concomitant reduction in hillfort settlement (see for example Willis 1999). Whilst this model is convenient, and may hold true to an extent, the complexity of sites constructed during the later Bronze and Early Iron Ages may cast doubt on this simple-complex model.

1

Williams and Mytum (1998, 140-142) list the ‘increasing body of evidence’ for Early-Late Bronze Age settlement activity at a number of hillforts in south-west Pembrokeshire, superficially Iron Age in character. This evidence has been added to in recent years in work by the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (Murphy and Mytum 2012). 2 Palisades do not always indicate early settlement phases; they form common components of more sophisticated ‘concentric antenna’ enclosures (James 1990) which are presumed to be later Iron Age or Romano-British in date, whilst Willis (1999, 91) sees the occurrence of palisades in the archaeological record of north-east England as being linked to the availability of local building materials, and the prevalence or decrease of woodland as demonstrated through pollen data, rather than as a strictly reliable chronological indicator.

30

3: Settlements in the landscape

Figure 3.3 Old Warren Hill, Nanteos (site 13). The largest univallate hillfort in the county of Ceredigion, with unusual ‘bi-fossate’ outworks, which partly cut across the promontory on the east side (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

the light of evidence for earlier, indigenous hillfort building elsewhere in western Britain. That said, Croft Ambrey is thought to have been founded in the seventh century, with no previous evidence for occupation on the hilltop. The primary rampart featured internal quarry scoops, utilised as house platforms, together with an external ditch of limited size, enclosing some 2.2 ha. The rampart was topped by a palisade (Stanford 1980, 97100). It is likely that Savory’s original observations of characteristic topographic settings occupied by Late Bronze Age sites could still be valid for general reconnaissance; these being commanding promontory positions on spurs, with broad vistas opening out below over fertile lowlands (seen at the Breiddin and Dinorben, but also suggested by Savory for various other sites like Llanymynech Hill or Crowther’s Camp, Guilsfield; Savory 1976, 244-248). Indeed, Olding suggests the small but spectacularly sited promontory fort at the Black Darren (Daren Ddu) in the Eastern Black Mountains is a contender for a Late Bronze Age enclosure principally on the basis of Savory’s classification (Olding 2000, HI 4, Figure 32). From this viewpoint forts like Darren in the study area could also be postulated as having earlier origins than those currently obtained from limited excavations (Timberlake 2007).

Figure 3.2 A comparison of two larger univallate hillforts; (1) Hen Gaer, Tirymynach (site 28). (2) The north fort at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (site 7), seen in the context of the entire developed hillfort (T. Driver; Crown Copyright RCAHMW 2005. Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

ceramic comparison by Gelling, cited in Stanford 1991, 52), but with the palisade probably dated to 390 cal BC (ibid., 1991, 90). Further south and east, hillforts may have been founded slightly later although the available evidence is limited. The earliest phases of the Wrekin on the Shrewsbury Plain were characterised by a simple dump rampart thrown forward enclosing some 6 ha. Stanford (ibid., 49-50) noted that building work probably began about 760 BC. In Herefordshire, the only evidence for pre-rampart palisades was a post hole found at Sutton Walls and Stanford (1980, 100), generally believed that the area was not populated with hillforts until the seventh century. His theory of a continental influx of hillfort builders from France and elsewhere being responsible for this first phase of building cannot be easily supported in

This picture of ‘peripheral activity’ during the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age transition, in coastal Pembrokeshire and the fertile plains and commanding ridges of the Welsh Marches, could represent a genuine picture of the extent of early settlement; however, it is more likely to represent an historical pattern of excavation focused on more archaeologically attractive or productive regions. More recent excavation evidence gathered over the last two decades is demonstrating that these early transitional defended settlements were more widespread than was 31

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

very few finds but yielded an interesting date range (Murphy and Mytum 2012, Table 2). A palisade gully (no. 38), possibly from an early enclosure c.45m diameter, yielded an Early Iron Age date (740-650 cal BC) and contained a glass bead tentatively dated to the eighth-sixth centuries BC. The latest dates were obtained from Round House A within the main enclosure, which was in use into the Romano-British period. Just into north Pembrokeshire, radiocarbon determinations from excavations at Berry Hill inland promontory fort near Newport in 2007 indicated a Late Bronze Age construction (tenth-eighth centuries BC; Murphy and Mytum 2012). Work in Cellan parish in the 1980s, on two hillforts in the middle reaches of the Teifi valley, produced Later Bronze and Early Iron Age dates associated with structural elements although the accuracy of these dates is questionable today. Bryn Maen Caerau (Williams and Caseldine 2001) is a defended enclosure with a possible ‘banjo’ entrance on the south-west side, sited in a lowlying position on the edge of a gravel terrace above the River Teifi. Piecemeal excavation trenches employed at Bryn Maen Caerau (carried out under salvage conditions in advance of building but culminating in a controlled excavation in 1988) meant that certain relationships between features remained unclear. The final report demonstrated the existence of a palisaded enclosure of late Bronze Age or early Iron Age date, preceded by an occupation layer and succeeded by a more substantial defended enclosure. Neolithic and Early Bronze Age activity was attested by indeterminate dug features, tentatively representing earlier settlement structures (ibid. 19). A radiocarbon dated early Bronze Age feature was of uncertain proportions (ibid.). Williams was careful to note that given the mixed nature of the deposit the date ‘…should not be taken to suggest that the palisaded enclosure and later ramparts are of early bronze-age date’ (ibid., 20). The main defences excavated comprised a pair of parallel palisade trenches, closely associated with an occupation layer (number 293), which was radiocarbon dated in two places giving determinations of 2520±70 bp (CAR-1070, Site 2) and 3180±70 bp (CAR-1229, site 6). Williams cited the former date (CAR 1070), calibrated at 2 sigma to 830-393 BC as archaeologically acceptable (ibid. 20), but this date remains problematic in the context of the work. This palisaded phase was succeeded by a rampart, probably fronted with stone revetment, which incorporated an internal timber support in the form of a line of posts. It was flanked by an outer ditch. In the absence of direct dating evidence for this rampart, Williams was content to consider it to be a development on from the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age structural phases initially represented by a palisaded enclosure (ibid. 19), and not of a later Middle to Later Iron Age date.

Figure 3.4 Caer Penrhos, Llanrhystud (site 52). A large coastal hillfort, later reused as a medieval castle, with a substantial ringwork superimposed over the south-eastern rampart. Evidence on aerial photographs reveals bivallate outer ditches and low banks to the east, defending the weakest landward approach (see Figure 6.41). In their complexity and irregularity these have been ascribed by the author to the Iron Age period rather than the Medieval (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

traditionally supposed. A date of 1210-810 cal BC at a 2 sigma range was obtained from an isolated posthole within a very limited excavation trench at Pendinas Lochtyn hillfort on the west coast of Ceredigion (Scott and Murphy 1992). Although it relates to a structural feature, it is not certain how this early date relates to the main hillfort on this naturally strong site. At the time of publication, the authors dismissed the possibility of there being any significant contemporary settlement further north. While noting the hillfort had much in common with others in the ‘…northern uplands of Dyfed’, the only chronological and structural parallels for Later Bronze Age settlement were those from Pembrokeshire. They also noted that, pre-rampart occupation layers aside, the only site where such early occupation was actually linked to a defensive phase was Dale Fort. The discovery and excavation of a palisaded enclosure on the Teifi valley at Cwm Meudwy, near Llandysul, during development work in 2003 (Murphy 2003; Murphy 2004a), did not yield the date range expected. While a post hole at the western entrance of the enclosure yielded an Early Bronze Age date (2030 to 1870 BC calibrated at 2 sigma), shallow pits from the area of the enclosure also produced Early Neolithic dates. A later Iron Age date (380 to 170 BC calibrated at 2 sigma) was gained from a fourpost structure within the enclosure, but the range of dates may suggest Iron Age reuse of a much earlier settlement site. Whilst dated later Bronze Age settlements are still absent from Ceredigion, excavations on the Ffynnonwen defended enclosure in south Ceredigion in 2006 revealed

At Caer Cadwgan (Austin et al. 1984-6; Lampeter 1987), at 280m elevation in the hills to the east of the Teifi in central Ceredigion, the elaborate 6-post gateway produced a calibrated radiocarbon date of 824 BC (centre value of

32

3: Settlements in the landscape

2580 ± 70; Dresser 1987). This early date for a complex gateway structure in stone sits at odds with the majority of the evidence for central, upland Wales, but is consistent with findings already made in the later Bronze Age peripheral sites in coastal Pembrokeshire and the borderlands.

However, it remains worthy of note that, in a landscape occupied by some very fine complex hillforts, a number of univallate hillforts were apparently never significantly enlarged or modified from their initial plan. A number are quite large, enclosing more than 2.2 ha; a univallate fort of some importance is that at Bryngwyn-mawr (site 33; Figure 3.1 and 3.24), essentially a lowland fort occupying a strong ridge in a position on the interface between the Bow Street and Leri lowland basins. The fort encloses 2.2 ha, but only excavation could supplement the rather meagre cropmark evidence and establish whether this was an early inland rival to Pen Dinas (Phase 1) on the coast. The fort at Cwm Rhydyfelin (site 87, Figure 3.1) is situated on a river promontory in the fertile lowlands of the Trawsgoed basin. Hen Gaer (site 28, Figure 7.5) is a surprisingly strong and imposing fortress, commanding panoramic views over the lowland basins north of the Rheidol, north to Caer Pwll Glas and beyond to the Dyfi estuary. It is of massive construction, with a carefully walled rampart measuring about 12m wide overall and still standing in places to a height of 3-4m (Hogg and Davies 1994, 264), with an outer rock-cut ditch (Figure 8.6). It is similar in size to the first phase fort at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Hen Gaer is unusual in that part of the rampart encloses a considerable hillslope to the south, avoiding a more level summit position to the north.

The settlement picture for west Wales, and specifically Ceredigion, is still modelled on the theory of an abandonment of the upland, northern regions during the Later Bronze and Early Iron Ages, followed by a climatic recovery after 450 BC. This data has been extrapolated from peat cores taken from Tregaron Bog (see 2.2.6.2 above), showing a return to warmer and drier conditions and renewed tree-clearance in the vicinity from 450BC onwards. A better climate in turn allowed ‘… an agricultural and demographic recovery… sufficiently strong to force farmers out into marginal zones once again… and establishing new settlements.’ (Davies and Hogg 1994, 220) It is difficult to support this model in the light of the excavated evidence from the two Teifi Valley sites described above. In a valley rich in hillforts and defended enclosures, it seems unlikely that the only two sites with Early Iron Age structural origins were selected by chance for excavation; rather, these discoveries could be expected to be replicated further north into the study region, with early sites almost certainly represented in the lowlands and coastal hills, if not further east into the hillfringe and upland zones. Such a view is at odds to the generally accepted climatically deterministic model through which the later Bronze and Iron Age archaeology of most of central Wales is currently interpreted.

There remain, of course, problems in the use of the term ‘univallate’, some of which were partly explored in 1.4 above. Sites with very complex outworks but univallate defensive perimeters have traditionally been termed univallate, but this leaves the unsatisfactory situation whereby Pen y Bannau fort could be considered no more structurally complex than Cwm Rhydyfelin or Hen Gaer. Clearly this approach pays little regard to the complexity of the façades or outworks, whether a fort was truly univallate and simple, or whether it was provided with more complex gateways and outworks. At the same time, many complex multivallate hillforts may conceal earlier, univallate phases. For this reason, a distribution map of ‘univallate hillforts’ in the study area would be nearly impossible to compile objectively and of limited use.

3.1.3 Potential hillforts of the later Bronze/Early Iron Ages in north Ceredigion Multivallation or the provision of annexes is virtually unknown during this period in Wales, with univallate enclosure predominating (Stanford 1991, 50; and see 3.14 below). As the Middle Iron Age (400-150 cal BC) is conventionally regarded as the period when many Welsh hillforts were enlarged and made more complex (e.g. Cunliffe 1991; Davies and Lynch 2000, 154), it is reasonable to assume that univallate sites are early. This is broadly consistent with the information from Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth where excavation demonstrated that the univallate fort on the north summit probably formed the first phase (Figure 3.2; Forde et al. 1963). However, this simplicity did not necessarily extend to gateways; Caer Cadwgan featured a fine 6-post gateway and complex gateways are recorded on large, early forts in the Welsh borderlands.

Larger forts at Old Warren Hill (site 13, Figure 3.3), just inland of Pen Dinas on the coast (the largest univallate fort in the county) and Caer Penrhos (site 52, Figure 3.4) at Llanrhystud, could be candidates for major early forts; both have more complex outworks which cut across promontory approaches although these are not in themselves evidence of full ‘multivallation’ around the entire defensive circuit. Clearly such terminology is complex.

The pattern of univallate hillforts in north Ceredigion was taken by Hogg (1994, 236) as evidence for an arrival of new settlers on the coast, who first founded Pen Dinas, and then spread inland over a generation or more leaving a scatter of univallate enclosures. This simplistic model, promoting a ‘Celtic invasion’ of Ceredigion, was rightly disputed by Davies (Davies and Hogg 1994, 222).

3.1.3.1 Early forts in north Ceredigion: rampart morphology and chronology In a landscape of largely undated hillforts, some chronological indicators could be sought through examination of the prevailing technologies employed in

33

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 3.6 New Cross camp (Cefn y Caer; site 14). Aerial photograph from the north showing the small circular univallate fort of the initial phase (disturbed by a later stone quarry) with the later annexe appended to the west side (Crown Copyright RCAHMW 2001/5088-71).

Figure 3.5 Comparative sections of two ramparts potentially belonging to the fifth to fourth centuries, and incorporating a palisaded defence. The dimensions and form of the Pen Dinas north fort section has much in common with the defences of Poundbury, Dorset (Pen Dinas, North Fort, Cut 3, west side, after Forde et al. 1963, Figure 4; Poundbury after Cunliffe 1991, Figure 14.3).

have revealed a primary palisaded phase, which preceded the main defences, although Ken Murphy (pers. comm. 2005) has noted that this seems to have been a ‘security fence’ erected perhaps a few weeks before initial rampart construction commenced to protect workers and materials. Otherwise there is no pre-defence occupation phase, and a La Tène brooch from below the main rampart, together with a radiocarbon date, seem to imply that the fourth century was the initial construction period for the hillfort.

the construction of the ramparts, including the morphology of the rampart itself and the various methods used to flank the wall or bank with ditches, quarry scoops or outworks.

The first north fort at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, had fairly rudimentary defences formed by an earthen bank, faced externally by a palisade set in a shallow foundation trench (probably not sloping back as originally proposed) with a rock-cut outer ditch (Figure 3.5; Forde et al. 1963, 12728). The ditch varied in profile from V-shaped to broad and flat-bottomed, suggesting construction by gangs of workers (Browne and Driver 2001). In 1963 the postulated date for the foundation of the first north fort at Pen Dinas, c.250 BC, was based on ‘…little more than guess-work’ (Forde et al. 1963, 150). The arrangement of the Pen Dinas north fort defences, with a single, front palisade backed by a rampart, can be paralleled with the Poundbury type of timber strengthening (Cunliffe 1991, 320 & Figure 14.3). Dating is not precise for this type. It is not the earliest form of palisaded defence and could, according to Cunliffe, centre on the fifth to fourth centuries (ibid.). There is the possibility at Pen Dinas that the rampart of an early phase survives within the south fort, as a low footing bank or scarp which obliquely crosses the interior (Figure 6.26). It would be useful to examine the nature of this feature through excavation, even though the interior of the south fort has been cultivated in the historic period. A similar trace of a smaller, potentially earlier rampart phase has been recorded as parchmark evidence within the denuded promontory fort at Castell Mawr. Avery (1993b, 4.1, 22) noted that ‘free-standing stockades are commonly the earliest evidence of enclosure on the site of a later hillfort.’ Palisade elements are recorded, from cropmark aerial photography, at Banc-y-Gaer (site 6) and Caer

There is general agreement that palisades formed one of the earliest means of defensive enclosure in Wales and the borderlands, and that these may be roughly contemporary with other timber-laced or boxed rampart types which incorporate a wooden element (e.g. Dale, Moel y Gaer). That said, the construction of Llwyn Bryn Dinas was considerably more substantial. The excavators (Musson et al. 1992) described the first Late Bronze Age defences as comprising a ‘…substantial dump rampart’ with a stonerevetted face, still standing to 1.2m. A levelling layer of quarried stone sealed by the rampart produced radiocarbon dates of 760 ± 60 bc (cal 1010-790 BC). Rampart material was quarried both from a discontinuous external ditch and an internal quarry scoop (ibid., 277). The rampart at Caer Cadwgan was also stone built with a revetted face. Stanford’s (1980, 1991) work in Herefordshire has suggested that some of the earliest ramparts may have been quarried from upslope, leaving internal quarry scoops behind the rampart. This may leave the rampart with no corresponding outer ditch, but such a feature was recorded at Croft Ambrey, and Herefordshire Beacon (Children and Nash 1994, 100). However, this is a functional method of rampart construction from upslope; Stanford (1991, 52) notes that Caynham Camp had a later massive rampart partly built from internal quarrying over earlier rampart phases, while the Northumberland hillforts like Yeavering Bell were frequently built using the ‘downward’ method of rampart construction (Jobey 1965 cited in Pearson, T. 1998). Excavations at Castell Henllys

34

3: Settlements in the landscape

with the more coherently built enclosures of the Middle to Later Iron Age. The basic rampart of the mountain site at Castell Rhyfel (500m OD, Figures 3.7, 7.14 & 7.15) was formed by scooping up material from the interior, with no corresponding outer ditch. The final form of the rampart, which has never been slighted by cultivation, reached only c.1m at its highest point. This may be best considered as a footing wall for a palisade rather than a free-standing rampart, in a similar fashion to the basic, larger main enclosure at Pen y Bannau. The morphology of the primary, inner rampart at Penyffrwdllwyd (site 43, Figure 3.10) is very similar, with internal scoops and no outer ditch. Conversely, the secondary ramparts do have outer ditches showing a distinct morphological, and presumably chronological, difference. Similar quarry scoops behind the rampart are found at Dinas, Ponterwyd, which has a low rampart, but are also seen at Darren (Figure 5.17), where the nature of the rampart changes. Here the rampart attains a good height, with steep faces, unlike the low ‘palisade footings’ mentioned above. Although Middle to Late Iron Age dates have been obtained for the main rampart flanking the gateway at Darren (Timberlake 2007), a single cordoned pot sherd excavated by the author (Driver 1996a & b; Davies and Lynch 2000, 199), originally suggested a Late Bronze Age settlement horizon; the sherd has not been petrologically examined.

Figure 3.7 Two potentially early hillforts in north Ceredigion, similar in size and morphology (shown to scale). (top) Castell Rhyfel hillfort (site 42) near Tregaron in the south of the region (for a larger version of this plan see Figure 7.15), and (bottom), the potential palisaded enclosure at Berth-lwyd (site 74), east of Llanilar, discovered from the air in 1990 by RCAHMW (Crown

Other univallate hillforts featuring high, well built ramparts with stone facing, together with rock-cut outer ditches but no internal quarry scoops, include Hen Gaer, Pen y Castell, Penryhncoch Camp, Caer Penrhos, Old Warren Hill and the north fort at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Although the unexcavated forts would appear to be entirely univallate, surface evidence may well conceal several phases of work. A classic rampart section was revealed at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, during excavation of the north rampart of the south fort, immediately to the west of the main north gate (Figure 6.7; Forde et al. 1963, 132-134 & Fig. 7). In a single surface profile of a rampart, outer ditch and counterscarp, there were buried the remains of at least three periods of activity, including two phases of surfacing from earlier rampart walks preserved within the rampart. Although these multiple phases clearly manifested themselves in other, more visible, ways across the site, this demonstrates the false conclusions one might draw from interpreting larger single ramparts (e.g. at Hen Gaer) as single-phase structures, or indeed misinterpreting the potential number of phases of more complex fortresses like Pen Dinas, Elerch, (Figure 6.26) or Castell Grogwynion (Figure 6.32).

Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Argoed (for both see Figure 2.25) and to the east of Pen y Castell, Llanilar (Figures 3.36-3.38), although these are difficult to date. Other, smaller palisaded enclosures may not be early forts, but in fact lightly-built pastoral enclosures in the landscape (see 3.2.7.1. below). In respect of the identification of palisaded enclosures from aerial photography, Murphy (pers. comm. 2005) sounds a note of caution referring to Vyner’s excavations of Woodbarn Rath, Wiston in 1969 and 1980 (Vyner 1986). When the outer concentric enclosure, apparently the footing for a palisade trench, was sectioned it revealed a V-shaped ditch 1.90m wide and 0.95 deep, with no evidence for formalised stone packing (ibid., 123 & Fig. 2). Vyner preferred to interpret this as ‘…a boundary rather than a defence…’ with the outer yard performing a pastoral role (ibid., 130), but Murphy notes its unlikely status as a palisade trench despite its initial appearance as such on aerial photographs.The straggling pear-shaped cropmark enclosure at Berth-lwyd (site 74, Figure 3.7), south-east of Llanilar, is poorly defined on aerial photographs but seems to be enclosed by a narrow ditch, possibly a palisade trench. An early date could be likely because of the unusual, rather irregular, shape which is inconsistent

3.1.4 The middle to later Iron Age in Ceredigion, c.400 cal BC – AD 70 3.1.4.1 Settlement expansion The picture of defended settlement during the Middle Iron Age is one of the expansion and development of existing 35

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

most areas, sometimes… not appearing until the first century AD…’ Excavations by the Early Mines Research Group at Darren hillfort in 2005 provided some of the first modern radiocarbon dates for the region, crucially tied to the construction phases of the main gate and its subsequent occupation (Timberlake 2007). Charcoal from the first phase of bank construction from the ‘inner’ or main rampart at the gateway produced dates of 400 to 190 Cal BC at 95 % probability, whilst charcoal from the infill of a rubble core of a bank overlying this first phase produced dates of 380 to 80 Cal BC at 95 % probability, or Middle to Late Iron Age. The construction of the hillfort is placed firmly two or three centuries prior to the Roman invasion and fits well with the environmental evidence for landscape clearance under an expanding population. The most complex, later phases of Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, probably belong to the last two centuries BC. During the 1933-37 excavations, sherds of a Malvernian ‘duck-stamped’ jar were discovered against the outer face of the Phase 4 wall where it crossed the ditch of the north fort (Hogg and Davies 1994, 257). These sherds have been dated to 100BC (Forde et al. 1963, 151-2), or ‘…not earlier than the second century cal BC.’ (Davies and Lynch 2000, 155) Additional evidence comes from comparative dating of crossing bridges across corridor entrances, a feature seen in the gateways of the south fort and isthmus, Pen Dinas. Examples dated on the Welsh borderland to c.50 BC (Cunliffe 1991, 339; see discussion in 5.2.1 below) suggest these are a late feature. Examined alongside the regional paleoenvironmental evidence for a greater population and more intensive use of the landscape in later periods, it seems safe to assume that the majority of defended enclosures in north Ceredigion, together with multivallate hillforts and those with complex outworks, date from after c.400BC, the Middle to Later Iron Age, with expansion during the last two centuries BC.

Figure 3.8 Aerial photograph of Pen y Castell (site 40), from the east, showing the exceptional preservation of house platforms within the hillfort overlain by later ridge and furrow. The intermittent sections of bank and ditch, which are particularly marked at this site and make a Neolithic or Bronze Age origin date plausible. Compare with site plan in Figure 6.8. (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001/5091-51). hillforts into larger, multivallate ‘developed hillforts’ (Stanford 1991, 50, who noted that developed multivallation must belong to the later years of the Iron Age), the widespread use of the dump rampart for building (cited by Avery 1993b, para. 1.3, p1, as occurring between 300 BC and the Roman conquest), together with the rise of the glacis-type defence (Cunliffe 1991, 320322; Manning 1999, 21 & 28; actually a more formalised method of dump rampart). This period also saw the installation of very complex gateway forms and the crystallisation of territories under the control of central hillforts wielding regional political power (Cunliffe 1991, 320-322). Discussion of the paleoenvironmental evidence in Chapter 2 (see 2.2.6.2 to 2.2.6.4) has also demonstrated that the north Ceredigion landscape was subject to widespread clearances from the fifth to the first centuries BC, with active deforestation present in the Ystwyth Valley in the Late Iron Age and early Roman period (Taylor 1973). In many ways this period is understood to represent the main age of hillfort settlement, before the later Iron Age and Romano-British period saw a rise in smaller defended farmsteads and lowland forts.

3.1.4.2 Later Rampart morphology In discussing rampart types of the Middle Iron Age, Cunliffe (1991, 320-322) described the basic principle of defending a site with a bank of spoil and an outer ditch as being the most long-lived and established method, with origins in the second millennium BC, lasting in some areas to the period of the Roman conquest. Within this development, the fashion for free-standing walls revetted with timber or stone, fronted some distance away with a ditch, was a relatively short-lived, middle Iron Age phenomenon.

In his attempt to study the relative chronologies of the larger hillforts in the north of the county, and to identify later developed sites, Hogg (1994, 236) noted that ‘… the development of multivallation has… been considered to be of chronological validity.’ Cunliffe (1991, 322-3), after some discussion about the difficulties of what constitutes true multivallation as opposed to incremental enlargement of hillfort defences over a protracted period for different purposes and functions, noted that ‘Generally it may be assumed that multivallation was a late development in

As well as the basic dump rampart with an outer ditch, started in the fifth or even sixth centuries in the Welsh borderlands at sites like Croft Ambrey and Midsummer Hill (ibid., 322), Cunliffe described the glacis style of defence as a significant improvement upon earlier ramparts, which relied upon the strength and longevity of a free-standing wall. He noted an inherent weakness in the

36

3: Settlements in the landscape

Figure 3.9 Aerial photograph of Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (site 7), from the east. This view shows the denuded remains of up to two additional lines of defence downslope from the main isthmus enclosure (centre), which probably represent a second rampart below the main isthmus gate, and a counterscarp resulting from the cleaning of a rock cut ditch. These denuded ramparts have yet to be properly surveyed (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. 895003-19). freestanding defences arising when the wall required reconstruction in response to rotting timbers or basic flaws. The glacis defence, which dispensed with a berm between ditch and bank in favour of a continuous slope of 30-45 degrees from the ditch bottom to the summit of the rampart, was an extremely strong defensive solution. The only periodic maintenance required was keeping the ditch clear of silt, and these clearing episodes would lead to the formation of a counterscarp. Cunliffe dates glacis style defences in the south and east of Britain to a period centred on the Middle Iron Age (fourth to second centuries). A potential chronological range for the early rampart at the north fort, Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, has already been discussed above in 3.1.3.1, where similarities to the Poundbury type with timber strengthening were cited (Cunliffe 1991, 320 & Figure 14.3), a style which centres on the fifth to fourth centuries BC. It would be useful if the more sophisticated glacis style of defence could be identified in north Ceredigion, but surface identification is almost bound to fail. While surface evidence may suggest that a rampart profile continues down into the ditch (as at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, South Fort; Darren; Castell Flemish (Figures 7.28-7.30); Esgair Nant-yr-arian; Pen y Bannau and others) in practice it would be impossible to assess whether this was an original glacis defence or simply a slumped profile originating from a wall and fill type rampart (as is the case at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, Figure 6.7 and Darren, Figure 5.17). In the light of Cunliffe’s discussion on Middle-Late Iron Age ramparts, the predominance of wall and fill type ramparts with ditches separated by berms in north Ceredigion (as is preserved at Pen y Castell, Bontgoch; Figure 6.2), may be indicative of the survival of slightly older methods of building in the region, perhaps unaffected by the return to dump and glacis style

ramparts in the final centuries before the Roman invasion. More comprehensive excavation of a single complex hillfort, like Pen Dinas Aberystwyth or Castell Grogwynion, which would be able to tie specific methods of rampart construction to radiocarbon dates, and observable phases, could do a great deal to shed light on regional styles and trends in hillfort construction, alteration and ultimately, abandonment. These themes of settlement in the landscape are explored more fully in Chapter 8, against data presented in the following chapters of this volume. 3.1.4.3 Enlarged and developed hillforts A number of hillforts show evidence for clear expansion of an original, smaller enclosure, to a larger and more complex fort. Hogg (1994, 235) lists ‘5 or 6’ univallate forts with evidence of modification to multivallate enclosures (the sites are not specified). The classic examples of expanded, or developed, hillforts in the region are Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, on the coast (Figure 3.9; see Avery 1993a), and New Cross Camp (Site 14, Figure 3.6), the latter comprising a small circular stronghold, nearly trebled in size with the addition of a rectangular annex, possibly for an expansion of settlement or for the management of livestock. Caer Argoed (Figure 2.25) is basically a univallate fort on an inland promontory with an annexe attached, although the whole does appear to form a coherent defended enclosure and may have been built as a single phase. At Odyn Fach (Figure 2.24) Murphy (1989) noted that the inner and outer enclosures of this small concentric fort may have belonged to different phases because of their differing plans, but new air photo mapping for this volume 37

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

3.1.4.4 Settled landscapes of ‘small enclosures’ in north Ceredigion

suggests that the fort is relatively symmetric in plan, and conceivably of a single phase. A ‘site type’ in north Ceredigion is the developed ‘mountain fortress’, which in its final form most probably results from two or more phases of work. Hogg and Davies (1994, 266-267) describe Pen Dinas (Elerch) in some detail, as possibly belonging to three periods although the remains ‘…may in fact correspond to a single-period site of complicated plan.’ (Figure 6.26) Both these scenarios are possible. Castell Grogwynion (Figure 6.32) is a large hillfort with many internal subdivisions, overlooked from a small fortified outcrop at the west end. It is likely that the hillfort results from more than one phase of work, but it is difficult to ascertain how it may have developed. Surface evidence at Penyffrwdllwyd (Figure 3.10) would seem to indicate that this interesting fort, perched on the cliff edge of an inland promontory, began life as a simple enclosure formed by a massive rampart scraped up from internal quarry scoops, with no external ditch (the current inner enclosure). Subsequent ramparts are constructed differently and feature clear outer ditches. The entrance outworks at Penyffrwdllwyd are also irregularly spaced, further suggesting they were built over several phases of work. There are similarities to the nearby Cors Caron fort of Gilfach y Dwn fawr (site 88; see Figure 8.16).

Some of the best evidence for the evolution of an Iron Age landscape in west Wales comes from the Llawhaden project, from which it might be possible to identify broad parallels relating to the complexity of settlement in apparently densely settled landscapes. However, terminology and site types peculiar to Pembrokeshire, together with the whole problematic concept of seeing ‘West Wales’ as a coherent region (see 4.3 below) make direct parallels difficult. Williams and Mytum (1998, 5) draw a clear distinction between two types of ‘small enclosure’ site found in south-west Wales. The ‘small hillfort’ is described as relatively large, in local terms, ‘… sometimes multivallate and often situated in strong, naturally defensive positions – on hilltops or on promontories.’ The second, far more common, type is represented by ‘enclosed farmsteads’, previously referred to in the literature as ‘ringworks’. The authors note ‘These are smaller, tend to be univallate and are often located in non-defensive, hillslope positions’. They go on to observe that in north Ceredigion, small to large hillforts predominate, while the enclosed farmstead type is rare (ibid.). Dating evidence from Llawhaden showed intermittent building and abandonment of small hillforts in the Early Iron Age period, with a ‘proliferation’ of enclosed farmsteads in the Late Iron Age and early Roman period, together with an abandonment of larger hillforts (ibid., 142). In this respect there are two visible elements in the north Ceredigion settlement pattern, which can be paralleled with Romano British features in better studied landscapes in the south-west of Wales; the provision of annexes outside the main gateway (see section 5.2.3 and Figures 5.19 and 5.20), and the close pairing of small defended enclosures (see Figure 3.20; also the likely pairing of two small enclosures at Trawsgoed Park (site 20). This latter occurrence is thought to be evidence for cyfran, inheritance by gavelkind, where all sons benefited equally (Green and Howell 2000, 23) and land was thus parcelled off for each to build a new defended enclosure. Such a system is also termed ‘partible inheritance’ (see Cunliffe 1991, 537).

Hillforts with outworks, such as Darren (Figure 5.17) and Penlan-isaf (Figure 6.35), may represent univallate forts which were more heavily defended in subsequent phases, or the outworks may have performed non-defensive, annexe roles (see Chapter 5). The main façade at Castell, Tregaron (Figure 6.37) , features twin ramparts cutting off an inland promontory; the inner rampart forms a rightangle whilst the outer is a sweeping curve, suggesting the two may result from different phases of work. Crucial evidence at this site shows that the main gateway on the inner rampart would have been blocked and made invisible with the addition of the sweeping outer façade rampart, perhaps signalling that very impressive blocking outworks were indeed added to the more complex hillforts during later periods.

Williams and Mytum’s (1998) comment that north Ceredigion is dominated by a range of ‘small to large hillforts’ is a fairly cursory generalisation. However, this was an observation chiefly based on the upstanding earthworks. Sites more readily described as ‘enclosed farmsteads’ or, for this volume, small defended enclosures, are apparent among the plough-levelled monuments documented through cropmark aerial photography, and the exemplary work of the Prehistoric Defended Enclosures project funded by Cadw through the Dyfed Archaeological Trust from 2003 has provided plentiful new evidence of the archaeology and chronology of many of these plough-levelled sites (see Murphy and Manwaring 2004; Murphy 2007; Murphy and Mytum 2006, 2007 & 2012).

Figure 3.10 Penyffrwdllwyd; aerial photograph from the east showing main ramparts and ditches and numerous house platforms within the fort. See Figure 8.16 (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, AP_2012_1350).

38

3: Settlements in the landscape

3.1.5 Evidence from the Roman conquest Although the Roman invaders and historians left little in the way of specific documentary evidence concerning the peoples they encountered in mid and west Wales, certain deductions can be made from the distribution of marching camps of the early campaigns, and the eventual siting of Roman forts, to shed light on the distribution of native populations at the time of the conquest. Key questions relating to the study of the Iron Age and Roman interface in north Ceredigion are whether hillforts were still occupied in AD 70, whether a population was still extant in the landscape, or whether the Iron Age social system had disintegrated some years earlier. The Roman evidence suggests not only that a significant population was present along the three major river valleys, the Teifi, the Ystwyth and the Rheidol, in the AD 70s, but also that the local population was still cohesive enough in a social sense to have represented a significant potential threat to counter the Roman troops (explored in 3.1.5.2 below).

Figure 3.11 North Ceredigion, the Roman occupation. The map shows the north-south line of the Roman road, ‘Sarn Helen’, with a recently-discovered (1999) alternative route at Brenan in the centre of the study area. The map shows the principal Roman forts and fortlets within and close to the study area; A – Erglodd. B – Penllwyn, Capel Bangor. C – Trawsgoed. D – Llanio (Bremia). E – Cae Gaer. Compare with Figure 3.40 of the Cwm Gwyddyl hillfort group and the Roman road (Crown Copyright

3.1.5.1 Scapula’s campaigns AD 47-51 The Iron Age may have effectively lasted twenty years longer along the west and southwest coastal regions of Wales, than in the east, south or north of Wales (Manning 2001). Scapula’s initial suppression of the Silures took place in the years after AD 47, with the wars apparently culminating in the defeat of Caratacus in AD 51 in central Wales, possibly along the River Severn near Newtown (Webster 1981, 28-30; although other locations have been postulated). These first campaigns, chiefly against the Silures in the south and east, and the Ordovices in eastern mid Wales, may have been consolidated by Scapula’s successor, Gallus, in mid Wales by a fort at Llwyn-yBrain, near Caersws in the Upper Severn Basin, although the fort is basically undated (a single sherd of samian from the surface dates to the later 70s and early 80s AD; Dr Jeffrey Davies, pers. comm.). In the south-east, the concentration of forts closest to the study area were those in the middle Wye, including Clyro. Manning (2001, 1516) describes the situation in relation to west Wales thus:

RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Following air photo mapping for this volume, patterns of small enclosures emerge (see 3.2.5). To the north of the Rheidol, the settlement pattern is dominated by small to large hillforts and promontory forts, most of which are strongly sited. Small enclosures are present but not plentiful. The most densely settled ‘small enclosure zone’ is the Llanfihangel-y-Creuddyn basin (see 3.2.5.2; Figure 3.20), a side valley of the great Ystwyth valley and an area of low hills and ridges opening off a small central river valley. There are 10 small enclosures and one larger hillfort in an area 3 km x 4 km. The enclosures are not sited in readily-defensible positions, but rather occupy hillslopes and plateau edges overlooking the heart of the basin. A more dispersed zone of small enclosures and larger hillforts is found on the coast in the south-west of the study area, between Llanon and Llanrhystud (Figure 3.16). We might interpret these small enclosure zones as typical of Later Iron Age settlement in north Ceredigion. Whether these settlements ‘proliferated’ at a time when the larger hillforts were abandoned, as was the case in Llawhaden (Williams and Mytum 1998), is more debatable. The small enclosure zones are described more fully later in this chapter. At Llawhaden, and throughout south-west Wales, the Later Iron Age and Romano British periods saw development and proliferation of high-status ‘ring forts’ usually complete with elaborate entrances, and annexe or antenna features designed to heighten the symbolism of the entrance approach and to control visitors within the confines of the outer defences (see Williams and Mytum 1998; Mytum 1999).

‘The Severn Valley was the key to the north of Wales [and north Ceredigion] and the depth of Roman penetration along the valley is shown by the large fort at Llwyn-y-Brain [see note on dating above] near Caersws which… strategically… corresponds to Clyro in the Wye valley and together they indicate the importance which the Roman army placed on these major river valleys.’ Although occasional raids and incursions into unconquered territory may have begun to disrupt life in north Ceredigion, the region effectively enjoyed a respite from direct Roman control not seen in parts of eastern Wales. That said, any trade or communication which relied upon eastward contact may have been disrupted by

39

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

the Romans and, if so, this would certainly have had economic and cultural connotations (see Chapter 4).

enigmatic linear earthwork with down-turned terminals is sited on the hillslope between Trawsgoed Roman fort and Coed Allt Fedw hillfort above (see Figure 3.17; earthwork to the east of site 19). It has been postulated as a Roman siege work on the Ordnance Survey record card (NAR SN 67 SE 4), with an analogy cited for Burnswark, Dumfriesshire, but its exact date and purpose remain uncertain. Avery (1993a) argued that episodes of burning found at the north gate of the south fort, Pen Dinas, could have resulted from different phases of tactical attack by the Roman legions. There is no exact dating for any of the burning episodes, and the possibility remains that the gates were burnt for other reasons, either accidentally during dry periods (Browne and Driver 2001) or even for occasional ritual or clearance purposes as is supposed by the excavators of Castell Henllys (Mytum and Murphy, pers. comm.). However, some forts were no doubt still occupied at the time of the conquest. It is notable that the Ystwyth, or STVCTIA is one of the few river valleys to be named along the western seaboard of Wales; the broad mouth of the Dyfi estuary to the north, defended by the Roman fort at Pennal, remained unnamed in the Roman itineraries. This might be because the Ystwyth was one of the few main rivers on the west coast to be dominated by a large hillfort at its mouth, Pen Dinas.

3.1.5.2 The population of Ceredigion at the time of Frontinus’ campaigns The pattern of the Roman conquest of west Wales, seen first in the construction of upland marching camps for troop detachments on the move (Davies and Jones 2006, Figure 29), and later in the pattern of Roman forts and the road network, provides useful information about the Iron Age population of north Ceredigion and its distribution. With the accession to the throne of Vespasian in AD 69, renewed campaigns to bring Roman Britain under control were launched through Bolanus, Cerealis (AD 71-4) and, most importantly, Frontinus (AD 74-7), to whom the subjugation of Wales appears to have been entrusted (Davies 1994b, 281; Davies 2000, 13). The Iron Age communities in Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire must still have represented a significant population and threat to the Romans at the time of Frontinus’ campaigns. Temporary marching camps on the hills of western Powys, to the east of the study area, show the massing of troops prior to the invasion of the west coast. In particular the camp at Esgair Perfedd (6.5 ha/16 acres), in combination with camps at St. Harmon and Nantmel, point to a ‘… large expeditionary force moving west from the upper Wye probably towards the headwaters of the Ystwyth’ (Davies 1994b, 281). Davies (2000, 14) estimates that some 5,000 men were involved in this particular campaign. The Severn valley was also heavily defended as a major route into the heart of Wales (Davies 1994b, 280), as was the upper Wye east of Plynlimon, recognised as being a strategic route by the Romans with the construction of the small fort at Cae Gaer (Burnham and Davies 2010, 20910).

In the context of the regional hillforts, the siting of Roman forts at Trawsgoed and Penllwyn is interesting. Elaborate and potentially late hillforts are found bordering the Trawsgoed basin at Gaer Fawr and Castell Grogwynion, and on the Rheidol valley at Tan y Ffordd. It may be that these hillforts were still viable in the AD 70s, along with Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. The narrative of the middle Ystwyth corridor has changed considerably with the confirmation, through geophysical survey in 2009 and trial excavation in 2010-11 (by the author and Dr Jeffrey Davies), of a late Romano-British farming estate and villa at Abermagwr, first spotted during Royal Commission aerial reconnaissance in 2006 (Driver and Davies 2013). These new cropmarks radically altered the interpretation of a known but undated angular cropmark then called Nant Magwr (weir), site 101). There is a distinct likelihood that a proportion of the polygonal or square Romano-British style enclosures along the Ysytwyth valley, particular that at Pen-y-castell, Llanilar (Figure 3.38, site 16), may have been ‘client farms’ in the wider estate of the Romano-British villa.

Following the conquest during the middle years of the AD 70s, Roman forts were established in Ceredigion at Llanio (Bremia), on a crossing of the Teifi; Trawsgoed, at a crossing of the Ystwyth; and at Penllwyn, Capel Bangor, at a crossing of the Rheidol (Figure 3.11). While Roman forts were usually sited at 12-15 mile intervals to aid communications and troop movements and to allow supportive action and reinforcement in times of crisis from neighbouring forts (Davies 1994b, 282), they were also intended to control areas of local population (e.g. Manning 2001, 27). Davies (1994b, 282) specifically notes that the three north Ceredigion forts ‘…were also in all probability placed with a view to supervising concentrations of population.’

3.2 THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN 3.2.1 Introduction: considering settlement patterns

We have no direct evidence of Roman attack on any native settlement in Ceredigion in the form of finds of weaponry, evidence of assault or the slighting of defences (Davies, 1994b, 281). It is difficult to identify any Roman interaction with the hillforts, beyond much later stray finds of Roman pot-sherds at Pen Dinas Lochtyn (Scott and Murphy 1992) and a late Roman coin from Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (see Browne and Driver 2001, 32-33). An

In 1926 when Hughes described the camps of north Ceredigion his corpus numbered 28 earthworks. In 1994, when Hogg and Davies published their review and gazetteer of Iron Age enclosures in Ceredigion as part of Volume I of the Cardiganshire County History, known sites in the study area had almost doubled to 51. Much of the preparation for the volume was done during the 1980s,

40

3: Settlements in the landscape

prior to numerous aerial discoveries. 3 The present study takes advantage of many more years of archaeological aerial photography in north Ceredigion, which has bought to light many and varied new discoveries. Consequently, this study draws on a sample of sites and monuments almost doubled again from the Cardiganshire County History. One hundred and thirteen are presently recorded ranging from the largest hillfort in the county, Pen Dinas at 4.7ha, to small palisaded ‘stock’ enclosures, incomplete stretches of curving ditch noted on aerial photos, nine place-name records and six enclosure sites of uncertain age. 4 Nine further discoveries were made in the dry summer of 2006 (Driver 2007b; see Appendix 1) and during subsequent reconnaissance work, but too late to be incorporated in the maps of this study. These surviving hillforts and enclosures recorded from north Ceredigion represent an accumulation of derelict settlements perhaps spanning 1000 years. Against a map of hillforts and defended enclosures in Wales, north Ceredigion is now one of the more densely occupied landscapes of later prehistory (Figure 4.2).

Figure 3.12 Ptolemy’s tribes of Wales (Chiefly after Webster 1981, Figure 1, with several additions). This new map, produced for Cadw’s Defended Enclosures project, shows the minor tribes of the Gangani and the Octapitai who occupied the discrete territories of the far western peninsulas of north and south Wales. In the author’s opinion, no tribal names exist for the coherent groupings of population who must have occupied much of Ceredigion, the upper and middle Wye valley, and other discrete territorial areas such as the Gower peninsula in south Wales (Prepared by M. Ritchie and T. Driver. © Cadw, Welsh Government (Crown Copyright)).

Enclosed settlements did not exist as isolated places in a sterile landscape (see Johnston and Roberts 2003, 101). Blair Gibson (1996, 116) noted; ‘The social structure of any society is reflected in part in the distribution of the populace over space, that is, by the spatial patterning of activity and residence.’ The act of enclosure demarcated particular places which were deemed conducive to settlement, or were seen as appropriate sites for defence, or political control. However, the hillforts were set in vibrant, working landscapes with their own histories, communities, rules of access or ownership, networks for communication and places of sacred importance. The Research Agenda (Haselgrove et al. 2001) called for a move away from map-led analysis where ‘…the natural landscape becomes a blank backdrop against which Iron Age life is played out.’ (ibid., 10). The development of an agrarian sociology for the Iron Age is discussed, where an existing preoccupation with settlements is widened considerably to encompass patterns of farming and gathering which supported the settlement and the nonsettlement locations for industry and manufacture, together with an understanding of daily work schedules, seasonal cycles, and allocation of duties within the farming societies of the Iron Age. While the main volume of this research concerns itself with the hillfort architecture and Iron Age landscape, within this chapter themes pertaining to an agrarian sociology are introduced, and the existence of lowland stock management enclosures is discussed in 3.2.7.

3.2.2 Iron Age Wales and the borderlands: a regional overview Whilst the principality of Wales is a post-Roman political concept, it is still convenient to discuss Wales and the borders as a geographical entity distinct from the plains of the English Midlands and defined on all other boundaries by the sea and major estuaries. 3.2.2.1 The Roman record of the Welsh tribes The summary of the tribal areas of pre-Roman Wales provided by the Roman geographer Ptolemy acts as a useful starting point in the study of regionalism. Whilst the attribution of specific boundaries and geographic areas to particular tribes varies, often considerably, among scholars (e.g. Webster 1981, Fig. 1; Cunliffe 1991, Fig. 9.1; Davies 2000, Fig. 1.1A; Manning 2001, and see detailed discussion in Burnham and Davies 2010, 19-22), it is generally agreed that Wales was occupied by five or six main tribes at the time of the Roman conquest: the Demetae in the south-west (approximating Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire); the Silures in the south and east (approximately modern Glamorgan and parts of Brecknock to the Wye); the Ordovices in the mid and north-west of Wales (broadly Anglesey, Gwynedd and much of Powys, although Davies (2000, Fig 1.1A) brings

3

For north Ceredigion, as defined in the present study, they described 53 sites, comprising 40 earthwork monuments, 9 cropmark sites discovered from aerial photographs, 2 place-name sites and 2 sites recorded from ground investigation or excavation. 4 In the current study, 53 cropmark or plough-levelled sites are now recorded for the region. 41

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

the territory south into Ceredigion); and the Deceangli in the north-east (modern Denbighshire and the Clwydian range; but see above references for detailed historical discussions about particular tribal boundaries). The Cornovii occupied the fringe of north-east Wales, the borderlands and the Cheshire and Shropshire plains. Cunliffe (1991) shows the Dobunni occupying south-east Wales east of the Usk, together with parts of Avon and Somerset. The names of two further minor tribes are recorded. Webster (1981, 18), Cunliffe (1991, 185), Davies (2000, 3) and Green and Howell (2000, 20) mention the Gangani/ganganoi who Ptolemy notes occupied the Llǔn peninsula, a distinct geographic unit with fairly distinct stone-built hillforts. Green and Howell (ibid.) go as far as to postulate that a number of sub-tribes ‘... contributed to the mosaic of society in Iron Age Wales.’ However, most writers outside Wales tend to overlook the presence of the Octapitai, who were recorded on St David’s Head in Pembrokeshire.

3.2.2.2 Regional variations in Welsh Iron Age settlement archaeology; an overview The necessity for countrywide synthesis can encourage sweeping statements which describe Wales as a land of hillforts, or the south-west as a region of ‘small enclosures’. In fact, certain types of Iron Age and Romano-British settlement types are found in distinctive clusters; some are common to a region, but entirely absent from others. The character of hillforts and defended enclosures in Wales is strongly regional, a point reflected in the findings of Jackson’s (1999) survey of hillfort settlement over an extensive sample region on the Welsh Marches. Hillforts appear to have been the dominant later prehistoric settlement type in eleven main regions of Wales: The Llǔn peninsula, Clwyd and Denbighshire, Montgomeryshire and the Welsh borderlands, Gwent, the middle Wye valley/Brecknock, south Wales and the Vale of Glamorgan, Gower, north Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire and parts of Pembrokeshire. By far the largest hillforts in Wales are found along the central and north-eastern borderlands, and west along the north Wales seaboard to the Llǔn peninsula (Smith 2001). The borderlands appear to have acted as a ‘frontier zone’ between the Midlands plains to the east and the Cambrian Mountains to the west. Where the Welsh mountains meet the lower-lying plains of the upper Severn basin and Shropshire there occur very large hillforts such as the Breiddin (with origins in the later Bronze Age), and Ffridd Faldwyn in Montgomeryshire. The Montgomeryshire lowlands also preserve many smaller forts (now mostly ploughlevelled), like Collfryn (Britnell 1989), which allow the study of a tolerably complete Iron Age landscape (see also Spurgeon 1972; Collens 1988; Musson 1994 & 2012; Wigley 2007). There have been substantial publications on individual Montgomeryshire sites including the Breiddin (Musson 1991), Collfryn (Britnell 1989) and Arddleen (see Grant 2004) as well as a synthesis of the small enclosure evidence (Silvester and Britnell 1993). The high ground of the Clwydian Range to the north-east is dominated by a series of very large hillforts including Penycloddiau, Moel Hiraddug and Dinorben (see Gale 1991; Burnham 1995; Driver 2011a). West of the borderlands, pockets of lower-lying ground penetrate the mountains of central Wales along the major river valleys. In these constricted small zones, bordered by high ground, scatters of hillforts and defended enclosures developed in the Iron Age, chiefly in the middle reaches of the Usk near Brecon (RCAHMW 1986), the Radnorshire hills northeast of Builth Wells, and the upper Severn basin in Montgomeryshire (Spurgeon 1972; Collens 1988).

These main ‘tribal’ groupings are misleading if we are attempting to evaluate the political geography of Wales during the Iron Age (see Collens 1988, 343). They are generally agreed to represent combined peoples who united in the face of the Roman threat, under native ‘kings’ and ‘queens’ like Caratacus and Cartimandua (e.g. Creighton 2001, 4). The record of the minor tribal names along the west coast, no doubt documented during sea passages, is far more instructive as regards the true number of tribes that probably existed in Wales, each tied to a distinct area. The surviving names of Octapitai and Gangani describe territories only a few tens of miles across 5 , rather than the pan-Wales county-sized groupings otherwise described by Ptolemy and the historian Tacitus (Driver 2007a, 49). The Llǔn Peninsula of the Gangani is home to several distinctive and commanding stone-built hillforts. The St. David’s peninsula of the Octapitai has one major promontory fort and a headland subdivided by one or more field systems, a good proportion of which are thought to have prehistoric origins (see Murphy 2001; Driver 2007a, 95-8). Accordingly, it seems reasonable to assume that north Ceredigion had a number of smaller tribes, perhaps as did the Clywedog group to the east and those settlements clustered along the central Teifi valley near Lampeter. The existence of numerous small groups would reflect far more realistically what is already suggested by the archaeological record; that Iron Age Wales was a land of small regions linked by common architecture and settlement patterns but also displaying marked local distinctiveness (see Gwilt 2003, 112). Similar themes were explored by Sellwood (1984) in her investigation of ‘sub-tribal’ boundaries in the Wessex/Upper Thames area based on a study of numismatic evidence (ibid., Fig. 13.11).

Landscapes of open settlement, chiefly hut groups, dispersed huts and associated field systems and terraced fields, exist in western Gwynedd/Merionethshire (Smith 2001), northeast Gwynedd to Conwy, Anglesey, parts of lowland east Montgomeryshire/Four Crosses, the Glamorgan uplands chiefly around the Rhondda

5

The St David’s Head peninsula extends to approximately 14km east-west by 9km north-south, whereas the Llǔn peninsula is larger, approximately 44 km northeast/southwest by 12km north-south, to the upland boundary of Snowdonia. 42

3: Settlements in the landscape

(RCAHMW 1976), the Preseli mountains, west and north Pembrokeshire (Murphy 2001; Murphy and Manwaring 2004; Driver 2007a) and the western islands. The distribution of open settlements and fields cannot merely be attributed to present-day survival, or even to the nature of the prehistoric farming environment. For example, the discontinuity between the Llanfairfechan/Conwy upland landscape of near continuous prehistoric farms and fields, and the rolling Denbighshire hills east of the Conwy valley, with sparse hillforts interspersed with open country, appears to be real and not a product of more recent patterns of destruction. Aerial photography is gradually revealing some open settlements in Denbighshire (Musson 1994, 105); it is highly likely that many have been ploughed away to present a false impression of absence. However, the terraced nature of the fields around Rowen, Conwy (see Burnham and Davies 2010, Figure 4.4), continuing those recorded at Llanfairfechan, Caernarfonshire, and Dyffryn Ardudwy, Merionethshire, suggests that comparable fields would still remain as relict surface topography on cultivated hillslopes if they once existed in Denbighshire, Montgomeryshire or Ceredigion. The field evidence suggests they did not.

In the study region we have hillforts, lowland defended enclosures and defended farmsteads. There are hillslope gully enclosures unusual in Wales (see 3.2.7 below), but no concentric antenna enclosures except Pant Wilog (site 53) in the far south of the study area, near Llanon. Romano-British style square or polygonal enclosures are also rare in the study area suggesting cultural or economic differences from south-coastal Ceredigion and lowland Montgomeryshire. Exceptional sites at Pen-y-castell (site 16; Figure 3.38) and Ynysycapel (site 106) are both located close to recently-discovered sites of RomanoBritish buildings or industry. Fragments of field systems survive appended to lowland cropmark sites like Glan Ffrwd (Figure 2.22), around Pen-y-Gaer fort (3.2.3.1 below) and in upland areas such as the early landscapes of the upper Cletwr valley, Hafod Ithel and Nant Groes Fawr (see 7.4.3. below; Briggs 1994, Figs. 14-16; 129-133). But some Ceredigion hillforts stand in ‘pristine’ upland areas, where there has been little or no agricultural improvement since prehistoric times, show no evidence for organised or permanent field boundaries in their environs and thus a different approach to cultivation or the management of livestock, from those apparent in other parts of Wales where field boundaries survive, must have existed.

In 1991, Terry James published the new discovery of the ‘concentric antenna’ type enclosure (James 1991; and see Driver 2007a, 166-173). Subsequent air photo mapping has identified these enclosures in pockets around Cardigan, and as isolated examples in central Ceredigion (Driver 2004a; Murphy and Manwaring 2004; Murphy et al. 2004). They are lowland versions of the concentric hillforts and homesteads recorded in Glamorgan, chiefly on Mynydd Margam (RCAHMW 1976), and along the western Merionethshire coast bordering Dyffryn Ardudwy (Bersu & Griffiths 1949). Recent excavations by the Dyfed Archaeological Trust on circular lowland cropmark sites like Ffynnonwen in south Ceredigion (Murphy and Mytum 2012) have begun to suggest a pattern of early establishment in the eighth-sixth centuries BC, early Iron Age, with development into the later Iron Age and Romano-British periods. There are considerable tracts of Wales where aerial survey has consistently failed to find similar concentric antenna enclosures including Ceredigion north of Llanon. This brief overview of regional patterns of characteristic Iron Age/Romano British settlement does not attempt to be comprehensive, and is largely drawn from observations from pan-Wales aerial photography by the author. It could only be consolidated into regional statements in a separate study (potentially derived from data from the Cadw Pan-Wales Defended Enclosures project (see Smith 2003)). It indicates that distinct, regional differences were present in Wales in respect of preferred settlement types and preferred pastoral/agricultural regimes (Gwilt 2003, 112). Some of these differences can be explained with reference to environmental factors, but this does not account for the distinctive regional discontinuities between neighbouring geographic areas.

3.2.3 Iron Age settlement in north Ceredigion; a review of the evidence The later prehistoric settlements of north Ceredigion are not uniformly distributed throughout the region, but rather conform to the strongly demarcated topography. Hillforts and enclosures appear to have been chiefly built along the lower-lying coastal valleys and hills in the west of the study area, extending into the more readily accessible ridges and peaks of the hill-fringe zone (up to approximately 190 – 230m OD), but rarely into the higher ground and exposed moorland of the mountain zone above 300m OD, although there are notable exceptions (e.g. Castell Rhyfel; Dinas, Ponterwyd). Watersheds, ridges and valley ‘corridors’ imposed a structure on the landscape, which served to demarcate the settled landscapes into distinct topographic areas, without the need for artificial dykes or the demarcation of boundaries identified in other landscapes of Iron Age Britain (e.g. Bevan 1997; Collis 1996, 87). Enclosed settlements are numerous in lower-lying areas with well-developed valley systems close to fertile lowlands. Areas of unbroken plateau appear to have been less well exploited. Where sites have been destroyed by ploughing, we are reliant on aerial photography (in the absence of wide-ranging programmes of field walking or remote sensing), to reveal the positions of buried sites, as explored in Chapter 2. 3.2.3.1 The agricultural economy Aspects of the agricultural landscape, both in terms of the economy, structural evidence and movement and trade, are dealt with throughout this volume. This subsection is merely intended to introduce some general themes and

43

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

systems close to, or in association with, hillforts does not necessarily mean that their chronology is properly understood, a point made by Frodsham et al. (2007, 260) discussing the Cheviot hillforts. Bell (1998, 177) commented on the omission of field system evidence from Davies and Hogg’s (1994) discussion of the Iron Age settlements, citing undated radiating boundaries at Caer Cadwgan which should have augmented the published site plan. During fieldwork for this volume, a similar pattern of radiating field boundaries was investigated around Pen y Gaer hillfort on the western fringes of Cors Caron (Figure 3.13). They appear potentially prehistoric as they are truncated by the north-south line of the Roman road, Sarn Helen, which is well-marked and proven here. A field visit by the author and Andrew Fleming in 2000 revealed little evidence for any visible antiquity to the individual field boundaries (in terms of plough-soil accumulation into long-lived lynchets). However, the relationship between these boundaries and the Roman road still does offer the real possibility that pre-Roman boundaries have been ‘fossilised’ by relatively modern boundaries, and shows tantalising remnants of a major pre-Roman field system in Ceredigion. Without the presence of the Roman road the significance of the fields may not have been recognised. Cereal growing probably continued in more favourable macro-environments (ibid.), and Davies and Hogg (1994, 230) noted the discovery of crop-processing waste to the rear of the rampart at Caer Cadwgan. Pollen analysis of the soils at the fort also suggested ‘…a change from a pastoral economy with some arable to a pastoral monoculture’ (ibid.). There is good artefactual evidence from the study area for the processing of wool. Davies and Lynch (2000, 176) note that spindle-whorls and loom-weights may be the only such evidence to be recovered from Welsh settlements where animal bones do not survive. Spindle-whorls are a comparatively common find in Ceredigion (see Hancox 1999, 8), although they are largely from undated contexts. Both spindle whorls and loom weights are known from Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (Forde et al. 1963, 153; Davies and Hogg 1994, 229-30), and the find spot for one loom weight, below occupation layers found on the eastern terraces of the south fort (ibid., Fig. 8), suggested craft activities focussed in this area. Two shale spindle whorls have also been found in Roman contexts at the Abermagwr Roman villa.

Figure 3.13 A likely pre-Roman field system at Pen-yGaer, Llanbadarn Odwyn. Radiating field patterns focus on Pen y Gaer hillfort (site 8), and are cut by the northsouth line of the Roman road, Sarn Helen (bold line), which also bisects rectangular fields in the vicinity of Trecoll hillfort (site 9) to the north. Field inspection in 2000 failed to produce any evidence that the boundaries involved were more substantial or ancient than others nearby. However, in a long-cultivated and managed landscape this is not unexpected and the map evidence remains convincing. Contours at 200m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

lines of evidence, prior to investigation in greater depth in the latter part of Chapter 3 and in Chapters 4, 5 and 8. 3.2.3.1.1 Livestock and field systems Variable evidence for the later prehistoric agricultural economy across the regions of Wales, such as it existed in published form to 1991, was reviewed by Cunliffe (1991, 394-98). More recently, Gwilt (2003, 108) has commented on the continuing paucity of evidence. It is by no means clear if sheep or cattle formed the main subsistence base in Iron Age mid Wales and Davies and Lynch (2000, 176), in briefly reviewing the evidence for bone assemblages or even hoofprints from contemporary sites, draw a conclusion in favour of the predominance of sheep and goats. Cunliffe (1991, 379) notes in general terms that ‘Cattle and sheep were reared in large numbers while pigs played a subsidiary role.’ For mid Wales and for the Aberystwyth area in particular, a pastoral economy no doubt predominated.

3.2.3.1.2 Transhumance The agricultural year in Wales from early Medieval times was dominated by the practice of transhumance, which as Webley (1976, 24) stated, was ‘… governed by the need of the animals to go where the grass is growing, and it is organised to involve a minimum of travel.’ In describing the antiquity of this practice, Webley (1976, 23) quoted Giraldus Cambrensis on the lives of twelfth century Welsh peasants; ‘After corn sowing, they moved their stock to the uplands for the summer, and returned in time to harvest the crop from their small plots.’ Pennant (in Webley, 1976, 24) further noted from his 1778 description

Evidence from Caer Cadwgan, Lampeter, suggests that ‘… sheep were twice as numerous as cattle.’ (Cunliffe 1991, 395-6). Evidence of field systems for cultivation is rare, except for fragmentary traces around some hillforts like Glan Ffrwd (Figure 2.22). The existence of field 44

3: Settlements in the landscape

of Snowdonia that; ‘..Its [transhumance’s] produce is cattle and sheep which, during summer, keep very high in the mountains followed by their owners with their families… Towards winter they descend to their Hendref, or old dwelling, where they lead, during that season, a vacant life.’ It is uncertain to what extent transhumance as a method for differential summer and winter dwelling was practiced in Iron Age Wales, but the siting of hillforts and the potential ownership of territories between the upland and lowland zones may have exerted a degree of control over the movement of animals, and people, between the two (see discussion in section 8.4.3 below). The question is quite extensively examined by Smith (2001, 45-6) in his discussion of the later prehistoric period in north-west Wales. Questions of pastoral activity and landscape movement are more fully explored in Chapter 8 below. 3.2.3.1.3 Redistribution and hillfort interiors Figure 3.14 The commanding position occupied by Pen Dinas hillfort (site 7) at Aberystwyth, central to a coastal inlet bordered to the north and south by coastal cliffs and also sited at the confluence of the rivers Rheidol (to the north) and Ystwyth (to the south). Very few other sites are recorded for the vicinity aside from the very large inland promontory fort at Old Warren Hill, Nanteos (site 13). The spread of housing, roads and other development to the east and south of Aberystwyth may have obscured or even destroyed potential contemporary enclosures nearby

The question of north Ceredigion hillforts serving a redistributive role through the long-term storage of grain is problematic. The possible ‘four poster’ discovered in a limited trench during the original excavations of Pen Dinas Aberystwyth (Forde et al. 1963; Browne and Driver 2001, 14) may well have been part of a larger, non-storage structure, although the ‘four-post structure’ discovered at Pen Dinas Lochtyn, Ceredigion during the 1990-91 excavations (Scott and Murphy 1992, 9 & Fig. 2) was a more definite structure, 3m x 3.5m with both the westernmost corner posts having been replaced at least once. Guilbert (1981) has previously reviewed the wide range of potential functions of four-post structures, many of which are unrelated to agriculture. It is by no means certain that a ‘redistributive’ role for a hillfort controlling people within a region would have been manifested by four-post structures alone, especially if the agricultural economy in north Ceredigion was mainly or significantly pastoral. Williams and Mytum (1998) interpreted small hillforts in the Llawhaden region of inland south-west Wales with closely-packed huts and no yard areas as highstatus consumer sites, reliant on those with more dispersed huts and larger agricultural yard areas, which were interpreted as the producer sites within a stratified system (see 1.5 above).

(Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

(Figure 8.19; Roseveare 2012). Cropmark evidence from a handful of forts including Caer Argoed, Banc-y-Gaer (Figure 2.25), Glan Ffrwd and Odyn Fach (Figure 2.24) shows that rock cut pits were present. Without wider geophysical survey or excavation it will be difficult to assess how the internal areas of these highly variable hillforts were utilised. It may be of limited use to judge the storage or market potential of a hillfort on its interior alone. A number of forts have annexes (discussed in 5.2.3 below) which could be interpreted as public or market spaces linked to the agricultural or pastoral economy. 3.2.3.1.4 Cattle and Iron Age status

Lacking excavation data, we can still observe patterns of internal settlement organisation from surviving hut platforms and also pits (from cropmark aerial photography). Where house platforms are preserved in hillforts these show variable patterns of internal organisation; huts are evenly spaced and fill the internal areas of Pen y Castell and Darren (plans, Figures 6.8 and 5.17). Elsewhere, at Pen Dinas Elerch and Pen Dinas Aberystwyth, Pen y Bannau (plan, Figure 6.37), Castell Grogwynion (plan, Figure 6.32) and Gilfach y Dwn Fawr, close-set groups of house platforms are found in demarcated areas within wider, more ‘empty’ hillfort interiors. Recent geophysical survey at Castell Grogwynion has shown up to three house platforms surviving on the upper terrace within the fort

There is considerable evidence to suggest the high importance of cattle in Iron Age society (e.g. Green and Howell 2000, 29-30). Barker (1989, 223) contrasts the paucity of archaeological evidence for farming societies in the Iron Age in Wales with the complexity of ‘Celtic’ society as represented in Early Christian sagas. He wrote ‘… cattle were a major source of wealth for the warrior aristocracy, and their appropriation from neighbours by force of arms the fittest pursuit for heroes’. Cunliffe (1991, 537), describing the settlements of his southwestern zone (including the study area) notes that ‘[because] …many of these sites are planned with stock management in mind and lie in areas apparently devoid of field systems suggests that wealth and status may have 45

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

(Figure 3.4), may indicate the importance of this position as a landing and embarkation point between the sea and the interior, and may result from the recognition of the Wye-Ystwyth-Wyre fault as a useful overland route in prehistory. Travelling north to Aberystwyth, the hill of Pen Dinas appears from the sea as a favourable landing place, set within a lowland ‘amphitheatre’ of surrounding valleys framed by sea cliffs to the north and south. In contrast to the situation encountered in Pembrokeshire, Glamorgan and Gower or north-west Wales, the north Ceredigion coast away from major inlets does not appear to have been an important focus for defended settlement in the Iron Age. It undoubtedly had a vital role for the purposes of landing and embarkation and for all aspects of the maritime economy, but no coastal promontory forts are known from the study area. They are only encountered in the south of the county, south of Newquay.

Figure 3.15 Panorama of the Llanrhystud coastal plain with hillforts of Castell Mawr (left) and Castell Bach (right) in the foreground (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 895002-18).

In 2001, Cunliffe suggested that prehistoric Atlantic communities developed a special relationship with the coast, beyond that of merely trade, contact and resources. He wrote (ibid., 9) ‘…the domains of land and sea were conceived of as separate systems subject to their own very different supernatural powers, the interface between them was a liminal place…The power of the boundary between land and sea must always have been very real in the consciousness of those who inhabited the maritime regions…’. The proposition is that coastal communities would have had an inevitable preoccupation with the sea. Evidence from promontory forts along the south-west coast of Wales shows considerable regional differences in perceptions of the sea. Coastal forts are found in considerable numbers in south Ceredigion and especially Pembrokeshire, where a prominent coastal settlement focus is obvious. The architecture and role of coastal promontory forts in Pembrokeshire was recently revisited by Barker and Driver (2011). Fewer good coastal promontory locations exist along the flatter, less indented coastline of Ceredigion. However, the positioning of the hillforts and coastal forts in the study area, together with the orientation of their monumental façades, seems to suggest that considerable movement and trade may have been emanating from the east, and not from the sea. Rather than ‘facing the ocean’, many of the key forts in north Ceredigion turn their backs on the coast in favour of a landward vista, specifically facing the mountains and their expected travellers and visitors (see Chapters 4 and 7).

been measured in terms of cattle.’ Dodgshon (1996, 1047) documents continuing chiefly value in the theft/appropriation of cattle via raiding from neighbouring chiefdoms in the Western Isles of Scotland. There is evidence from enclosures ancillary to hillforts in north Ceredigion, together with specialised hillslope enclosures (both explored below in this chapter) and even hillfort annexes (see Chapters 5 and 8), that the enclosure and management of stock were important activities in this region during the later prehistoric period and warranted not only the structural elaboration of hillfort entrances but the construction of separate stock-related enclosures. 3.2.4 Settlement patterns in north Ceredigion: the west coast It is likely that a good deal of north/south movement in prehistoric times was by sea, off the easily navigable coast with its numerous inlets and natural harbours. McGrail (1993, 207) described later prehistoric boats of the crosschannel trade thus; ‘[they]… were beached at… informal landing places on a falling (ebb) tide, or they were anchored off the beach and their goods unloaded into smaller boats… or horse drawn carts… Where there was a firm beach there need be no fixed structures.’ (see Hogg 1994, 236). In 1926, Hughes (29) suggested that both Pen Dinas at Aberystwyth, and the Llanrhystud forts stood ‘… at the opening of important routes to the interior from the best landing places on the coast’. At Llanrhystud (Figures 3.15 & 3.16), the raised beach presented a green lowland strip backed by low hills, to the north of which ran a line of sea cliffs all the way to Aberystwyth. The Wyre valley which issues at Llanrhystud would have presented a ready overland route to the interior of north Ceredigion (Figure 4.1). It forms a major inland corridor, running eastwards to connect with the Ystwyth at the Trawsgoed basin, and thence overland to the Wye Valley. The relative proliferation of smaller hillforts at Llanrhystud, together with the major fort of Caer Penrhos

Pen Dinas at Aberystwyth does occupy a strong and prominent coastal hill (see Figure 3.14), yet its defences are nearly invisible from the sea. The focus of its main gateways and its terraced ramparts is towards the land. At the putative ‘coastal community’ of forts around Llanrhystud, at the mouth of the Wyre and Wyre Fach rivers, the forts of Castell Mawr and Castell Bach lie closest to the sea (Figures 3.15). The defences of both aggrandise the landward side of a defensible coastal hill. Castell Bach does employ a notch in the hillslope to signal

46

3: Settlements in the landscape

Figure 3.17 Trawsgoed lowland basin, environs. Map showing all known later prehistoric sites including sites of uncertain age (brackets) and place-name sites (crosses). Note the location of larger hillforts (e.g. Cefn Blewog, 25; Gaer Fawr, 17; Penlan-isaf, 62) on prominent ridges and higher hills elevated around the peripheries of the lowland basin. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m

Figure 3.16 The Llanrhystud group of coastal forts. This coastal inlet, dissected by several minor river valleys, was well settled in Iron Age times. In the south-west a pair of hillslope enclosures (Troed y Rhiw, site 1 and Pant Wilog 53) flank the Afon Peris inland of Llanon and both have characteristics of pastoral enclosures, potentially cattle corrals (see 3.2.7.). To the north-east is the main concentration of forts and enclosures, the pair of small promontory forts of Castell Mawr (site 3) and Castell Bach (site 4) together with a smaller promontory enclosure (site 2). On the floor of the Wyre Fach valley is the fragmentary rectangular enclosure at Pont Dol-boeth (site 65), but the largest local hillfort is Caer Penrhos (site 52) dominating an inland hill set back from the coastal inlet. Across the valley of the Afon Wyre to the north is the morphologically simple promontory fort at Gilfach-hafel (site 5).Contours at 50m and 100m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

(Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

3.2.5 Settlement patterns in north Ceredigion: the lowlands The settlement evidence suggests that the favourable locations of the lowland basins where abundant resources were found (woodland, rivers/streams, sheltered hillslopes), combined with encircling high ridges for observation or protection and overland contact, formed ideal settings for agricultural communities to flourish. Together with the major river corridors of the Rheidol and the Ystwyth, lowland basins are a notable feature of the north Ceredigion landscape, usually formed along smaller rivers (among them the Wyre in the south, and the Paith, the Clarach and the Leri in the central and north of the region), with sheltered hillslopes and the potential for good grazing and arable cultivation, all apparently conducive to the establishment of later prehistoric farming communities. Indeed, the Trawsgoed basin is still rated as good agricultural land (Grade 3) in the MAFF/WOAD land classification, showing that these lowland basins provided important foci for prehistoric enclosure building and agriculture (Figure 2.11) Prehistoric settlement along the lowland river valleys occurred in four main types of location; on promontory positions overlooking the valleys (usually from the north side, in south facing positions), on hillslopes above the valleys, on the peripheries of lowland basins formed by smaller river systems, or in very lowlying positions on gravel ridges elevated above the valley floor.

its defences to people approaching from below, along the coastal plain (discussed in context in 6.2.4.3). However Caer Penrhos, the largest fort of the group, and one of the most substantial in the region tucked some 2.5km inland, is conspicuously hidden from a sea view, partially concealed from the sea by coastal hills. Caer Penrhos, along with many forts in the region described in Chapters 6 and 7, throws its visual weight into presenting an impressive eastern façade to visitors approaching overland along the hills bordering the Wyre valley. There are no coastal promontory forts in Ceredigion north of the Aeron valley. Arguably, suitable locations exist on the cliffs between Llanrhystud and Aberystwyth, with fewer between Aberystwyth and Borth, for the type of coastal promontory fort which occurs in profusion along the Pembrokeshire coast. In the lowland basins north of the Rheidol (see 3.2.5.3.) settlement is focused inland, with coastal hills, valleys and cliffs conspicuously avoided.

47

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 3.18 Llanfihangel y Creuddyn lowland basin and Ystwyth ‘corridor’: Aerial photograph showing prevailing topography and the locations of hillforts and defended enclosures. Compare with Figure 3.19 (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001-cs-0632).

Figure 3.19 Interpretation of Figure 3.18, illustrating the major concentration of later prehistoric enclosures in this fertile landscape, characterised by lowland basins, valley junctions and river ‘corridors’ (T. Driver). 48

3: Settlements in the landscape

3.2.5.3.2), the Bow Street basin (Figure 3.22) and the Cwm Gwyddyl group (see 3.2.5.4) on the western fringes of Cors Caron. The lowlands were clearly fertile agricultural zones, but were also thoroughfares for communication and movement. The siting of lowland Bronze Age and Neolithic barrows and ring ditches suggests that the topographic subtleties of the lowland valley systems in coastal north Ceredigion may have been appreciated as early as the Neolithic. Lowland ritual sites, and settlements (at Llanilar), were all sited on fluvioglacial river terraces or plateaux, or gravel ridges, elevated above the valley floors (Driver 1998a; Briggs ed., 1997; Driver and Charnock 2001). They commonly sit on the perimeter of valleys and basins, with key sites centrally placed in the constricted opening of side valleys. Certain aspects of this perception of landscape may have persisted into the Iron Age in slightly altered forms, and would explain why the Plas Gogerddan site was reused for burial during the Iron Age (Murphy 1992).

Figure 3.20 Llanfihangel y Creuddyn lowland basin, environs. Map showing all known later prehistoric sites including sites of uncertain age (brackets) and placename sites (crosses). Note the exploitation of prominent spurs extending into lowland corridors by key hillforts of Penlan-isaf (site 62) and Pen-y-castell, Llanilar (site 15). The larger hillfort of New Cross Camp (14) also commands an important pass, Bwlch-y-geuffordd, between this lowland basin and the valley of the Nant Paith to the north-west. The defended enclosures occur with a density here to match any better documented ‘small enclosure zone’ in inland south-west Dyfed. Contours at 50m, 100m and 200m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown

3.2.5.1 Lowland settlement: the Trawsgoed Basin and Ystwyth Valley environs The Afon Ystwyth forms a great flat-bottomed corridor which bisects the coastal and hill-fringe zone of central north Ceredigion, flanked by lower lying hills and tributary systems (Figures 3.17-3.19). The Ystwyth leaves the winding, rocky gorge below the Cambrian Mountains at Pont Llanafan (SN 6871). From here, the valley opens considerably to form a broad, flat-bottomed gravel basin some 1.7 km east-west by 3.5 kms north-west to southeast. This is the Trawsgoed basin, a significant landscape feature in the Iron Age and Roman archaeology of north Ceredigion. Morgan (1997, 162) described the importance of this lowland tract when discussing the historic Trawsgoed mansion at its heart;

copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

‘The site is obviously a favoured one… In Cardiganshire broad stretches of low, level and reasonably fertile ground are rare, especially ground not subject to flooding… The river Ystwyth emerges from a spectacular canyon at Grogwynion, and two miles further down it turns west at Llanafan bridge and broadens out into a wide expanse of comparatively good farmland most of the way to the sea.’ This agricultural wealth is confirmed by the recent discovery of the Abermagwr Romano-British villa at its heart (site 101; Driver and Davies 2013). The Ystwyth Fault continues south-west from this point, connecting with Cwm Wyre and thence to the coastal inlet at Llanrhystud, appearing to form a major routeway in the landscape linking the west coast with the Cambrian Mountains, and the Wye Valley further inland to the east (See Figure 4.1). As such, the Trawsgoed Basin can be perceived as a ‘hub’, with the major hillforts of Gaer Fawr and Castell Grogwynion situated on hills, set back to each side of the basin along the line of the Ystwyth fault, and other smaller hillforts directly overlooking the lowlands from promontories and hillslopes. In the bottom of the

Figure 3.21 Penlan-isaf hillfort (site 62). View looking south-east along the rampart of the fort, preserved beneath a field boundary, with the main gate in the hollow beyond the tree. The fort commands the leading edge of a ridge and has an exceptional field of view to the southwest (T. Driver, 2000. CD_2005_621_014). The main lowland landscape zones for later prehistoric settlement, described below, have been identified as the Trawsgoed basin (see 3.2.5.1) and environs, the Llanfihangel y Creuddyn lowland basin (see 3.2.5.2), the Melindwr basin (see 3.2.5.3.1), the Leri basin (see 49

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 3.22 Lowland basins north of the Rheidol. General map showing names given to distinct landscape areas by the author for descriptive purposes during this volume. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

basin, four further enclosures, including a fine univallate promontory fort, Cwm Rhydyfelin (see Figure 3.1), the Trawsgoed Park enclosures, and an oval defended enclosure (site 112) at Tan-yr-allt close to the recentlydiscovered Abermagwr Roman villa, have been recorded from aerial photography. The villa itself may well have originated in the later Iron Age as a farmstead of particular status.

and spurs, perhaps suggesting a uniformity of territory (if broadly contemporary). Currently, a group of four enclosures are recorded on the north of the basin closely spaced with three on the south side almost equally spaced (0.9-1.2km apart). The larger and more complex hillfort at Penlan-isaf occupies an entirely different position on a prominent spur at the extreme SW tip of the zone, at least twice the distance (1.2-1.6 km) from its nearest neighbour than the other small enclosures to the north of the river. This univallate fort, with outworks defending the south-west facing main gate (similar to Darren hillfort, see Figure 6.35), commands an exceptional prospect out over the Ystwyth valley (Figure 3.21). It specifically overlooks the point where the Afon Llanfihangel joins with the Ystwyth, or where the Llanfihangel-y-Creuddyn lowland basin opens into the wider Ystwyth corridor (Figure 3.20; site 62). It is flanked by the New Cross fort 3.01km to the north west which overlooks the northerly part of the basin, and by Pen y Castell at Llanilar, 2.15 km to the south-west across the Ystwyth corridor. The specific orientation of this fort and its command of a prominent ridge, together with the siting of the New Cross fort to the north-west, suggest both may at similar or different times have exercised a degree of territorial or protective control over the lowland ‘hinterland’ of the Llanfihangel basin. The ‘mouth’ of the lowland basin occupies a significant boundary for movement and communications. The pass at Bwlch-y-

3.2.5.2 The Llanfihangel y Creuddyn lowland basin The Afon Llanfihangel cuts a meandering course through a minor lowland basin set back from the Ystwyth corridor, and is overlooked by rounded hillslopes and level hill plateaux (Figure 3.20). Within this basin, aerial photography has gradually revealed a concentration of Iron Age enclosures. These small enclosures do not continue beyond the peripheries of this localised lowland zone. This basin is effectively a small enclosure zone, a later prehistoric settlement phenomenon more usually associated with inland south-west Dyfed (see Williams 1988; Williams and Mytum 1998), and comprises 10 small enclosures and one place-name site within an area 4km x 3km. Virtually all are plough-levelled and visible as cropmarks, excepting the hillfort at Penlan-isaf, which is severely plough-denuded. The majority are simple univallate enclosures, the 0.16ha enclosure at Llwyn-yBrain being typical, and are evenly spaced on hill slopes

50

3: Settlements in the landscape

an unusual Iron Age stock enclosure or a Romano-British enclosure in the context of the recent discovery of the nearby Abermagwr Romano-British villa. It could be speculated that this ‘gateway’ point was utilised as a market, fair or gathering point during the Iron Age, reusing a site of considerable ritual significance from the Bronze Age. The circular enclosure (site 76) is more readily classified as a defended settlement but its central position at the mouth of the lowland basin may indicate that it once had a special role above farming and settlement. 3.2.5.3 The lowland basins north of the Rheidol Between the river Rheidol in the south and the village of Talybont in the north, there occurs a north-south landscape depression which connects a series of roughly parallel east-west ridges and coastal valleys to form a chain of well-defined lowland basins. Each of these basins is distinct from the other, and they appear to have acted both as foci for the siting of lowland ritual complexes and as foci for Iron Age settlements. Small enclosures and forts are found on the valley sides and hillslopes within the basins, while stronger forts command the higher ridges and spurs directly overlooking the lowland areas. This north-south depression set inland from the coast is a welldocumented feature (e.g. Watson 1957, 300; 303), providing the vital route for the railway from Machynlleth to connect Borth and Aberystwyth without significant engineering. The character of the lowland basins is enhanced by being set back in a sheltered position from the coast itself, while remaining close enough to benefit from the warm sea winds and mild climate, and staying generally free of frost and snow (ibid., 290). The agricultural regime today is one of small-scale arable cultivation on the valley bottom, with improved pasture on the hillslopes. The Plas Gogerddan excavations in 1986 confirmed ‘small scale’ cereal cultivation from at least the Neolithic period (Caseldine, cited in Murphy 1992, 2426), demonstrating that this lowland area and its associated uplands have long been used for settlement and agriculture. Specific discussion about potential stock management enclosures in the Bow Street basin is dealt with separately in this chapter in 3.2.7 below.

Figure 3.23 The lowland basins north of the Rheidol. Looking generally west over Darren hillfort (far right, foreground), towards Penrhyncoch village (centre, distance) and the Clarach valley beyond. This view illustrates the pronounced east-west ridge and valley system north of the Rheidol, with the lowland basins beyond, protected from the sea by a narrow belt of coastal plateaux (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001-cs-0626).

Figure 3.24 Leri Basin lowland basin, environs. Map showing all known later prehistoric defended enclosures and hillforts. Sites 29 (Glan Ffrwd), 31 (Odyn Fach) and 33 (Bryngwyn-mawr) are entirely plough-levelled and mapped only from aerial photography. Contours at 50m, 100m & 200m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown

3.2.5.3.1 The Melindwr basin To the south-east of the main coastal lowlands, an inland lowland basin occurs along the upper reaches of the Melindwr, between Bwlch Nant yr Arian in the east and Capel Bangor in the west, with the village of Old Goginan at its heart. This lowland area, whose base lies between 81- 120m OD widens between high hills with precipitous drops to the north and south (rising to above 320m OD), and the start of the unenclosed mountain land to the east (rising steeply to 350m). An interesting Early Bronze Age barrow cemetery was discovered here in 2006 (Driver 2009). Two large hillforts overlook the lowlands from vantage points in the central/east part of this basin: Esgair Nant-yr-arian (site 50) is built on a narrow, steep

copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

geuffordd at New Cross, on the north-west periphery of the lowland zone, was clearly important for overland traffic. At Pyllau-isaf, centrally placed in the mouth of the basin on an alluvial fan at the issuing point of the Afon Llanfihangel, aerial photographs show two sites; a rectangular palisaded enclosure associated with possible ring ditches (site 75), and a circular lowland enclosure just to the north (site 76). The morphology of the rectangular enclosure could indicate a Neolithic mortuary enclosure, 51

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 3.25 Ground view of Caer Allt Goch (site 32) from the north-west, showing the main gate and outworks on the left hand side. (T Driver. CD_2005_620_017). promontory jutting out to the west with panoramic views of the lowlands below, whilst Banc y Castell (site 41) commands a steep-sided knoll near the centre of the basin. Both these forts have east-facing entrances. The picture of later prehistoric settlement here would be rather biased towards the high hillforts were it not for aerial discoveries. In the western part of the basin, as the lowland area narrows near the exit of the Afon Melindwr into the Rheidol valley, cropmark discoveries have revealed (in 1990) part of a rectangular enclosure (site 85, see 3.2.7.1 below and Figure 3.35) and, just above (in 1999) a fine Dshaped hillslope enclosure, to either side of Cyncoed farm (site 86; Figure 3.35). The function of the Cyncoed enclosure, overlooked by higher ground on all sides, must have been quite different from the higher hillforts to the east which occupied more marginal positions, which were difficult of access.

Figure 3.26 Cwm Gwyddyl: Location map with hillforts and defended enclosures labelled. Contours at 200m and 300m. Background contour at 100m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

3.2.5.3.2 The Leri Basin small enclosure group The Leri Basin is the most northerly, reached from the Bow Street basin to the south by the Pen-y-banc and Coed Bryngwyn-mawr passes, situated at an interface between the two lowland areas. The latter is overlooked by the ridge-top fort of Bryngwyn-mawr (site 33), which is one of the largest univallate forts in the study area and presumably a site of considerable (?Early-Middle Iron Age) importance (Figure 3.1). The topography of the Leri Basin forms a crescentic shelf above the gorge of the Leri, on which are situated the three low-lying forts of Caer Lletty Llwyd (site 36), Odyn-fach (site 31) and Glan Ffrwd (site 29) to the west, the latter two being aerial discoveries from the 1960s and 1970s. The fourth fort, Caer Allt Goch (site 32, Figure 3.25), the most northerly in Ceredigion, overlooks the Leri Basin from a steep promontory to the north-west. Williams originally described this distinct valley area and its forts in 1867 (ibid., 287-8). He wrote ‘Gaer Lletty Llwyd, which has suffered much from the agriculturalists, appears to have had no ditch, perhaps arising from the fact of its lying in the rear of Caer Pwllglas [site 30] and Alltgoch… The camp commands the Talybont Valley.’ The Leri basin forts are distinctive in that three (Glan Ffrwd, Lletty Llwyd and Caer Allt Goch) share similar morphological

Figure 3.27 Cwm Gwyddyl, showing the north-south course of the Roman road, Sarn Helen. (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

characteristics, namely, a triangular plan with the main gate and additional outworks at the broad end. However, any similarities might be superficial as the unusual arrangement of the façade at Caer Lletty Llwyd can be explained in the context of a pass descending from the mountains to the east (examined in 7.5.2. below), whilst both the Glan Ffrwd and Caer Allt Goch forts are built on triangular promontories which may have influenced their final plans. 3.2.5.4 The Cwm Gwyddyl group Between Cors Caron and the Mynydd Bach plateau, the landscape fragments into undulating, hilly country, deeply

52

3: Settlements in the landscape

dissected by small rivers, around the headwaters of the river Aeron at Llangeitho. Within this system of valleys, a group of small forts was established around Cwm Gwyddyl at the head of the river Aeron, visually associated with Cors Caron to the east, yet topographically far removed from the exposed settings of the mountain forts like Penyffrwdllwyd and Pen y Bannau.

implications for the existing local communities if the hillforts were still occupied (see Figures 3.26 & 3.27). 3.2.6 Settlement patterns in north Ceredigion: plateau areas Where the landscape is unbroken, forming undulating plateaux with few deeply incised valleys offering defensible positions, and few lowland basins offering shelter, enclosed settlement appears to have been avoided. This pattern can be seen in the two great plateaux within the study area, Mynydd Bach near Trefenter in the south (rising to 350m OD), and the Llanfarian-LledrodLlanrhystud plateau in the central, coastal belt (rising to between 192 and 206m OD). These areas are devoid of well-defined basins and incised river systems. A cairnfield on Hafod Ithel, Mynydd Bach (SN610675; Briggs 1994), appears to represent traces of Bronze Age agriculture, while there are also a number of Early Bronze Age cairns. Both areas appears to have been avoided by Iron Age settlers, or at least by enclosed settlement. The bivallate hillfort at Banc y Gaer (site 6, Figure 2.25) is isolated, 4.5 km away from forts of comparable strength at Pen y Castell, Llanilar (site 15), and Gilfachafael promontory fort, Llanrhystud (site 5). It remains to be seen whether enclosed settlements do exist but have yet to be recognised by archaeologists. Thorough aerial reconnaissance in strips across the Llanfarian-LledrodLlanrhystud plateau during the dry summers of 1999 and 2003 (by the author for RCAHMW), coupled with searches of ‘responsive’ vertical photographs for the area, have revealed no new sites across the heart of this plateau. A further area of unsettled coastal plateau is found to the north of Aberystwyth, between Clarach and Borth. No settlements are known from its summits or ridges, but the Ruel Uchaf enclosure is located on its eastern slopes (see Figure 3.28 and 8.13). It is interesting to note that Jones (1962, 84-5) commented on the historic potential of these coastal plateaux for cattle grazing (see discussion in 2.2.6.5.). Their potential role in the agricultural economy is further discussed in Chapter 8.

The Cwm Gwyddyl group of five forts only extends over some 2 ½ km and is therefore quite compact. The largest, Trecoll at 1.5 ha, is positioned centrally within the group founded on a long, naturally strong inland promontory, requiring artificial defences only on the north and east sides. The fort is inconspicuous locally, yet commands a good position close to the widening valley of the river Aeron. Now scheduled, it is interesting to note that the fort was only discovered as recently as 1971, recognised from a car by A. H. A. Hogg and subsequently mapped and published (Hogg 1971a). Some 1.6km north-east of Trecoll is Castell Flemish, an oval univallate fort with massive ramparts (similar in scale to Hen Gaer, site 28) enclosing only 0.8 ha, yet with strong outworks to the north-west, the whole sited in a highly visible position. Pen y Gaer fort (site 8), 1.43 km south of Trecoll, occupies a very conspicuous rounded hill, with extensive views across the surrounding countryside. The earthworks of the fort are plough-denuded and rather undiagnostic but aerial reconnaissance in July 2006 revealed cropmarks of substantial plough-levelled bivallate ditches on the northeast side (Figure 5.22). A fourth site in the Cwm Gwyddyl group, the enclosure at Llwyn-bwch west (site 59), was identified as a cropmark in grass by Cambridge University aerial photographers in the 1970s (but only located in the CUCAP archives, mapped and recorded by the author for this research). At only 1.1 ha the site is small and sited on a hillslope up a restricted valley. It is conceivable that this enclosure was not a settlement, but instead a lightlyenclosed site for stock management. It was placed in context in 2003 with the discovery close by of a more complex defended enclosure at Llwyn-bwch south-west (site 73), a univallate site with an outwork on the downslope side (Driver 2004c). These two sites represent a pocket of inland cropmark discoveries in otherwise unresponsive country and hint at the true buried settlement potential in the hill fringe zone bordering Cors Caron. Just to the west of this group is the place name of Caerllugest (site 90; not shown on map), a farm lying at one end of a strongly sited promontory.

3.2.7 Evidence for stock management and corralling in the Bow Street Basin, and comparisons in other parts of the study area The Bow Street basin is a north-south depression which links several smaller side valleys. The low-lying hills were well settled during the Iron Age period with hillforts at Caer Pwll Glas, Gaergwydd (site 27), Hen Gaer (site 28), and more lightly defended cropmark enclosures at Tyddyn (site 70), Bow Street (site 71) Gogerddan (site 26) and Troedrhiwgwinau just to the south (site 69).

In the context of the Roman occupation of Ceredigion, it is notable that the course of the Roman road, Sarn Helen, passes directly north-south through the Cwm Gwyddyl area linking the Roman fort at Llanio to the south with Trawsgoed to the north. As with much of the north Ceredigion landscape, where lowland basins appear to have formed foci for settlement, the construction of a military way cutting straight across the topography, ignoring the prevailing east-west ridge and valley system and existing fields (Figure 3.13), would have had serious

An oval hill-slope enclosure with an inner ditch and outer palisade was discovered from the air in 1975 by Cambridge University, above Ruel Uchaf farm on the north-west flanks of the lowland basin (site 55). The structural similarity to other later prehistoric enclosures in the region, with rock-cut ditches surrounded by a palisade, 53

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 3.28 Bow Street basin showing Ruel Uchaf (site 55) and Ty’n Rhos (site 60) hillslope gully enclosures; location map with contours at 50m and 100m illustrating the siting of both enclosures to either side of the Bow Street lowland basin. Both enclosures exploit the occurrence of natural hillslope concavities. Compare with Figure 8.14 (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright.

Figure 3.30 Plan of Ruel Uchaf, with rectified geophysics plot overlying air photo map (T. Driver).

All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Figure 3.31 Ruel Uchaf, site plan with interpretation of geophysics, and 1m contour plot surveyed in field showing pronounced topography (T. Driver).

Figure 3.29 Ruel Uchaf: Aerial photograph showing cropmarks in parched grassland, during the dry summer of 1995. This photograph looks downhill from the plateau above the enclosure, and clearly shows its setting astride a damp valley fed by water from a spring and producing a dark green cropmark downslope which bisects the enclosure (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 955140-41).

the west side between the inner and outer circuits, suggesting a series of rebuilds; Figure 3.29), yet a central area of damper ground had consistently obscured the central part of the enclosure and the entrance features. Consequently, the site was surveyed using geophysics for this volume (Driver and Knisely-Marpole 2000).

together with its complete plough-levelling and the fact that it is cut across by more recent field boundaries, all appear to suggest a later prehistoric date. The presence of a palisade made this site very interesting, (intensive analysis of RCAHMW aerial photograph, 955139-70, revealed at least two further close-set palisade trenches on

Although discovered from the air in 1975, Ruel Uchaf was first visited in 1999, as part of the fieldwork for this volume. Its highly unusual topographic setting (see Figure 3.31), enclosing an ‘amphitheatre’ or gully in an otherwise smooth hillslope, was immediately apparent, and appears to be paralleled by the Ty’n Rhos enclosure nearby (site

54

3: Settlements in the landscape

Figure 3.33 Geulan-Las, Mynydd Margam, Glamorgan (SS 812 885). Schematic map of this quadrangular hillslope enclosure, which encompasses a steep ravine within its ramparts, and sits below the plateau edge. It has many similarities to the Ruel Uchaf and Ty’n Rhos hillslope gully enclosures. Contours at 10m. (Plan compiled from Ordnance Survey digital mapping; contours compiled from 1:50,000 scale digital mapping and are schematic only, to illustrate the severe slopes around the enclosure, (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown

Figure 3.32 Plan of Ty’n Rhos palisaded enclosure (site 60), with 10m contours illustrating the pronounced gully in the hillslope (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

60, Figure 3.32) together with the 2006 aerial discoveries at Cwrt (site 110) and Cynnull-Mawr (site 111). The ‘amphitheatre’ forms a sheltered spot on an otherwise exposed hillside and contains an active spring (the cause of the damp ground within) which, if present in the Iron Age, would have provided an ample supply of fresh water. The builders used this unusual position to great advantage, running the inner ditched circuit low down the sheltered gully with the outer palisades or fence lines running higher up the slope, just below the lip of the ridge. The extreme topography of the site made it an unlikely candidate for a settlement enclosure. The geophysics revealed a series of palisade – or fence – lines forming the south-west arc of the enclosure, consistent with the air photo map, and a complex tripartite gateway. The inner and outer gate structures (separated by 18.40m) appeared as concave lines, bowing in to the north and following the contours on-site. The inner gate appeared to have two entrance gaps, the outer only one. Between the two, a straight ditch cuts across the contours and might be joined to the inner gate. Overall the results showed a complex entrance arrangement, possibly more than one phase of rebuilding.

copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

654, SS 812 885, NPRN 307271; see Figure 3.33). This quadrangular enclosure sits below the plateau edge enclosing a steep ravine and is surrounded by high ground on all sides except the south. RCAHMW note ‘The site is certainly not defensive and was probably an enclosure for animals (wild or domestic) driven down the funnel-like valley from the mountain above.’ (ibid., 33) Without field visits to similar palisaded sites in Wales, to assess details of the topography and the presence (or otherwise) of a gully, one cannot say whether these enclosures are more widely found elsewhere. A very similar type of stock enclosure from eastern Africa was published by Sutton (1992), these being the ‘Sirikwa Holes’; Sutton noted ‘…or hollows rather, each some ten metres in diameter… The Kalenjin people inhabiting these highlands regarded them as cattle-kraals of their predecessors…’ (ibid., 353). An excavated site at Chemagel featured a polygonal sunken cattle pen c.15m by c.18m enclosed by a stockade, approached by an entrance passage between two mounds or hillocks, and augmented with two ancillary round huts at the sides, one being a kitchen, the other for living and the penning of small stock (ibid., 354). In basic plan it is very similar to Geulan-las, Mynydd Margam.

Two key aspects, the siting of the enclosure in a sheltered gully and the complex gateway arrangement, suggested a stock-management function. The presence of a spring also showed a water supply within the enclosure, essential for stock management. A segmented gate and a defined water supply were found within the Penycoed enclosure in southern Dyfed, for example, and were thought to have demonstrated a stock management role for the farmstead (Murphy 1985). A very similar enclosure was described in the RCAHMW Glamorgan Inventory for the Iron Age (1976), at Geulan-las, Mynydd Margam (RCAHMW site

The considerable labour input required for Ruel Uchaf, coupled with its likely non-settlement role, suggests a great degree of control and planning in its construction, perhaps by a higher regional authority. The high visibility 55

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 3.34 Ancillary enclosures in north Ceredigion, potentially representing stock corrals or pastoral enclosures in the control of particular hillforts, identified from aerial photography. Penrhyncoch Camp (35) and Pantdrain (82). (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown

Figure 3.36 Ancillary enclosures in north Ceredigion, potentially representing stock corrals or pastoral enclosures in the control of particular hillforts, identified from aerial photography. Pen y Castell, Llanilar (15) with attendant enclosures (16 and 58; T. Driver) but see caption to Figure 3.59. (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. ©

copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

need for reconstruction, when the parchmark appears during dry summers. Any activities relating to the enclosure and any corralling of large numbers of stock, perhaps at seasonal intervals or prior to regional farming gatherings, would have been highly visible from many miles around. One could postulate a higher controlling authority, like the occupants of Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, perhaps constructing such an enclosure for the control of stock in a particular locality (discussed more fully in Chapter 8). Two later discoveries in the close neighbourhood of these first examples, made during aerial reconnaissance in the dry summer of 2006, revealed two further enclosures built across hillslope gullies, at Cwrt (site 110) and Cynnull Mawr (site 111) suggesting something of a regional phenomenon. Other palisaded or ancillary enclosures in the vicinity of north Ceredigion hillforts (see 3.2.7.1 below) suggest that potential corral structures are widespread within the region. In particular, the pair of enclosures flanking the coastal hillslopes to the north and south of Afon Peris may have served just such a function. Field inspection of the north enclosure, Troed-y-rhiw (site 1) showed that it enclosed a concavity or gully in the hillslope, similar to but less pronounced than that at Ruel Uchaf. Parchmarks on aerial photographs also suggest an antenna approach connecting this hillslope enclosure to the flatter ground on the summit of the ridge.

Figure 3.35 Ancillary enclosures in north Ceredigion, potentially representing stock corrals or pastoral enclosures in the control of particular hillforts, identified from aerial photography. Cyncoed fort (86) and Cyncoed cropmarks (85) (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

of Ruel Uchaf is also informative. Its position is visible from at least 4km to the south, at ground level from Capel Dewi, and potentially from 6.5km to the south from the elevated side of the Rheidol valley, looking north over Glas Crug (SN 62 80). An impression of its original appearance on the hillside can still be gained, without the

The southern enclosure, Pant Wilog (site 53), was discovered by aerial photography but reanalysis of the photographs for this volume revealed that it was not a 56

3: Settlements in the landscape

Figure 3.37 Pen y Castell, Llanilar (site 15), with parchmarks showing the curvilinear enclosure (site 58) on the east side. This locally prominent hillfort commands a vista along the length of the central and lower Ystwyth valley. It was later adapted to a medieval motte and bailey with the provision of a central rock-cut ditch which bisected the original hillfort (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 905058-11).

Figure 3.38 Pen-y-Castell, Llanilar (site 16). Winter aerial photograph showing earthworks of the trapezoidal enclosure (site 16) below the fort to the north. The discovery in 2009 of the late Romano-British villa at Abermagwr, nearly 4km west of Llanilar, throws this regionally unusual trapezoidal enclosure into sharper focus. It might now be interpreted as a Romano-British enclosure, or even perhaps a ‘client farm’ of the nearby late Roman villa at Abermagwr (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 983534-20).

univallate hillslope enclosure but a concentric enclosure, similar to those known in south Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire. As such, this may have been a defended enclosure specifically designed to combine a settlement and corralling role (see James 1990). Unfortunately, the hypothesis that these enclosures may have served specifically pastoral roles has yet to be tested by excavation.

Ideally, remote sensing or phosphate-sampling would provide valuable tests for the nature and function of these ancillary enclosures, while excavation could reveal a lack of occupation debris if the original functions were predominantly pastoral (e.g. Fowler 1983, 193). There could also be alternative explanations. Discussing issues relating to later prehistoric transhumance and settlement in the uplands of north-west Wales, Smith (2001, 45-6) notes that ‘…curvilinear enclosures of the uplands could be the ‘hoe-plots’ of early farmers rather than paddocks for stock.’

3.2.7.1 Ancillary enclosures at north Ceredigion hillforts potentially representing pastoral enclosures The presence of hillslope enclosures which, if later prehistoric in date, can be interpreted as specialised, communal corrals at Ruel Uchaf and Ty'n Rhos near Bow Street could imply that regional control of livestock resources and the requirement for their corralling and ‘storage’ was a highly visible event in the landscape, perhaps coordinated at significant times of the agricultural year. Other evidence for ancillary enclosures, potentially stock corrals, have been recorded close to Penrhyncoch camp (Figure 3.34), the Cyncoed defended enclosure (Figure 3.35). There is presently no dating evidence to indicate whether these structures are later prehistoric, or indeed were broadly contemporary with the hillforts they sit close to. However, as the enclosures are plough levelled and unrelated to the alignments of more recent field boundaries, they appear to have considerable antiquity and thus may be later prehistoric. That at Pen-yCastell, Llanilar (Figures 3.36-3.38) is probably a Romano-British settlement.

3.3 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Chapter 3 introduced and discussed two vital aspects of this research, the chronological frameworks of the later prehistoric settlement pattern, and the settlement pattern itself, both in the context of prehistoric Wales and its regions, and in a more detailed summary of the settlement areas found within the study region. The discussion in this chapter represents much entirely new research, and many initial observations from fieldwork about the occurrence and situations of settlements in the landscape have begun to be crystallised in the second half of the chapter and will be further examined in Chapters 7 and 8. Work in the first half of Chapter 3 examined chronological issues including potential early forts, with early rampart types such as wall and fill ramparts, palisades or vertical revetments, potentially superseded in the Middle to Late Iron Age by glacis defences and the

These ancillary enclosures could suggest local-level or autonomous control of stock for individual hillforts. 57

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

rise of complexity and multivallation. While no definite contact between Romans and existing settlements can be demonstrated in the study area, aspects of the Roman invasion including the siting of marching camps and forts indicate that significant populations were still present in and around key lowland areas in the landscape at the time of the conquest. The discovery of the Abermagwr Romano-British villa (Davies and Driver 2012; Driver and Davies 2013) shows growing wealth amongst the local aristocracy in the first two centuries AD and the eventual acquisition of the trappings of Romanised life by AD 250.

the study area and examines the topic of human movement into and out of the landscape. The later prehistoric settlement pattern in north Ceredigion is best understood in terms of its communities and agricultural zones, the lines of communication between hillforts, and the location of settlements in relation to wider patterns of movement and trade. Only when we understand how the landscape was articulated, visited and used by people in Chapters 3 and 4, can we begin to approach an understanding of the role and development of hillfort architecture in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.

The second half of the chapter examined the later prehistoric settlement pattern in far more detail, very much establishing the detailed context for a discussion of hillfort architecture in Chapters 5 and 6. Agricultural regimes were examined early in the second half of the chapter followed by a detailed examination of the key settlement areas within north Ceredigion, guided by the author’s interpretation of the existence of distinct local regions within the landscape, whether lowlands, plateaux or blocks of hill fringe. Further detail was introduced with the discussion of lowland enclosures potentially designed for the management and corralling of livestock. The evidence presented here, very much focused on the sites and their local/regional relationships, leads into Chapter 4 which looks beyond the immediate confines of

58

4: Movement, trade and cultural contact

4 Movement, trade and cultural contact: Iron Age links across central Wales

4.1 INTRODUCTION contact existed across the intervening seas. Indeed it could be argued that contact between these zones and their Continental interfaces was easier than between one British zone and the next’. The existence of maritime trade routes along the west coast of Britain is not in doubt, and the many possible issues relating to such trade are not discussed in any detail in this volume. What is discussed in this chapter is the evidence for overland movement between inland central Wales and the west coast region during later prehistory, which has only barely been touched on in previous studies (e.g. Morris 1981, 1985, 1994; Matthews 1999; and see Brun 1993).

It is difficult to develop theories about the designs of the hillfort gateways and façades in north Ceredigion, the orientation of these façades and the original approaches to the sites (chiefly examined in Chapter 6) without some initial discussion about the nature, purpose and direction of ‘human traffic’ in the later prehistoric landscape of mid Wales. Issues of trade/exchange and extra-regional contact are also essential to understanding the social context of the hillforts in the landscape, examined in Chapter 8. In many ways the hillforts were not static elements of the landscape, but active parts of it, functioning as permanent, symbolic points of reference for travellers and those who worked in the land. They were also points of embarkation and destination, and places of memory, for their populations and for other transient visitors. This chapter re-examines these economic and landscape issues in terms of the physical realities of moving between east and west across the high ground of the Cambrian Mountains.

Historically, the Cambrian Mountains have long been considered significant barriers to east-west movement between the west coast of Wales and inland areas. In 1922, Fleure described the coastal plain of Cardiganshire as lying ‘… along the western flank of Plynlymon, which ever lifts its mighty shoulders to retard the westward advance of the ways of the eastern plain.’ (ibid., 112), likening it elsewhere to a ‘formidable barrier’ (ibid., 119). This perception of a barrier across which ‘few outsiders visited…’ endures even in modern popular literature relating to the Plynlimon landscape (Pentir Pumlumon 2003). Such a model has not been questioned by archaeologists studying the Iron Age communities on the west coast of mid Wales, or those in the inland areas of the upper Severn basin and along the Wye valley. It was been recently reiterated by Henderson (2007, 41);

4.2 SHIFTING OUR PERCEPTIONS FROM SEA TO OVERLAND Existing notions of trade/exchange and communication in later prehistoric Wales are built on an understanding that it was dominated by sea trade chiefly along the western coasts of Britain, and that the majority of significant trade and communication routes would have been maritime in nature (e.g. Fox 1938; Bowen 1957 & 1970; Herity 1970; Savory 1970; Cunliffe 1991, 526-8; McGrail 1993; Matthews 1999, and see Fig. 11.6; Davies and Lynch 2000, 206-207; Cunliffe 2001). Such a perception could be traced back to Fleure (1915) and others (see Bowen 1970 for review), who claimed that given the parts of South Britain which were ‘…almost uninhabitable in early times because of forest and swamp.’ (ibid., 406), the seas provided open and rapid routes for prehistoric communication. In addition Cunliffe (1991, 526-8) noted that ‘The south-western, Central southern and Eastern zones all have coast lines facing Europe and inevitably

‘The natural barrier of the Cambrian Mountain range divides the country into two main lowland zones, an Atlantic coastal zone on one side, and a zone of valleys, the Welsh Marches, on the eastern side. The existence of contrasting socioeconomic systems in each zone throughout the Iron Age further emphasise this geographical division; in the hillfort dominated Marches zone the trend is towards large fortified (community)

59

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 4.1 Schematic topographic model for north Ceredigion, or a ‘cognitive map’ of the prehistoric landscape. This is not intended to be a detailed map of the topography of the study area, but instead a diagram illustrating the fundamental topographic characteristics of the region with major valleys, plateaux, hills and mountains (discussed in this chapter), together with key settlement areas (discussed in Chapter 3) and routeways for overland communication from later prehistoric times onwards (discussed in Chapter 4). It is an attempt to illustrate the blocks of land at a regional level as they may have been perceived, used and traversed by prehistoric communities (T. Driver). Atlantic areas, the landscape is dominated by settlements, many over 6 hectares in size, while in the west, in common with other northern small strongly defended homesteads, the vast majority of which are under 1.2ha’.

Ceredigion, was a long-standing historical division in the Welsh landscape, incorporating much of the region of Deheubarth founded in pre-Norman times. It appears as a coherent landscape unit comprising the entire south-west region of Wales, separated to the north by the Dyfi estuary, along the east by the spine of the Cambrian Mountains, and in the southeast by the separation of the coastal lowlands of Llanelli and Kidwelly (Dyfed) with the upland industrialised valleys of south Wales (Glamorgan) and the Black Mountain. The sea forms a common south-western boundary. The geographical coherence of southwest Wales, and its virtual enclosure by perceived significant landscape boundaries, may have adversely affected the ‘mental map’ with which archaeologists have considered these forts of the west and southwest coast. Studies of the later prehistoric archaeology of the regions of Dyfed have, virtually by necessity, considered the entire region to have a degree of unity in terms of its archaeological site types, broad chronologies, and at least the inference of trade and contact between the communities of ‘south-west Wales’. (e.g. Hughes 1933; Rees 1992; Davies and Hogg 1994; Williams & Mytum 1998). Davies and Hogg (1994) specifically consider south-west Wales as an entity, introducing their study by stating; ‘What follows is a

This traditional model leaves north Ceredigion relatively isolated in prehistory with its main influences coming from south-west Wales (‘Dyfed’) and the sea. Evidence gathered for this research suggests that the Cambrian Mountains were in fact a permeable barrier, breached by many valleys and overland passes; that the later prehistoric communities which occupied north Ceredigion drew many of their cultural influences, trade and contact from east-west movement across the Plynlimon massif from north Ceredigion, east to the communities of the Severn and Wye valleys and beyond to the borderlands plains of Shropshire, Herefordshire and Cheshire. 4.3 REASSESSING THE VERACITY OF THE ‘DYFED MODEL’ FOR LATER PREHISTORIC STUDIES IN WEST WALES The modern county of Dyfed, which contains the three historical counties of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and

60

4: Movement, trade and cultural contact

Figure 4.2 Iron Age Wales, showing distribution of hillforts and defended enclosures. The relative proximity and accessibility of neighbouring landscapes to north Ceredigion, mid Wales, are demonstrated with two circles set at 40km and 80km from Pen Dinas hillfort, Aberystwyth, on the west coast. Although the former county of ‘Dyfed’, or ‘south-west Wales’, is thought to be a coherent region for the study of Iron Age settlements, one can see that key landscapes of north, east and southeast Wales are far closer to Pen Dinas than the extremities of south-west Pembrokeshire. Thus we should rethink the nature of Iron Age contact between the interconnected regions of the interior, rather than isolating the west from the rest of Wales. (Crown Copyright

Figure 4.3 The Central Wales Zone of Cultural Contact, showing major river routes in the context of the high ground of the central Cambrian Mountains (stippled) and the west coast of Wales. The broadly demarcated zone in the centre, between the two dashed lines, reflects perceived spheres of influence, trade and communication between the Iron Age communities of north Ceredigion and those of the Usk, Wye and Severn valleys, east to the plains of Herefordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire, chiefly seen through evidence for ceramic and salt trading and the architectural development of the main hillforts. The main north-west/south-east bold dashed line represents the schematic boundary between two of Cunliffe’s (2005, Figure 21.2) zones of Iron Age Britain. Clearly these zones are very generalised and retain little flexibility for east-west overland contact, and the spread of cultural influences, between the west coast of Wales and central England (T. Driver).

RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

discussion of the Cardiganshire forts in the context of those in south-west Wales as a whole…’ (ibid., 224) and noting that; ‘South-west Wales is essentially a zone of small hillforts and enclosures…’ (ibid., 226). Thus ‘west’ or ‘south-west Wales’ has become a geographic entity in the literature, and hillforts of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion have been assumed to have a common geographic identity at least, even if archaeological coherence is more difficult to prove. Certainly, no suggestion of links or affinities have been directly claimed between the forts of this south-western region and those of other, far-off regions of Wales, which are geographically separated, except of course, through the identification of shared morphological features, which are common amongst the hillforts of Britain (e.g. Savory 1976; see Figure 6.1)

Ceredigion are bought into question with the consideration of the real overland distances to these locations. Figure 4.2 shows the proximity of certain hillforts to Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth within two zones, set at 40km and 80km. In terms of historic regional divisions, and perceptions of the barrier effect of the Plynlimon/Cambrian Mountain high ground, one could perceive mid and south Ceredigion and the Teifi valley to be closer, or more accessible, than the Clywedog group of hillforts in the upper reaches of the Severn valley east of Plynlimon. In fact, at a distance of 40km from Pen Dinas one would have passed the Clywedog hillforts but only just have arrived at Caer Cadwgan, Lampeter, and the cluster of hillforts located here in Cellan parish.

Issues of the real proximity and accessibility of so-called distant/separated regions of Iron Age Wales from north 61

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Preseli Mountains and the Llawhaden hillfort group (Williams and Mytum, 1998). This leaves the western coastal regions of Pembrokeshire, along with Milford Haven and the Castlemartin peninsula, as longer journeys. These findings force a reassessment of the potential zone of influence, physical contact, trade links and cultural or political affiliations which could have been felt and used by the occupiers of Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. At only 40kms distant, the hillforts of the central Teifi and those of the Clywedog group of the upper Severn basin, lie within easy reach. A slightly longer overland journey of up to 80kms, perhaps 2-3 days travel, brings an extraordinary range of regions and cultural influences into play, from the Preseli Mountains of south-west Wales, to the inland regions of Brecknock and Radnorshire and the Iron Age communities of Herefordshire, Shropshire and Montgomeryshire, along the upper Severn valley and Welsh Borderlands. In the light of this, there remains no strong geographic reason to presuppose that north Ceredigion was culturally closer to parts of southwest Wales during later prehistory, than to parts of the Welsh Borderlands, inland Wales or even the Llǔn Peninsula and the north-west. In this context, a Central Wales Zone of Cultural Contact (Figure 4.3) can be perceived for the later prehistoric period, linking the west coast with the Welsh borderlands and Midlands plain, utilizing routes for overland movement later exploited at the time of the Roman conquest.

Figure 4.4 The later distribution of Cheshire stony Very Coarse Pottery containers, used for the salt trade, together with the locations of possible sources. This is a useful distribution to show the relative proximity of traded salt to the study area. From west to east, Find 18 is Cefncarnedd hillfort at Caersws, Find 35 is Llwyn Bryn Dinas, Find 31 is Collfryn, Find 32 is Arddleen and Find 6 is The Breidden. As discussed in 4.4.1, the extent to which the distribution reflects more active fieldwork and excavation in Montgomeryshire is obvious. There is every likelihood that further excavation in north Ceredigion could reveal a westward extension to the distribution to match that of traded ceramics (simplified from Morris 1985, Figure 10).

4.4 NORTH CEREDIGION: REQUIRED OVERLAND TRADE CONTACTS IN THE WELSH BORDERLANDS AND CHESHIRE PLAIN It could be said that to a certain extent prehistorians have been conditioned to consider maritime trade to have been dominant where a region has a coastal aspect, and to consider this trade as having been far easier and faster to conduct than the ‘difficult’ alternative of travelling overland. Archaeological field evidence from north Ceredigion suggests that overland trade was prevalent in this region in the Iron Age. Whether this was to the exclusion of maritime trade is difficult to assess albeit in the context of sparse excavation data.

An overland journey of some 80 km out from Pen Dinas, brings into contact diverse regions: within this arc lie the great stone hillforts of the Llǔn and settled landscapes of Ardudwy in western Merioneth, although the mountains of Gwynedd may not have proved conducive to easy travel from the south. It is to the east where the potential for contact is most significant. The well settled Iron Age landscapes of the upper Severn basin lie within reach of this 80km journey, including the major hillforts of the Breiddin and Llwyn Bryn Dinas, Tanat valley, both with evidence for late Bronze Age hillfort development (see Chapter 3). Major borderlands hillforts such as Old Oswestry and Croft Ambrey are also close. In the southeast, hillfort groups along the central Wye near Builth Wells, and in central Brecknock, including the multivallate fortress of Pen y Crug, also lie within this arc of travel.

4.4.1 Traded salt Within the context of this research, evidence from existing models of trade and movement, including ceramic finds from the study area, suggest that the Welsh borderlands must have had a great influence on the coastal communities. Stanford (1991, 43) described the Iron Age hillforts of the Welsh border as occurring ‘… with a density, proportionate to size, as great as anywhere in the world and display[ing] fortifications of an extent and complexity rarely surpassed in Europe.’ The wealthy, vibrant communities found in the upper Severn basin, fed from the Cheshire plains and Shropshire uplands to the

When we then return to south-west Wales, supposedly a coherent geographic unit including north Ceredigion, the 80km arc reaches only south-west to Strumble Head, the 62

4: Movement, trade and cultural contact

Basin with discoveries at Collfryn (Britnell 1989), Arddleen (Grant 2004), Llwyn Bryn-Dinas (Musson et al. 1992) and the Breiddin (Musson 1991; see Morris 1985, Fig. 10 & Table 5). However, two bodies of the VCP containers are also recorded from Cefncarnedd hillfort above Caersws (Guilbert and Morris 1979) which is far closer to the study area and within reach on foot or horseback. Davies and Lynch (2000, 206) postulate that the absence to date of VCP salt containers in coastal south-west Wales may indicate a reliance on home produced sea salt in this region. This theory in turn raises the question of why salt containers reached northwest Wales, an equally coastal region. Identification of salt containers from any of the north Ceredigion hillforts would serve to demonstrate long-distance trade contacts already confirmed for evidence of ceramic trading (see below). In fact, the present (1985) Cheshire VCP distribution seems to reflect an imbalance of excavation between the west and east of Wales, influenced in part by greater development pressures in the borderlands than in Ceredigion, rather than a true Iron Age distribution pattern. The Breiddin excavations began as rescue work in advance of quarrying (Musson 1991), the Arddleen enclosure was the subject of a small-scale rescue excavation prompted by the rerouting of the main road across it in 1979 (Britnell and Musson, 1984, 91) and then housing development in 2002 and 2003 (Grant 2004), and the Collfryn enclosure rescue excavations between 1980-2 were instigated as a response to continuing plough erosion (Britnell 1989, 90). The western most point of distribution of Cheshire stony VCP pottery in mid Wales, two small sherds from Cefncarnedd hillfort 1 , was the result of timely surface collection following ploughing of the south-west end of the hillfort, making a strong case for more targeted fieldwork and surface collection in the future, where opportunities arise (Guilbert and Morris 1979).

Figure 4.5 A Malvernian ‘duck-stamped’ jar, part of the wider Croft Ambrey-Bredon Hill style, reconstructed from original sherds excavated at Pen Dinas hillfort, Aberystwyth, in 1934 ‘…found in the surface layers of the filling at the foot of the outer revetment on the south-west side of the North Fort…’ (Forde et al. 1963, 151-2 & Figure 4). The jar stands 20cm high and is 15cm in diameter (Amgueddfa Genedlaethol Cymru/National Museum Wales DH000419). east, would have formed a source of influences and fashions.

The 1930s excavations at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, cannot be expected to have revealed all the potential finds in the areas excavated, given the rather coarse methods of excavation and finds recovery no doubt employed by the labourers on site. Only the Malvernian potsherds (see below) survive to this day in a museum collection (National Museum Wales, Cardiff), with the remainder of the finds now lost. The excavation report (Forde et al. 1963) makes no specific reference to Cheshire-type vessels, which Morris (1985, 352-3) describes thus; ‘The stony VCP vessels are handmade… from a slightly sand, oxidized fabric with an… additional tempering… they occasionally have a white deposit on their exterior or upper interior surfaces and never have sooted areas or burned encrustation on the interior surfaces.’ The Pen

The salt trade would have established an important long distance link between west and east. While evidence suggests that both the Cheshire and West Midlands (Droitwich) production centres may have competed during the Iron Age, it is the Very Coarse Pottery salt containers from Cheshire which are the best indicator of trade found as far west as Merionethshire and Anglesey by the second century cal. BC (Davies and Lynch 2000), with trade intensifying during the Middle-Later Iron Age (Morris 1994, 385). Morris (ibid.) notes that containers originating from Droitwich have been found at sites up to 75km away, while those from Cheshire have been found up to 100km distant. The later distribution of Cheshire stony VCP containers, chiefly mapped by Morris in 1985 (and later updated by Matthews 1999, Fig. 11.3), representing vessels ‘…in use by at least the mid fifth century B.C. and to have continued in use until at least the Roman invasion.’ (Morris 1985, 352) is revealing. They are well represented in the Welshpool area of the Upper Severn

1

One sherd was thin-sectioned at Southampton University, with the other deposited in the National Museum Wales with a copy of the report on the petrological analysis (Guilbert and Morris 1979).

63

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 4.7 Problems of perception. A simplified version of Sherratt’s (1996) map of river-catchments and axes of movement in southern England. In contrast to the plethora of routes and rivers in England, Wales only has one river marked, the Usk. Of all the potential route-ways that exist for east-west movement in central Wales, only the eastern part of the Tanat valley in northern Powys is tentatively indicated by a dotted arrow. The remainder of central Wales is depicted as blank, impenetrable land over 250m, forcing a preference for maritime routes. Such ideas have become hugely influential in the long debate over the supremacy of maritime transport in the prehistoric west. Compare with Figures 4.1 and 4.3 (after Sherratt 1996, Fig. 2). mid west already discovered for parts of coastal northwest Wales (Morris 1985, Fig. 10). 4.4.2 The ceramic trade from the Malvern Hills One of the few datable finds from a hillfort in Ceredigion is the imported Malvernian ‘duck stamped’ jar 2 discovered during the 1930s excavations of Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (Forde et al. 1963, 151-2; see 3.1.4.1 above). The jar is described as ‘…7-8 in. high and 5.8 in. in diameter at the mouth, of coarse gritty ware with roughly smoothed surfaces… buff to black in colour…ovoid profile with narrow flat rim… undecorated save for a single line of comma-shaped impressions… immediately below the rim.’ (Forde et al. 1963, 152) There is no beading at the rim with the jar instead curving in with a simple neck. This duck-stamped jar is an exotic piece in the regional context, and is the most far westerly example of Peacock’s Group A Malvernian traded wares found in Wales as described in the 1968 petrological study (and see Cunliffe 1991, 461-3, citing Morris 1981). Examination of a group of stylistically similar ceramic vessels from hillforts in the Herefordshire-Cotswold region (with two outliers at Pen Dinas, and The Berth (Montgomeryshire)),

Figure 4.6 Peacock’s distribution of stamped and lineartooled ware, showing finds at Pen Dinas and The Berth far distant from the principal area among hillforts in the Herefordshire and Cotswold regions (grey-shaded box). Finds made after 1968 have not greatly altered the significant patterns of these more distant finds away from production centres in the Malvern Hills (based upon Peacock 1968, Fig. 1).

2

Such jars were referred to by Peacock (1968) as Stamped and Linear-tooled ware, and are now also referred as the Croft Ambrey-Bredon Hill style of the wider saucepan pot tradition (Gibson and Wood 1990; Cunliffe 1991, Figure A:18, 571; Olding 2000, 133) but the terms Malvernian and duck-stamped are used throughout as they are still prevalent in the current literature concerning Wales (e.g. Davies and Lynch 2000).

Dinas excavations did reveal ‘… a few small and indeterminate sherds… in 1934’ in addition to more classifiable sherds. Any new programme of excavation in north Ceredigion could be expected to discover such traded salt containers, and begin to reflect a pattern in the

64

4: Movement, trade and cultural contact

all. East/west movement through Wales to England cuts across the perceived regional and topographic boundaries which define the Iron Age monuments of Wales and so appears historically to have been a difficult concept for researchers to grasp (see 4.2 above). In fact, the Plynlimon range and the Cambrian Mountains are breached by several major passes, formed along the upper reaches and tributaries of major east and west flowing rivers like the Rheidol, the Ystwyth and the Wye, which cut their headwaters in the mountain range (Figure 4.1). Sherratt (1996, 218), in his appraisal of communication and transport networks in prehistoric Britain stated that ‘It is the rivers which form the pre-existing [transport] network, and with which an analysis [of movement in the prehistoric landscape] should begin.’ In her 1994 paper, Bryony Coles shed some light on the longevity of rivers as through-routes for communication in prehistory. In examining the Trisantona rivers in Britain, her analysis of the Trent river names (aided by the works of earlier scholars) found a common interpretation of these rivers having been ‘…significant routes, and in particular ways leading across or through or over, and perhaps the way across a watershed. Such an interpretation presupposes that water courses were used for travelling, either by boat or by paths along their banks, a supposition long made by prehistorians and increasingly supported by archaeological evidence…’ (ibid) Whilst there are no obvious Trent or Trisantona river names in Ceredigion, Coles’ findings have a bearing on the study area in showing the types of rivers that held important roles for overland movement and the scale at which the landscape was perceived by those who moved through it.

Figure 4.8 The Roman fort at Cae Gaer overlooking the Wye valley near Eisteddfa Gurig. The speed with which the Romans fortified key cross-mountain routes in mid and central Wales implies that they took advantage of preexisting routes gleaned from local knowledge (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, GTJ00319, 1998). led Peacock to conclude that ‘the only possible source’ was the Pre-Cambrian outcrop forming a narrow ridge in the Malvern Hills (ibid., 419). The Pen Dinas jar belongs to a stylistically similar group of vessels, which feature a row of stamp impressed decoration below the rim. Peacock likened it to vessels excavated at Bredon Hill (ibid. Fig. 3, nos. 3-5, 12-13), but, on the grounds of the decoration at least, it can also be closely paralleled to vessels from Sutton Walls (nos. 2, 6), although it lacks the linear decoration. A number of Peacock’s original findings have relevance to the present study. The evidence for overland trade and contact is crucial; Peacock notes that the distance of 80 miles (128 km) from the Malvern Hills to Pen Dinas ‘… need occasion no surprise since it is on record for present day itinerant potters to make journeys up to 150 miles [240 km] distant from their base.’ The ceramics provide good evidence of human movement, whether cultural or commercial, between the borderlands and the far west coast of Wales. In weighing up the commercial – or cultural – impetus behind the apparent success of the traded wares, Peacock noted (ibid. 424) ‘If the pottery was distributed to a particular people other evidence of their culture should be discernable, for example, in hill-fort architecture.’ His short 1968 discussion constitutes an invitation to find evidence of a flow of cultural ideas in the hillfort architecture; Chapter 6 explores this idea fully for the first time.

The maps in Sherratt’s (1996) paper, which deals with Wessex, (Figure 4.7) imply that east/west movement between the Welsh borderlands and the west coast (other than a minor route shown using the Tanat valley into north Wales) did not occur. This omission highlights the fact that such a route has never been seriously considered as a significant element of later prehistory in Wales. The possible route of an east-west trackway from the coast at Aberystwyth, across Plynlimon, was proposed by Timberlake (2001; 2003) as an early Bronze Age metal prospectors’ route, postulated by joining a line linking several standing stones and cairns between Penrhyncoch and the Plynlimon mountains, thence east to the river Severn. The western section of this putative trackway was originally published by Bird (1972) in what is generally a useful, but flawed piece of research. A similar trackway was proposed running inland from Harlech in Merionydd. Timberlake (2001, 185) notes that while in the lowlands, prospectors may have followed the floors of east-west valleys, ‘…it is more likely that a combination of valley, valley-head and ridge paths would have provided the quicker access into, as well as across the mountain divide, facilitating a general route from east to west.’ Timberlake’s map and thesis are firmly supported now by nearly two decades of evidence for Bronze Age mining in

4.5 STRATEGIES FOR EAST-WEST MOVEMENT ACROSS THE CAMBRIAN MOUNTAIN RANGE 4.5.1 Rivers and valleys for overland movement Whilst trade and contact by sea has always been presumed to have been the dominant influence in north Ceredigion’s history and development, overland links to the east during later prehistory have been less thoroughly considered, if at 65

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Romans used this route in their early campaigns after AD 75, perhaps drawing on the knowledge of local scouts in choosing the most expeditious route west. Manning (2001, 29) describes the mid Wales network of forts and roads; ‘The road north of Llanio led to a fort at Trawscoed on the river Ystwyth south-east of Aberystwyth…it will have continued to a newly discovered fort at Pen Llwyn [Capel Bangor] and then on to Pennal on the Dovey estuary. Roads must have run east to link these forts to those north of Castell Collen [Llandrindod Wells], but we know little of them. It is our lack of knowledge rather than Roman idiosyncrasy which is responsible for the fort at Cae Gaer appearing to stand in isolation between Pen Llwyn and Caersws.’

Figure 4.9 Aerial photograph of Ystumtuen from the west, looking towards Ponterwyd and the Plynlimon massif. The west-east route of the shallow valley of the afon Llywernog can be seen on the left hand side, marked by a line of old mining reservoirs. This links through to the afon Castell valley in the far distance on the same line, giving access to the mountains. This would have been the principal route to give direct access to the coastal lowlands west of Bwlch Nant yr Arian (seen in the foreground). The wind turbines stand on a low ridge separating the afon Llywernog with the plateau around Ystumtuen village; at the far right is the steep wooded gorge of the Rheidol valley overlooked by the promontory fort of Castell Bwa Drain (out of shot to the far right; Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001-cs-0621).

On the western side of the Plynlimon watershed, visitors would have arrived first at the fertile Dyffryn Castell valley after the mountain passes, and thence on to Ponterwyd (Figure 4.10; see 7.4.1 and Figure 7.7 ‘Ponterwyd Junction’). At Ponterwyd, the Rheidol valley cuts a course down from the mountains between tracts of favourable hill pasture, around which the present village has developed. This is an important valley junction, where the afon Llywernog from the west, and the afon Castell from the east, meet at the north-south Rheidol (see aerial view, Figure 4.10). Disgwylfa place names to the north of Ponterwyd, mentioned by Williams in 1867 as significant lookout or beacon points, may demonstrate a tradition of observation, signaling or warning here where there was significant human traffic. The Early Bronze Age complex of monuments at Hirnant, north of Ponterwyd along the upper Rheidol valley, comprising barrows and elaborate cairn circles (see Briggs 1994; Rees 1992), may also be evidence for otherwise isolated Bronze Age communities in the mountains benefiting from east-west traffic using the upper Wye/Rheidol corridor. Timberlake sees these Bronze Age monuments as surviving parts of a coherent line of contemporary monuments marking a potential trackway utilised by early metal prospectors travelling between the west coast, up into the mountain zone, and thence crossing Plynlimon via valleys to the north of Nant y Moch, which link across to dated early mine sites at Nantyreira on the Severn valley on the Montgomeryshire side of Plynlimon (Timberlake 2001, 185-6; Figure 17.4). Dinas hillfort (site 51) overlooks the valley from the north-west; otherwise an outlier to all the main settlement zones in the lower-lying, more coastal parts of north Ceredigion, its position is explicable when one considers east-west movement through the mountain corridor at this point . The existence of a fine medieval arched bridge, Hen Bont, straddling the Rheidol in Ponterwyd village, and indeed the more recent turnpike and present-day trunk road, attest the continuing importance of this thoroughfare in post-Medieval times (Figure 4.11).

the Ceredigion hillfringe, thought to have been undertaken on a seasonal, transhumant basis (Timberlake 2003, 115). 4.5.2 Lines of communication across the Plynlimon massif In north Ceredigion the major land barrier of the Cambrian Mountains in the east is broken by a series of east/west rivers and watersheds, with lowland routes on the west coast linking with river valleys in the mountains at significant ‘valley junctions’ (e.g. at Ponterwyd, Figure 7.7, the Trawsgoed basin, Figure 3.17 and east of Tregaron, Figure 7.17). Both the Severn and the Wye rise on the eastern flanks of the Plynlimon range where they start their considerable journeys to the Bristol Channel. In their upper reaches, the Severn at Llanidloes and the Wye at Llangurig run only 4 miles apart. The upper Wye runs east from Plynlimon and its route through the mountains has long been used 3 (see Sambrook 2003, 70). The route was probably first formalised by the line of the 1769 Turnpike road between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury, still followed by modern trunk roads (Rees 1951, Plate 67). The Roman fort of Cae Gaer occupies a strategic position in the mountains just east of the watershed between the upper Wye and the Rheidol rivers (Figure 4.9). It is sited in a nick alongside a small river overlooking a bend in the Wye only 4km south-east of the watershed. Evidently the

66

4: Movement, trade and cultural contact

Figure 4.10 Panorama looking west along the Castell Valley, at a point where one emerges from the pass across Plynlimon from Eisteddfa Gurig, looking east to Ponterwyd over the enigmatic valley bottom earthwork of Llys Arthur (centre, middle distance, SN 786 824), scheduled as a medieval moated site, but more likely to have had origins as a Roman fort or fortlet. The favourable nature of the land along this flat-bottomed valley which reaches into the highest mountains of mid Wales and rises from 270-300m O.D, is remarkable given the prevailing perceptions of the Plynlimon massif as a remote and desolate area of moorland (T. Driver). been no excavations or surface finds to establish whether the hillforts around the afon Clywedog were also consumers of Cheshire salt. Given their proximity to the upper Severn Basin its seems plausible that they may once have participated in trade networks from the east. The distance from Dinas, Clywedog, south overland from the afon Clywedog to Old Hall on the Severn, and thence along the same route west to Ponterwyd is only 23 km. Pen Dinas at Aberystwyth lies only some 18km west again of Ponterwyd, following the overland route used today by the A44. This puts Pen Dinas within 53.7 km of Cefncarnedd fort or 41 km west of Dinas, Clywedog. The question of the orientation of hillfort façades in potential response to traffic crossing the Plynlimon massif along the Castell valley is looked at in more detail below in 7.4.1. Figure 4.11 Ponterwyd, braided trackways rising from the Rheidol valley to the south of the village (at SN 752 806) and heading east along the Afon Castell on a route presently preserved as a public footpath. These particular tracks were probably formed (or enlarged) by post medieval miners and drovers but they illustrate the amount of foot traffic which once used this mountain pass (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001/5096-70).

4.6 MOVEMENT BETWEEN THE WYE/ELAN VALLEYS AND THE YSTWYTH/TEIFI VALLEYS A major feature of the topography and drainage of North Ceredigion (Figures 2.6 and 2.9) is the line of the Ystwyth fault which cuts diagonally across the lower half of the study area, from north-east to south-west. This fault links the coast at Llanrhystud in the south-west with the upper and middle Ystwyth valley in the north-east. Beyond this, one crosses the Cambrian Mountains and descends into the Elan valley. This cut through the rugged terrain of the region provided an advantageous route for human movement during prehistory and later history. Evidence for Early Bronze Age mining on Copa Hill, Cwmystwyth (Timberlake 2001; 2003) and a series of ritual monuments in the hills just to the north-east would suggest occupation before the Iron Age. In 2002 and 2003, excavations at the foot of Copa Hill revealed the Banc Tyn’ddol gold ‘sun disc’, the first of its kind found in Wales with close parallels to Bronze Age examples from Ireland. There is

A general route from Cefncarnedd hillfort in the upper Severn basin, following the major river valleys west to Ponterwyd, is some 35.7km long 4 demonstrating the very short distances which link north Ceredigion with the major hillforts in the upper Severn basin. There have

4

A route west along the Severn valley through Llanidloes as far as Old Hall (SN 90 84), thence overland to the south-west to the Wye valley following a minor road, thence west following the Wye valley to Eisteddfa Gurig, and finally along the upper afon Castell to Ponterwyd. 67

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

the possibility that the Beaker metal working site on the slopes above fostered long-distance trade and movement along this important valley, and a prestigious burial just above the valley floor (Timberlake et al. 2004). This was probably also a strategic route during the Roman campaigns (as discussed in detail in 3.15 above).

that the valley of the Groes Fawr, overlooked by Castell Rhyfel and utilized by numerous Bronze Age monuments, was more likely as a prehistoric route way through the mountains than the historic ‘Abergwesyn Pass’ along the Berwyn valley to the south, which is marked by some very steep slopes (Figure 7.16). These themes are more fully discussed and illustrated in 7.4.2 below.

Branching off from the Wye to the south of Llangurig, good routes into north Ceredigion would have crossed the mountains from the Elan Valley, or Abergwesyn, to penetrate the centre of the study area, along the river Ystwyth, or to its south into the mountains bordering Cors Caron. Bordering the lowland focus of Cors Caron, three main hill-forts, Pen y Bannau, Penyffrwdllwyd and Castell, Tregaron have their main gateways facing northeast, into the mountains and away from the lowlands (see discussion in 7.4 below). Similar human and animal movement along key valleys into the mountains is attested historically to and from Cors Caron, as described by Eurfyl and Jones (1930, 100);

4.7 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Chapter 4 has begun to articulate wider issues relating to the later prehistoric settlement pattern of north Ceredigion, moving beyond the sites themselves. Regional concerns with the nature of ‘Dyfed’, and the existence of east-west contact across the permeable mountain barrier of the Cambrian range, have been addressed. Issues of the salt and ceramic trades have also been examined which potentially, and significantly, link the west coast economies of north Ceredigion with those of Cheshire, the Midlands Plain and the Welsh borderlands. A case has also been advanced for the use of cross-mountain contact in later prehistory, drawing on historic traditions of droving, fairs and long-distance trade and transport. Issues of human movement through the landscape will be looked at in more detail in Chapter 7 with specific reference to the location of hillforts. Such issues of landscape setting and orientation of hillforts with respect to potential movement in the prehistoric landscape can only be satisfactorily discussed following detailed investigation of the regional properties of hillfort architecture and aspects of architectural complexity, to be examined below in Chapters 5 and 6.

‘Near where the Teify issues from Y Cors Goch [now Cors Caron] stands Tregaron and here meet the roads which have traversed the eastern and western margins of the bog. From it too, three river-valleys mount eastward, giving ways into the hills and making the town the natural centre of the region. The middle one of these three streams – the Berwyn – is especially important because the road leading to Abergwesyn and ultimately to England follows it.’ Revised assessment of the potential prehistoric routes between Cors Caron and Abergwesyn for this study show

68

5: Bridges, bastions and bravado

5 Bridges, bastions and bravado: a new field archaeology of the north Ceredigion hillfort gateways

“Darren camp was pronounced in June last, by an Indian officer, equal in defensive capability to any of the hill forts of the present time that he had seen in India.” (Williams 1867, 287).

5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the main elements of the gateways and ancillary elements (outworks, annexes) of the north Ceredigion hillforts. Structural details of the ramparts, together with aspects of phasing and likely chronology for forts in the study area, have been introduced and discussed in Chapter 3. A more in-depth analysis and interpretation of monumental aspects and architecture of the hillfort gateways and façades will be covered in Chapter 6. The hillfort interiors are not dealt with in any comprehensive sense except where the demarcation of interior spaces, or the functionality of terraces and annexes, may shed light on the broader social or monumental roles of hillfort annexes or entrance-ways (see 3.2.3.1.3 above and discussion of duality in 8.3 below).

‘Entrances are designed to stop a rush attack from getting into a fort. Simple entrances provide either merely a narrow gateway through the rampart or a gateway with attached quarters for guards who could shut the gates in an emergency. More complex entrances use a variety of devices to detain an attacking party in a cramped and vulnerable position, where defenders would have the advantage of height and freedom of action. [They]… are often remarkably complex and sophisticated structures: they reflect the concentration of defensive ingenuity in an area where attack also would be concentrated.’ (Avery 1976, 15)

The main themes discussed in Chapters 5 to 7 draw heavily on new data gathered during more than 6 years of field visits and selective surveys, some of which is included in the individual site descriptions provided in Appendix 1.

The military layout of the complex hillfort gateway was illustrated by Cunliffe in 1971 (ibid., Fig. 17) with his diagram demonstrating the East Entrance at Danebury with its extending hornwork providing a central ‘command point’ for slinging, the 60m radius taking in the entire gateway complex and approach. In recent years many authors have emphasised the symbolic and display properties of gateways as liminal points or portals between the outside world and the restricted hillfort interior, often reinforced by imposing architecture and ritual deposits (e.g. Oswald 1997, 93-94, and see more comprehensive discussion of defensive and non-defensive roles of hillforts in Chapter 8).

5.2 GATEWAYS AND ENTRANCE WORKS The gateway has long been seen as one of the most informative parts of any hillfort. Hogg (1975, 66) summed up the research strengths and excavation potential of gateways; ‘The most vulnerable parts of a hill-fort’s defences were the gateways… Hill-fort entrances tend to be elaborate and interesting. Further, since a gateway where the timber has rotted is worse than useless, they are more likely to retain evidence of repair and reconstruction than other parts of the defences…’. During the 1970s, and into the 1980s, Avery held to the notion that hillfort gateways were primarily defensive works where the defensive strategies of the hillfort were concentrated and developed:

The last major programme of research in north Ceredigion which incorporated field visits to, and new surveys of, the Iron Age hillforts, was the Ceredigion Archaeological Survey which tackled a number of landscape blocks during the 1980s. A simple statement on gateways and entrances was provided: ‘Entrance ways can be very elaborate… but on the hillforts of mid Wales they are usually simple breaks in the rampart.’ (Thorburn 1988, under ‘Iron Age’) The local method of rampart construction was described thus; ‘The general regional style [of ramparts], (seen more fully in the excavation of 69

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 5.1 North Ceredigion hillfort gateways: key elements which are readily-identifiable in the field from excavated or surface evidence. These are: annexes which are identifiable as distinct enclosed areas; bastions, both freestanding examples and those which form integral parts of gateway wall terminals; and bridges, either verified through excavation (at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, 7) or postulated from surface evidence in the form of deep gateways at Caer Penrhos (52), Pen y Bannau (46), Hen Gaer (28), Pen-y-castell (15) and Darren (38). The limitations of such distribution maps are immediately evident, in that future excavation will almost certainly reveal greater complexity at other north Ceredigion hillfort gateways where slumping, erosion or ploughing have obscured or removed diagnostic surface evidence (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth), is one which features two lines of dry-stone walling of horizontally-laid, local stone, enclosing spaces, partly sub-divided by stone walls into ‘cells’, which are filled with loose stone and earth.’ (ibid.) However, a degree of complexity is described; ‘Naturally weak parts of the defences are strengthened by the use of ditches, higher ramparts or additional lines of defence.’, and ‘…In some cases…(e.g. Pen y Daren 6783/1), the arrangement of the ends of the rampart forces those entering the hillfort to make a sharp turn through the entrance way. There is something in these more elaborate works that suggests the ‘symbolic’ strength of the hillfort defences.’ (ibid.).

5.2.1 Gateways with passages and crossing bridges The most sophisticated gateways yet recorded in north Ceredigion were found at Pen Dinas Aberystwyth (Avery 1993a). Excavations (Forde et al. 1963) revealed details of the gateways with which other, unexcavated, forts can be compared. The gateway of the phase 1 north fort was only partially excavated but appears to have been a simple structure with inturned walls. The gateways of the 2nd-4th phase south fort were more elaborate, but all conformed to the general principle of a stone-lined gateway passage through the rampart, with a surfaced roadway flanked by pairs of posts supporting a crossing bridge (continuing the rampart walk). The provision of a gate-passage has parallels with some of the largest and most complex

70

5: Bridges, bastions and bravado

gates, a first-floor platform and perhaps another storey above that, the whole linking to a walkway between the rampart terminals (ibid., 59-60 & Figure 50). The use of bridges over corridor entrances is also an exotic feature, equally imbued with display potential, which Cunliffe (1991, 339) describes as a ‘characteristic of the corridor entrances of the south, which recurs in the Welsh Border sites… providing obvious defensive advantages.’ Bridges appear to have been a late development, appearing in south Britain during the third and second centuries BC, but not recognised in the west until later, being radiocarbon dated both at Midsummer Hill and Croft Ambrey to 50±100 bc (ibid.). This fits well with the accepted dates for the enlargement and development of Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, chiefly based on the Malvernian pottery find (see 3.1.4.1 and 4.4.2 above). Both the south and north gates of the south fort were asymmetric structures, featuring prominent right-hand bastions (from the intruder’s perspective), which provided superior fields of view, and presumably allowed a slinger to dominate the approaches. The south gate of the south fort (Forde et al. 1963, 130-132 & Fig. 5; Avery 1993a), in its later phases, featured a sweeping 17.5 m wall on the right (north) forming the projecting bastion, flanked by a rampart terminal half this size on the left (south). The fall in ground height from the rear to the front of the south gate suggests that the bastion might have towered at least 3.5m above the heads of those approaching. The north gate of the south fort (Forde et al. 1963, 132-138 & Fig. 6) featured a sharply angled entrance passage, turning almost 90 degrees to the left as one approached uphill from the isthmus. In period III, the south-facing wall of the entrance passage was enlarged with a massive projecting bastion, increasing the passage wall on this side to some 12m in length, with a bridge set at the inner point. This would be the side along which the unshielded right arms of any attackers would be presented, and from the vantage of the bastion, rampart walk and crossing bridge, the entrance passage would have been designed as a closely guarded ‘killing ground’.

Figure 5.2 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. The south gate of the south fort. This structure was one of the first investigated by Daryll Forde during the summer of 1933. Section A-BC at the top of the diagram illustrates the buried, slumped clay layer across the gateway interpreted as the flooring material for a collapsed timber crossing bridge. The main plan illustrates the asymmetric form of this gateway, the northern wall terminal sweeping out to form a bold, confident bastion projecting out over steeply sloping ground to the front (east) of the gateway (after Forde et al. 1963; National Monuments Record of Wales, Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

The dominance of the right hand side is a common ‘cultural’ feature in Iron Age defences. Avery (1976, 16) wrote; ‘[the entrance route]…is constricted to form a relatively narrow, defensible passage, usually crossing banks and ditches at right angles to their line, but quite often set askew, so that people entering tend to turn towards their left, and thus present to the defenders their right-hand side, carrying a weapon and therefore unprotected by a shield.’ Projecting bastions sited on the right-hand side are seen in the main inner gate at Moel Hiraddug main inner gate (Guilbert 1979), and not so clearly at Dinorben. The north-west, or main, entrance at Tre’r Ceiri hillfort is approached along a 15m entrance passage, with the passage narrowing significantly from 3.6m to 0.7m at the entrance (Hopewell 1993, 49). The

hillforts on the Welsh borderlands, and also with a number of smaller hillforts in south-west Wales excavated in recent years, including Woodside and Drim in the Llawhaden group (Williams and Mytum 1998), which featured elaborate gate towers. For example, the approach to Woodside camp was along an antenna entrance with two gate towers at the outer and inner gates. The outer posts of the outer gate tower were doubled up suggesting a further storey or ‘…some form of display platform…’ above (ibid., 18, Figure 13). At Drim camp nearby, the four-post foundations for the gateway tower were substantial enough to suggest the provision for double

71

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 5.3 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Reconstruction of north gate of the south fort (background) and the isthmus defences from the north, prepared by the author for a popular guide (Browne and Driver 2001). The isthmus gate (foreground) is shown in its latest form (Phase d), following several sequences of narrowing. It is flanked by an external buttress on its south-east (here, left-hand) side built during the later stages to support the earlier Phase c rampart face which had begun to bulge (Forde et al. 1963, 144). The excavations also found the start of a deep rock-cut external ditch at the foot of the wall, dug during Phase d when the new buttress was built over the earlier, Phase a ditch. The final form of the intervening rampart joining the outer and inner ramparts (centre left) is uncertain but is shown as a simple wall blocking access onto the main terrace of the south fort. The north gate of the south fort (background) is shown with reinforcing buttresses at the base of the east (here, left-hand) wall interpreted as a later (Phase 3) measure to shore-up a collapsing rampart face (ibid., 136). The sweeping bastion forming a slinging platform on the west (here, right side) of the gate, gives a strong idea of how impressive this tall stone-lined passageway and crossing bridge was. Both gates may not have been standing and in use at the same time (T. Driver). entrance is further narrowed by a projecting buttress on the right hand side, as at Pen Dinas. At Tre’r Ceiri this is a significant visual feature as one approaches along the passageway. While the Pen Dinas gateways employed interesting defensive schemes, using bastions, outer gateways and kinked corridors with crossing bridges, they lacked more obvious elements of sophistication found at most larger hillforts.

gates excavated (south fort, south and north gates, and the isthmus gate), the most complex sequence was revealed for the isthmus gate, investigated in 1934 (Forde et al. 1963, 140-145). This entrance began life as a 40ft wide gap ‘… before being twice narrowed… first down to 26ft and then to 21ft.’ In phase c ‘The gateway reached its narrowest with a timber setting of four posts 10-14ft across.’ (ibid.) In plan these phases appear to be clearly defined, but in the context of recent excavations at Castell Henllys, the application of modern excavation techniques might well reveal greater complexity at Pen Dinas. At Castell Henllys, Mytum (1999, 166) wrote that ‘At first we assumed that a simple gateway would be all that could be expected from such a small fort, but in the event, a long and complex sequence has been identified.’ In the opinion of the co-director Ken Murphy (pers. comm.), the complexity of the phases of building, collapse and rebuilding excavated on this site calls into question more simple plans and sequences recovered in earlier hillfort excavations. Only re-excavation will confirm the exact nature of the structural sequences at Pen Dinas. It is worth noting that similar episodes of narrowing an originally wide entrance gap were also recorded at the south-west entrance of Walesland Rath (Wainwright 1971) and could

The principal feature missing in mid Wales, but present among the Welsh borderlands forts and into north Wales, is the guard chamber, developed first in timber across south Britain during the fifth century or earlier, and then seen in stone at the larger hillforts in east and north Wales (Cunliffe 1991, 337). A second class of entrance feature, the twin-portal arrangement of gate, appears to have flourished among the larger borderlands hillforts like Croft Ambrey between the sixth and the fourth centuries BC (ibid.), but seems to have been entirely absent in Ceredigion. In the light of modern excavations on hillfort gateways in mid and west Wales, the sequence of development found for the three main gates investigated at Pen Dinas could be called in to question. Of the three

72

5: Bridges, bastions and bravado

Figure 5.5 Pen y Bannau, gateway, general view of main north gateway from within the main outworks. The depth of the entrance passage between the terminals of the ramparts suggests that the original form of the gateway may have comprised a walled entrance passage with a crossing bridge. Such a thesis has yet to be confirmed by excavation (T. Driver).

Figure 5.4 ‘Inserted’ gateways at Dinorben (south-east entrance) and Moel Hiraddug (main inner gate) showing blocked early portals to the right of the later gateways. (Simplified from Guilbert 1979, Page 517, Figure 2). be postulated at the main gate of Castell Grogwynion, where a superficially wide gap was infilled, apparently by an inserted gateway (see below). On the basis of surface evidence at unexcavated forts, we find several examples of gateways with close-set, massive rampart terminals broken by a narrow (presumably collapsed) throughpassage. These are seen at Hen Gaer (site 28), Penrhyncoch, where the gate is further blocked or guarded by an exterior mound of some size (Figure 5.15); Pen y Bannau, where a passage beneath a crossing bridge surely existed, and is further suggested by blocks of massive stonework preserved on the right hand side of the gateway (Figures 5.5 and 5.6); Caer Penrhos, where the rampart would have been high enough to carry a crossing bridge; Pen y Castell, Llanilar (site 15; Figure 3.37), where a similar deep entrance passage survives through the main rampart; and Gaer Fawr, where air photo evidence at least suggests an enlarged right-hand terminal on the main inturned east gate, presumably a buried bastion once flanking a strong gate (Figures 5.7 and 5.8). The forms of these unexcavated earthworks can be compared with the earthworks of the south gate of the south fort at Pen Dinas which, although backfilled after excavation, still shows something of the contours we might expect to find from a gateway with a through passage, bastions and a crossing bridge.

Figure 5.6 Pen y Bannau. Massive stonework protruding through turf some 3m north-west of the main inner north gateway on the exterior of the west terminal, suggesting a considerable scale to the original walling and the presence of substantial below-ground gateway structures. Scale measures 0.5m (T. Driver).

73

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Grogwynion (Figures 5.9-5.10) and Pen Dinas, Elerch (Figures 5.11-5.13) and are not recorded at other hillforts in the study area. A further free-standing C or V-shaped walled feature removed from the body of the fort is seen at Cnwc y Bugail (Figures 5.14 and 7.38). This has been termed a free-standing bastion although it does not directly flank the approach to a gateway; rather, it appears to provide defensive cover overlooking the approaches to the fort, in some senses acting as a ‘command post’. 5.2.2.1 Castell Grogwynion: an example of a rediscovered complex gateway A free-standing bastion forms a component of the complex main gateway at Castell Grogwynion (Figure i). The hillfort was rapidly surveyed for this research in 2002 to place on record the gateway, and key unsurveyed aspects of its defences and interior. This was superseded by a new survey in 2012 by Louise Barker of the Royal Commission (Figure 6.32).

Figure 5.7 Gaer Fawr, detail of aerial view from the east, showing the main east gate with an enlarged right-hand bastion. Compare with fort overview given in Figure 6.43 (RCAHMW Crown Copyright. 2001/5088-59).

The complexity of the gateway was not always recognised. The free-standing bastion was planned by the Ordnance Survey in 1905, loosely depicted by Hughes in 1926 (Figure 2.17), and planned by the Ordnance Survey Archaeology Division in 1974 (Figure 2.18). That said, Burnham (in Cadw 1988) wrote: ‘It is quite possible that there was another entrance into the lower enclosure on the NE (as suggested by OS), but the outer bank in particular, and the inner bank to some extent, appears somewhat fragmented and it is difficult to be certain. It is possible that the fort was at least in part unfinished…’ In 1994 Hogg and Davies (270) provided the first full description; ‘The entrance at the north-east corner is rather elaborate. The outer eastern rampart curves west for a short distance and ends in a mound [actually a well built bastion] a little north of the terminal of the outer northern rampart, forming an oblique entrance. To gain the interior it is necessary to go south for a short distance between the inner and outer ramparts and then turn west past the line of the inner rampart.’

Figure 5.8 Gaer Fawr. General view of main east gateway looking south, with in-turns and bastion in foreground. The earthworks have suffered somewhat in recent years from plough encroachment and damage (T. Driver). 5.2.2 Freestanding bastions and elaborate gateway elements

This main gateway is an elaborate design. It features a tall bastion, almost a free-standing feature, set out from the body of the fort on a foundation platform. The ground is further quarried at the base of the bastion on the northwest side, possibly to enhance an appearance of height. The bastion is positioned on the left-hand side of the gate, where normally it would flank and overlook the righthand side; this may be a local variant or simply the only way a bastion could be incorporated at this site. Access from the outer gate, to the fort interior, is via an annexe, at the point of the ‘U’ turn. Both this annexe, and the other elements of the gateway, would probably have originally been enclosed by timberwork and palisades thus forming a secure passageway of sorts. This possibility was first suggested by Burnham in 1988 (Cadw 1988). The eastern rampart of the hillfort is set on a considerable rise overlooking the gateway, and may have functioned as a ‘lookout’. As a whole, the gateway is the most complex

Bastions and hornworks, which have been incorporated into the structure of the rampart flanking the gateway, to be used as lookout points or slinging platforms, have been discussed above. However, bastions which are more freestanding in character survive as impressive entrance features at a handful of forts (see Figure 5.1) along with a range of additional elements. A bastion can be described as ‘a projecting work at the angle or in the line of a fortification, having two faces and two flanks.’ (Cassell 1999, 92) However, in the study area, free-standing walled ‘towers’ or squat platforms flanking one side of a gateway have been termed bastions, even though they stand taller than the main walls of the gateway structure with which they remain integral at lower levels. These are chiefly seen at Castell

74

5: Bridges, bastions and bravado

Figure 5.9 Castell Grogwynion: aerial view from the north-east showing the main gateway arrangements. The bastion is clearly visible, lower centre, defining the main entrance passageway. Visitors approached from below the fort but would have been awe-struck, and frustrated, by the need to walk its length before gaining access at the lowest point of the defences. It appears that an annexe was provided inside the main gate, probably bounded by a timber revetment, guiding visitors into the ‘inner annexe’ or lower public area of the main hillfort beyond. The 2012 survey of the hillfort has identified two other more simple gateways on the defensive circuit, showing continual change and redevelopment of this complex monument (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, detail of AP_2012_1378). element of Castell Grogwynion, and also displays the best construction. That the bastion is still standing with a steep profile shows that its original internal construction and facing were completed to a high standard. A clue to the true origin of this gateway may be found in its relation to the hillfort plan and the neighbouring ramparts. In the context of the hillfort, the gateway is set out from the main body of the defences. In addition, the length of the northern rampart, which angles in below the bastion, forcing the 180-degree ‘U’ turn through the gate, is detached from the main ramparts and of a very different build quality. It is, rather, a footing for a palisade than a wall in its own right. The eastern rampart, which overlooks the gate from a rise atop a rock outcrop, is similarly unconnected to the gateway.

Figure 5.10 Castell Grogwynion: The bastion seen from outside the fort as one approaches. This view shows the platform on which the bastion stands, and its steep sides, with quarrying at the base potentially to enhance its appearance. The fact that these sides remain steep and uneroded today are testament to a better original build quality than some of the surrounding ramparts. These techniques are discussed further in section 6.2.2 (T. Driver).

It is possible that this gateway was ‘inserted’ by specialists into the hillfort, once suitable preparation had been completed by the occupants. Evidence from Castell Henllys, Pembrokeshire (Mytum 1997; Mytum and Murphy pers. comm. 2002) suggests that visiting gateway 75

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 5.12 Pen Dinas Elerch; The bastioned south gateway seen on the approaches. Compare with Figure 5.15 below (T. Driver).

Figure 5.13 Pen Dinas, Elerch. Interpretation of Figure 5.14 (T. Driver). 5.2.2.2 Pen Dinas, Elerch

Figure 5.11 Pen Dinas Elerch, near-vertical aerial view with north to top, showing main gateways arrowed. Bastioned gateway visible at southern tip of the fort (bottom). Other potential gateway gaps and former gateways are present at this complex, multiperiod site (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, AP_2012_1461).

The main south gateway into the hillfort at Pen Dinas, Elerch, is sited at the narrow tip of the rising defended outcrop (Figure 5.12). One approaches along a causeway over otherwise boggy ground, but this looks to be a largely natural feature as the front rampart cuts into the causeway. The main gate is impressive, formed by a high bastion flanking the right hand (east) side, and a low rampart on the left, the pair contrived to form a dog-leg entrance passage where the visitor is forced to turn first right below the bastion, then left into the fort. Traces of stone revetment are preserved in the face of the bastion, and there is a high amount of quartz present. Some slumping may have affected the original height of the bastion. Surface evidence may indicate the site of a guard chamber or recess to the rear. Taken together, the form of this gateway is not casual or simple, but represents a specialised piece of building. Even so, it is not described by Hogg and Davies in their entry for the site (1994, 2667). Display was important, seen in the use of quartz walling, as was strategy employing the bastion and angled entrance passage. The incorporation of an ‘exotic’ element, the bastion, may itself have been a political or cultural, rather than a military, statement; these issues will be examined more fully in Chapters 6 and 7.

‘artisans’ first scouted the proposed site of the main gate and left instructions for the construction of a suitable gap in the defences. Rampart and ditch construction commenced in advance of the new gate being delivered and installed, but there is evidence for a degree of uncertainty on the final form of the gate, leading to mistakes and alterations in the rampart construction. Once the new, advanced gate was fitted, evidence suggests that it collapsed and decayed to a considerable extent over the following years whilst still being used as an entrance, further reinforcing the notion that the occupants did not have the means to repair or re-build. Similar ‘inserted gateways’, perhaps built by travelling gateway architects, were proposed at Moel Hiraddug and Dinorben by Guilbert in 1979 (see Figure 5.4 above), and the same may hold true for the developed gateways at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (Browne and Driver 2001, 30).

76

5: Bridges, bastions and bravado

5.2.2.3 Cnwc y Bugail

This rampart, along with the bastion and other features, had not been identified in any previous surveys (e.g. Hogg and Davies 1994). That numerous previous fieldworkers failed to record the impressive free-standing bastion, the in-situ quartz blocks lining the gateway passage, or the occurrence of other quartz blocks in the disturbed gateway earthworks and on the original outer face of the bastion, is particularly surprising. The Ordnance Survey surveyor in August 1974 noted that the fort was covered by dense bracken at the time of the ‘definitive’ survey and consequently these notable features were omitted from the site record until the new 2003 survey by the author.

This triangular hillfort (also described in 7.5.6 below) occupies a steep-sided triangular knoll and encloses an area approximately 60m north-south x 70m east-west. It features a particularly complex gateway arrangement first fully interpreted and surveyed during this research (Figure 7.36). The position of the main south gate into the fort is marked by a gap on the far west side between the edge of the natural hillslope and some in-situ quartz walling of good sized blocks (the faces of the two main blocks measuring 80 x 60 cm and 90 x 40 cms), presumably lining a passage (see Figure 6.14). Above and to the east and south east of this ‘passage’ are further minor in-turns below the putative ‘command post’, also with quartz blocks in-situ although on a smaller scale. The earthworks in this area appear to represent some complex, possibly multiperiod, gate structures but the precise sequence is unclear and possibly disturbed at some later date.

5.2.2.4 Notes on other elaborate gateway elements The hillfort at Gilfach y dwn fawr (site 88), discovered in 1999 in hills bordering Cors Caron, and surveyed by RCAHMW in 2002, has an inner gateway defined by upstanding rampart terminals, and a skewed outer gateway with a prominent left-hand bastion. The entrance route takes the visitor in a slight right-hand curve, with the greatest emphases placed on the left-hand bastions, not dissimilar to Castell Grogwynion. A further unique gateway feature in the study area is found at Hen Gaer, near Penrhyncoch (Figures 5.15 and 7.5). The original main entrance appears to lie on the west side, and has a circular mound outside resembling a Roman titulum, which Hogg and Davies (1994, 264) say ‘…seems likely to be merely spoil from cutting a modern gap’. It is impossible to be certain without excavation, but the apparent authenticity of the gap in the rampart as a gateway suggests it could be an original defensive feature.

Some 40m south of the gateway is a bastion comprising a ‘U’ shaped defensible mound c.22m x 20m, probably formed from a pre-existing rocky knoll, of which others can be seen nearby (Figure 5.14). Its position some distance south of the gate forms an enclosed annexe of the intervening ground. Its rear concavity has possibly been quarried away while its front (south) face preserves a smooth surface profile with at least two white quartz blocks in situ. Two or three other good-sized quartz blocks can be seen tumbled on the slopes below the bastion. The mound is further enhanced with a ditch at the foot of the outer face, seen on air photos under parching conditions but also preserved as a cut terrace on the ground. In between the main fort and the bastion, on the east side and flanking the main approach from below, is an outwork 35m long scarped into the hillslope which further enhances and reinforces the path of approach. Aerial photographs 1 taken under parched conditions show that this outwork is ditched on the south (outer) side leaving a small ramp between it and the bastion to gain access into the fort.

5.2.3 Annexes and public areas Avery (1993b, 12.7-12.9; 69) discussed the obvious differences between ‘open’ and blocked gateways, contrasting those with complex approaches involving forecourts, against those with ‘simple’ entrances where a passage gives access onto open ground. The concealment of gateways with kinked approach passages is classed as a tactic to make the inner approaches more dangerous, and he concluded the section with the observation that: ‘A closer study of unexcavated examples would allow a clearer analysis of the warfare in use while these hillforts were being built.’ There is in fact a growing appreciation in Iron Age studies of the nature of public and non-public spaces at the point of entrance to the hillfort and the varied uses to which these were potentially put, above and beyond the military needs of the hillfort as a defensible stronghold (see discussion in Chapter 8). Excavations at Crickley Hill showed that an impressive hornwork had been added to the main entrance in period 3b, a period of major rebuilding, which formed an annex outside the main gate with an outer gateway (Dixon 1994, 189-193 & illustration 186). Recent excavations at Castell Henllys in particular revealed a previously unsuspected outer annex appended to the main gate, which considerably enhanced the relative complexity of the entrance arrangements at

Figure 5.14 Cnwc y Bugail. Close up of the rear of the bastion, looking south to Castell Disgwylfa (site 21) on the hill summit beyond. Compare with Figure 7.38 (T. Driver). 1

RCAHMW oblique air photograph, 995090-44; July 1999 77

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 5.15 Hen Gaer (site 28), rounded mound outside the putative west entrance, looking north, which appears to be a unique feature for an Iron Age fort in Ceredigion. It resembles a Roman titulum, and may be an original defensive feature, but Hogg and Davies (1994, 264) suggest it is probably spoil from cutting a recent gap. Whatever the explanation it forms a very neat mound with a regular profile (T. Driver. Crown Copyright RCAHMW, CD2005_620_024).

Figure 5.16 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Ground view of north gate of south fort from within annexe. This can be compared to the reconstruction in Figure 5.3, which shows a similar view but from an elevated perspective to the upper left (T. Driver, Crown Copyright RCAHMW, CD_2005_621_012). this hillfort, reminding us that not all elaborate entrances are visible on the surface.

surrounded by subsidiary compounds for corralling stock’ (Britnell, 1989, 114). Further examples are offered by Savory (in Harding 1976, Fig 13, 454, ‘Map of Pastoralism in Wales’) and Cunliffe (1991, 398-399).

5.2.3.1 Space for corralling and livestock management The structural aspects of hillforts and enclosures often feature modifications consistent with a farming role. Such activities would have been commonplace at larger hillforts and settlements. The Collfryn enclosure in the central borderlands is described by its excavator as falling within ‘… a tradition of multiple enclosure sites… which are widely interpreted as having a central settlement area

In north Ceredigion, the period II north gateway of the South Fort at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, may have been modified for stock management. The terminals of a pair of rock-cut ditches flanking the surfaced roadway into the main gate were separated from the track by short lengths of palisade (see Figure 5.3 ‘Period II palisade trenches’;

78

5: Bridges, bastions and bravado

Figure 5.17 Darren hillfort. New plan of hillfort, outworks and sixteenth century opencast lead mines completed by Louise Barker for the Royal Commission in 2005. The outworks block direct access to the main west gate, but also create a controlled public space outside the defended interior. Simon Timberlake first noted the corresponding gap in the mine workings to the west. In sharp contrast the rear, east, gateway is entirely undefended. (Crown Copyright RCAHMW) Forde et al. 1963, 137 & Fig. 6). A near-identical arrangement was seen at Danebury for the period 1a gateways. Cunliffe (1993, 35) notes; ‘The rampart ends were revetted with fences brought forward to flank the ditch terminals… This arrangement would have had the advantage of preventing the animals, driven into the fort, from jostling each other into the ditches.’ It is certainly likely that wide-spaced terrace at Pen Dinas Aberystwyth; appended secondary enclosures like that at New Cross fort; or so-called wide-spaced ‘south-western’ type enclosures argued for at Cefn Blewog by Hogg, but also seen in the south of the area at Brynchwyth hillfort and Pant Wilog at Llanon, all had fundamental roles in providing additional functional enclosed space for the hillfort dwellers, probably for penning stock, as well as for other industrial or craft activities.

Figure 5.18 Darren hillfort, air photo from the west showing main arrangement of gateway. The break in the excavated mine workings from all periods appears to respect the main approach to the gateway from the west, a point originally noted by Simon Timberlake (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001/5091-52).

79

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

5.2.3.2 Public space for gatherings and control of human access In north Ceredigion several hillforts feature modified entrance outworks or sophisticated outer gateway arrangements, which can be described as public annexes, allowing for enclosed public spaces within the hillfort defences, but external to the core defended fort. The clearest example of a defended annex functioning as a public area is found at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, where the isthmus became enclosed in the final phases of development linking the two defended hilltops (Figure 5.16). Avery (1993a) saw this final enclosure as being a response to the tactical weakness of the isthmus area where attackers could mass in front of the north gate of the south fort. This may indeed have been the original functional reason for the construction of the isthmus defences and the isthmus gate, an entirely new eastorientated main gate for Pen Dinas. However, even if the construction of an annexe was not uppermost in the minds of the controlling authority of Pen Dinas at the time of the isthmus enclosure, it could have formed, within the final developed fort, a very useful and almost level enclosed area for gatherings or markets which may have been vital to the political role of a major regional hillfort. A rectangular annexe which may be supplementary to the original design of the core hillfort (but may also result from a single phase of works; see 3.1.4.3) can also be seen at Caer Argoed in the Wyre valley, where the enclosed space was augmented with impressive ramparts. However, other annexes appear to have been created by the particular arrangement of entrance features.

Figure 5.19 Annexes and public areas. Schematic plans of three principal hillforts where public areas appear to have been defined structurally by outworks, annexes or distinct enclosed areas secure from main hillfort interiors. Two additional key examples are Cnwc y Bugail fort, shown below in Figure 5.20, and Caer Argoed, depicted in Figure 2.25 (T. Driver).

At Darren hillfort (Figure 5.17; more fully discussed in 7.5.3 below), the author’s working hypothesis is that the west-facing outworks would originally have presented solid, yet overlapping, lines of defence to those approaching from the west, rather than being punctuated by a central trackway as is the case now. The main approach to the hillfort was from the west, and here on the gentle slopes below the fort a series of outworks and terraces were constructed. Immediately below the west facing main rampart of the fort was a revetted terrace in two separate sections; the south section is angled, while the north section runs broadly parallel to the main rampart of the fort. Its outer face is disturbed by later opencast mining, but intact traces of wall-courses formed of weathered, rounded stones can still be seen in the grassedover or eroding outer face of the terrace. Below this terrace ran middle and outer lines of outworks, both relatively low clay and stone banks. The middle outwork was sited to effectively block the gap left between the two separated sections of terrace above, so blocking direct access to the main gate. The outermost outwork converged towards the middle bank at its northernmost point. This bank then diverged from the middle outwork to the south. Overall, it appears that the western outworks, which may have been constructed over more than one phase, served to block direct access to the main gate from

the western approaches, with entry only being possible from the south, the visitor thus approaching obliquely and ascending steep slopes from below the fort. The undisturbed, open nature of the ground immediately outside the main western gate, surrounded on all sides by ramparts and outworks, makes it highly likely that this was a deliberately contrived enclosed public space. These opinions of the Darren gateway must be set against the perceptive observations of Simon Timberlake (pers. comm.) who has pointed out that there is a stretch of unbroken ground opposite (to the west of) the main gate which apparently has never been broken by opencast mine workings (Figure 5.18). The coincidence of the main gate and the break in mine workings does suggest the presence of a long-standing point of access here which may have early, pre-Iron Age, origins. The entrance arrangements have already been described at Castell Grogwynion, whereby a gateway annex is clearly incorporated in the space between the outer gateway, and the interior of the fort. Once inside however, the interior of Castell Grogwynion is clearly demarcated by naturally occurring ribs of rock which traverse the site (Figure 6.32). These subdivided the lower area of the fort below

80

5: Bridges, bastions and bravado

Figure 5.21 Castell Bach, Llanrhystud, view from the north-east under parched conditions in 1995. The hitherto simple, mutilated small hillfort is transformed with this new information, showing a broad ditch at the base of the rampart on the north (right side) end defining an oblique entrance, an inner ditch encircling the base of the main rampart (running around to the south, or left, side), and an outer rock-cut ditch beyond. Circular ‘shadows’ inside the fort may indicate the positions of house platforms or pits (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 955142-55). Figure 5.20 Cnwc y Bugail. Schematic plan derived from new survey (see Figure 7.36), illustrating the relative importance of embellished gateway works together with a generous annexe, bounded on the south side by a Dshaped bastion. Together, the space given over the gateway and annexe comprises nearly half of the entire length of the hillfort and nearly a third of the entire enclosed space on this restricted hillock (T. Driver).

Pen y Castell, Llety-Ifan-Hen has a simple plan, but complex details. It occupies a prominent knoll towards the head of a narrowing valley, with its main gate facing east towards the mountains (see site plan Figure 6.8, and detailed aerial photograph Figure 3.8). The univallate defence is of differential quality from ‘front’ to ‘rear’. The rampart is highest and best preserved where it flanks the main east gate; here, the rock cut outer ditch is also at its deepest. That the front face of this rampart survives with a narrow berm intact, while erosion has taken its toll elsewhere around the defensive circuit, is evidence for structured internal building techniques close to the main gate, described fully in 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.1 below. Better quality stone walling is visible through the grass of the outer rampart face close to the entrance whereas walling to the rear of the fort is coarse and made of larger blocks (see drawn details in Figure 6.8). The carefully built rampart circuit was contrived to follow the crest of the knoll for maximum display potential.

the western outcrop into three distinct areas. It is entirely feasible that the lowest of these areas at least, adjoining the outer gate, was used as a public area, and perhaps the central space too. This possibility is strengthened by the identification of two house platforms on the upper terrace of the fort but not in the lower area; however, the lower areas show evidence for cultivation which may have erased any useful structural evidence. 5.3 STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY AT SMALLER HILLFORTS

Castell Bach (Figure 5.21) is a partly bivallate small hillfort commanding an inland promontory with exceptional views over the coastal plain at Llanrhystud. The fort has previously been described as simple and unremarkable. Hughes in 1926 described the site as; ‘Castell Bach… is a small arc crowning a knoll. Along side there runs a line of an ancient track.’ Hogg, (in Hogg and Davies 1994, 255) noted; ‘When visited in 1952 a short length of stone revetment was visible on the east, but the whole site has long been cultivated and the rampart robbed.’ In fact, the surviving fort is much more complex.

Perhaps the most interesting discovery from the current research is the degree of complexity found at even small, superficially simple, strongholds. The smaller univallate hillforts might be expected to represent ‘simpler’ settlements, but there is considerable surface evidence to suggest that many were minor ‘power bases’ or farmsteads of some sophistication. This is demonstrated at Pen y Castell, Castell Bach (Figure 5.21) and Cnwc y Bugail (see above).

81

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

side, there is evidence for a more complicated rampart arrangement with a stone-faced ‘footing wall’ at the very top of the rampart, perhaps for a palisade, with traces of the rampart face proper below, slightly stepped out. Below this the angle of the surviving rampart is shallower and probably comprises a mass of tumbled material concealing the lower courses of the rampart face. Excavations at Castell Henllys, Pembrokeshire, have demonstrated that rampart faces may indeed slump forward or be superseded by later walling at a higher level (Mytum 1989, 1997). The whole circuit is damaged by erosion, slippage and sheep-scrapes. Where the original rampart face has fallen away, the characteristic rubble make up of the rampart core comprising horizontal blocks often laid at right angles to the wall face, can be seen (also seen at Pen y Castell, Bontgoch, and Caer Argoed nearby). The steepest and best preserved defences survive at the southern tip of the fort where the intention was clearly to cut a deep notch in to the hillslope which would be (and still is) highly visible from below, signalling the position of the fort (Figure 6.37).

Figure 5.22. Pen y Gaer, Deri-Odwyn (site 8). New aerial photography in the dry summer of 2006 revealed hitherto unrecorded bivallate plough-levelled ditches on the northeast - here, left-hand - side increasing the complexity of this previously unremarkable hillfort and clarifying other structural details (Crown Copyright RCAHMW AP_2006_3831)

More plough-denuded sites like Pen y Gaer, Deri-Odwyn (Figure 5.22) had rather shapeless and uninformative univallate earthworks and had hitherto not attracted much attention from archaeologists. The situation changed in 2006 when the aerial photograph shown in Figure 5.22 documented considerable plough-levelled elements beyond the denuded earthworks of the fort. The siting of these small forts belies considerable care and strategy. Penrhyncoch camp (site 35), conventionally a ‘hillslope’ enclosure, sits at a break of slope on a rising ridge and the rampart remains highly visible on the skyline when seen from below. Pen y Gaer commands a highly conspicuous rounded summit.

Castell Bach is oval, with a single low rampart defending the steepest slopes on the west side (now much reduced by ploughing), but having on all other sides a substantial single rampart with an outer ditch below. Beyond this is a second ditch defending the shallower saddle of ground on the east and south sides only. The positions of both ditches are only known from aerial photography in parchmark conditions taken in 1995. There is no evidence that any sort of secondary rampart stood between the two outer ditches, although parchmarks show possible traces of a palisade trench on the outside lip of the inner ditch, at the foot of the main rampart. The site of the main entrance appears to be marked by an oblique track entering the fort on the east side; parchmarks clarify the entrance arrangements showing the north rampart swinging out to flank the entrance trackway, discontinuous with the remainder of the rampart on the east and south sides.

5.4 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Chapter 5 has begun to describe the hillfort gateways and ancillary areas beyond the forts in north Ceredigion, paving the way for new interpretations offered in Chapter 6 about the monumental aspects of gateways, façades and forward defences of hillforts. Chapter 5 has already introduced topics including the potential ‘public’ roles of hillfort annexes and outworks and the increased complexity of even smaller hillforts towards apparent goals of public display and ostentation. Further discussion relating to the symbolic and landscape roles of hillfort defences is developed in Chapters 7 and 8.

The main single rampart was originally walled with drystone, and several well-preserved stretches of walling survive at points around the circuit (Figure 6.11). The stone facing probably took the form of a single walled elevation, although close to the entrance on the east side there may have been two or three sets of rampart facing, shown by apparently in situ blocks and wall-courses stepped out at different positions. Mid way along the east

82

6: Impressing the neighbours

6 Impressing the neighbours: Structure, display and the spread of regional architectural traditions

6.1 INTRODUCTION: RETHINKING THE ROLE AND PURPOSE OF HILLFORT DEFENCES Patterns can be observed in the use of certain structures (e.g. gateway bastions, wide-spaced terraces, outworks) and spatial arrangements of key elements (the positioning of the gateway on the defensive circuit; whether the gateway is obvious or hidden on the approaches; whether the gateway is ‘open’ or blocked). Neighbouring hillforts may both be strongly defended but share no common threads in the layout or execution of their main façades and gateway arrangements. Elsewhere, forts of one local group or pairing may appear strikingly similar or even (as in the case of South Fort, Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (see 6.3.1) and Tan y Ffordd (see Figure 6.27)), to be culturally related.

This chapter builds on the description of the field archaeology of the hillforts given in the previous chapter, to attempt a more in-depth analysis of the innovation and design expertise prevalent in mid Wales which made the hillforts look and function as they did. Whilst the symbolic or non-defensive roles of hillforts have been discussed at a variety of levels (e.g. Bowden and McOmish 1987, 1989; Collis 1996; Mytum 1996; Fitzpatrick 1997, Oswald 1997; Hamilton and Manley 1997; 2001; Frodsham et al. 2007), constructional details and the reasons for variability of hillfort architecture within a region have been less thoroughly examined. It is argued that as physical manifestations of the prevailing social, political and symbolic attitudes to power in this region of mid Wales during the Iron Age, these upstanding monuments are invaluable sources of evidence.

The ‘building blocks’ of which each hillfort is comprised are here termed ‘architectural components’. Their identification is the key to an understanding of the particular spatial arrangements and layouts of the most impressive defences which flank the gateways of the hillforts, called here façade schemes. These terms are an alternative to the ‘local blueprints’ to which the hillforts of the Cheviots have been seen to conform (Oswald et al. 2002; Frodsham et al. 2007). The identification of the architectural components and shared façade schemes, both described in this chapter, have obvious implications for the chronology and cultural affiliations of the north Ceredigion hillforts and those in the wider landscape of mid Wales (discussed in Chapter 8). Here, the structural complexity of the hillfort defences in the study area is first described, to demonstrate the extent to which themes for monumental display were inextricably linked to the actual construction of the gateways, ramparts and façades. Then the main façade schemes which have been identified in north Ceredigion are described and discussed. Further questions relating to the setting, orientation and appearance of hillforts and façades within the landscape are dealt with in Chapter 7.

The first observations that can be made relate to methods of ‘non-utilitarian’ construction employed in the building of ramparts and gateways, which are best termed collectively ‘architectural complexity’. Recognition of different levels of architectural complexity, consciously employed by the builders of both large and small hillforts and defended enclosures, sheds considerable new light on the relative sophistication of these buildings. Even at superficially simple, small univallate hillforts, which survive in good conditions in the hillfringe or upland zone (such as Pen y Castell (Figure 6.8) or Cnwc y Bugail (Figure 7.36)), one can clearly identify aspects of nonutilitarian construction, or architectural complexity, sometimes at a very advanced level. As will be explained below, this complexity can be found well distributed throughout the region regardless of enclosure size. Less frequently employed, and representing something more than ‘architectural complexity’, are apparent ‘façade schemes’, representing the promulgation during certain Iron Age periods of very similar design elements spatially arranged. This suggests the existence of ‘hillfort groups’ with shared architectural traditions.

83

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Therefore, in a reaction to the classificatory approaches that have previously dominated hillfort studies, a different approach to the analysis of hillfort design is adopted here. Such an approach seeks to consider the monuments at a human scale and from a landscape point of view, rather than from a more detached, desk-based view dominated by modern concepts such as statistics and twodimensional plans. This new approach must be able to incorporate design elements too unusual, subtle or experiential (e.g. the physical method by which access to a hillfort is sought) to be included in traditional classificatory schemes. Indeed, the enormous variation in styles of enclosure and the incorporation of unusual defensive elements in the north Ceredigion hillforts are the keys to understanding their origins and development, and the thought processes which lay behind their construction. 6.2 ARCHITECTURAL COMPLEXITY IN FAÇADE CONSTRUCTION

Figure 6.1 Selective distribution: Part of Savory’s 1976 ‘Map of entrance features in Welsh hillforts’; detail showing mid and central Wales. The only north Ceredigion gateway of note was the ‘angular inturn’ at Gaer Fawr. Bastions and bridges excavated at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, were not mapped, nor were other entrance features already recorded in north Ceredigion. Arguably, the parameters which specified the gateway types and hillforts to be included consigned the majority of the mid Wales hillforts to a ‘black hole’ of unclassified, or unclassifiable, data (compare with Figure 5.1; redrawn after Savory 1976, Fig. 8, 450).

6.2.1 Summary The monumental façades in north Ceredigion appear to have been chiefly concerned with visual impact and the projection of appropriate symbolism to those approaching or encountering the hillforts, whether through minor or major incorporation of architecturally complex devices to enhance and aggrandise the façade (see below), or the construction of defences within the tradition of a ‘façade scheme’, emulating more distant or exotic architectural styles by using a suite of specific monumental elements. This symbolic projection was carefully contrived and controlled during the approach to the fort.

6.1.2 New approaches to complexity In north Ceredigion we find a range of hillforts in varied situations with a considerable variety of monumental façades. Their construction cannot always be convincingly explained in functional, engineering or tactical terms (see 8.3.1. below). Where designs stray from the functional and utilitarian, we begin to see evidence for social and cultural influences in hillfort architecture - that is, designs which were built despite the practical limitations of the community/workforce involved, the topography of the site or the prevailing economy, and which draw on broader, influential cultural traditions in hillfort architecture from within or outside the region. Ultimately the purpose of these façades was to heighten the monumentality of the hillfort. Such structures may additionally have reinforced cultural or political affiliations in cases where common designs were implemented within groups of forts, or aided aggrandisement by supplementing the existing local design repertoire through the emulation of exotic or imported defensive schemes, where available workforces were not capable of constructing a truly strong, complete or monumental fortress. An appearance of actual strength, however achieved, could thus have served the strategic needs of the hillfort designers (this is further discussed in Chapter 8).

The opportunities presented by the approach were exploited in two main ways; through the direct orientation of a monumental façade, or, through the more complex harnessing of combined schemes of topographic incorporation and monumental aggrandisement of particular points on the defensive circuit, in short developing architectural complexity. In both cases, façades or visible stretches of rampart were enhanced by building techniques, differential use of visible stone revetment, or the levelling of rampart crests to appear strikingly artificial against natural contours. All such developments would have appeared bold and at odds with the natural environment and terrain. Façade construction may not have been implemented in a coherent or symmetrical fashion, but instead on occasion, only where it mattered. Designs previously explained as ‘unfinished’ or incomplete (e.g. Cadw 1988; Hogg 1994, 236) can frequently be reinterpreted as finished designs whose primary purpose appears to have been display through particular façade schemes (see section 8.3.4. below). Avery (1993b, 3.1, 10) saw the techniques of rampart construction as being fundamentally determined by two basic considerations: the need for a suitable defensive

84

6: Impressing the neighbours

Figure 6.2 Pen y Castell, Llety-Ifan-Hen. Ground photograph of the north-east rampart of the hillfort, forming the north terminal of the main gate, which can be compared with the interpretative drawing. This view demonstrates the existence of structured internal building techniques in the building of this rampart, which comprised part of the main façade of the hillfort. This is demonstrated by the fact that the rampart still stands with its original profile intact; the lack of erosion or slippage since its construction is shown by the remarkable preservation of the narrow berm between the foot of the rampart and the edge of the rock-cut ditch section. Although no exposed revetment walling is recorded on this rampart face, walling is preserved on the opposing rampart to the east on the opposite side of the main gate, further demonstrating that this profile closely matches the original form of the rampart. The rock-cut ditch is a further element in the monumental embellishment of this main gate. A small scale bar at the far end of the ditch measures 0.5 metres (T. Driver).

1.

Structured internal building techniques and façade display. Important, forward-facing façade ramparts, or those that were particularly visible on key approaches, were better built in terms of their internal construction than other ramparts in less important locations around the defensive circuit. This is shown by their modernday survival, with steeper faces and fewer signs of slippage or erosion, than in other parts of the hillfort.

2.

Revetment walling as a method of display. This involves the differential use of stone walling on important, and less important, parts of the defensive circuit. Walls on display, or those forming the façade, may be better built of neat stone blocks, or incorporate conspicuous quartz elements, than those in ‘rear’ or less visible positions.

3.

Levelling against the horizon. There is evidence that a number of hillfort ramparts and terraces were engineered to fall level with the horizon, contrasting with the prevailing terrain and heightening the artificial appearance of ramparts.

4.

Topographic incorporation. The use of existing, impressively sited outcrops for hillfort construction, and the incorporation of preexisting high outcrops or cliff lines within the artificial circuit of the hillfort defences.

5.

Conspicuous construction and false multivallation. The construction of higher, stronger or more impressive stretches of rampart in places away from main gateways or at strategically weak points; these appear to serve no utilitarian role, but rather were designed to overlook key approaches to the fort, or to enhance particular views of the defences from afar.

It is acknowledged that the present-day appearance of hillfort façades is different from the contemporary view, when earth or stone-walled ramparts may have been augmented with palisades and other timber structures. However, all descriptions and conclusions based on the appearance of the hillfort in the present day take these factors into account. It is, in fact, the case that the rampart profiles and faces of many of the upland hillforts are preserved close to their original condition, with very little erosion, slumping or subsequent burial beneath humic soil and vegetation.

barrier to withstand attack, and the need for a stable rampart to be erected ‘…in accordance with the basic principles of soil engineering’. This research has revealed field evidence for diversity in rampart and façade construction, apparently for the purposes of monumental display. These elements of complexity do not accord with the functional, utilitarian, engineering approach to all rampart building which Avery proposes. They fall into four categories, which will be summarised, and then individually expanded upon:

6.2.2 Structured internal building techniques and façade display That structured internal building techniques were employed in the construction of prominent ramparts at

85

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 6.3 Pen y Bannau façade. A close view of the multivallate façade from the north, with a figure for scale, showing the massive, steep faced appearance of the ramparts flanking the main gate, which have suffered little from erosion or slippage up to the present day. Compare with Figure 6.38 (T. Driver). north Ceredigion forts was first inferred by field observation for this research, particularly by the way certain ramparts still stand with higher profiles and steeper faces while other parts of the defensive circuit have slumped or tumbled. At Pen y Castell, for example (Figures 6.2), the clarity and quality of preservation of the defences flanking the entrance to the north and south, with the grass-covered rampart still intact and preserving a smooth near-vertical face, is both evidence for a clear intention to impress at this particular point and the logical consequence of better workmanship. Elsewhere around the defensive circuit, the ramparts are lower, more irregular in surviving height, or are suffering from the effects of erosion (both natural and caused by livestock). The north rampart still preserves a clear berm between it and the rock-cut outer ditch below (Figures 6.2 and 6.3). The preservation of a berm and uneroded rampart face shows that the profile of this rampart has altered little since it was built; exposed revetment on the south rampart of the same fort (Figure 6.8) further shows that the present rampart face closely approximates that visible in the Iron Age.

stands at an angle of approximately 65 degrees (data from Ordnance Survey Antiquity Model scale sections at 1:2500 scale). The outer rampart faces of Trecoll fort generally survive at a 45 degree angle (Figure 6.9); the Pen y Bannau façade appears to be fairly steep from the ground approaches, but the measured section records an angle on the northernmost façade rampart of 30 degrees. The form of free-standing bastions at some north Ceredigion forts also shows evidence for higher-quality construction. This can be particularly seen in the bastion of the north-east gateway at Castell Grogwynion, which still stands with a steep, crisp face on a clearly defined foundation platform unobscured by slump or tumbled material (see Figure 5.10). That ramparts close to gateways were not only more impressive but better built is supported by the excavated data from Castell Henllys. The cross-section of the rampart flanking the main gate showed very elaborate layering of the alternative layers of clay and gravel, which were excavated from the ditch, indicating organised digging and sorting of the spoil prior to its incorporation in the rampart. This is far removed from the ‘dump’ rampart, commonly cited as a standard Iron Age defensive feature in Wales, and is clearly the result of structured building. (Mytum 1997; Murphy and Mytum 2002, pers. comm.). In contrast at the rear, or south, rampart of Castell Henllys, a carefully excavated longitudinal section showed that material was dumped as it came out of the ditch by the basket-load (with smaller material at the base and larger blocks of rock towards the top. It is likely that the pattern of dumps of material results from gang work along this stretch of rampart. Avery (1993b) mentions the steepness of certain rampart faces in his study (3.24-3.26, 14), and notes that the inner rampart and ditch at Maiden Castle was particularly well engineered in that it has remained stable into the present day with a slope of about 40

Well-preserved, steep rampart faces with little erosion survive in the impressive façades at Pen y Bannau (Figure 6.3) and Castell, Tregaron (Figures 6.4-6.6 and see aerial view in Figure 7.13). At Castell, Tregaron, the face of the steeper, outer rampart preserves a slope of 70 degrees, with the inner rampart preserving an outer face of 60 degrees; it is so steep and high as to appear curiously ‘modern’ in appearance. At Darren (plan, Figure 5.17), the main north-western rampart preserves a slope of 60 degrees, but this is known to be stabilised slump concealing a buried, vertical, rampart wall. However, the outer face of the north-west terraced outwork, within which facing stones of the revetment can still be seen,

86

6: Impressing the neighbours

Figure 6.4 Castell, Tregaron. The hillfort and the curving façade rampart from the north-east. The shorter, angled inner façade rampart can be seen beyond, as can the highly visible nature of the defended interior of the fort, formed around a prominent outcrop. Few hillfort façades in Wales present such an impressive and uncompromising architectural statement, remarkable for its demonstration of later prehistoric engineering skill. The position of the main gate on the left side, is not obvious externally. Compare with Figure 7.39 (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. DI2008_0211). 6.2.3 Revetment walling as a method for display 6.2.3.1 Stone walling and the uses of revetment for display Techniques for display also included the use of highquality stone revetment on forward-facing façades and gateway bastions. A number of well-known examples can be cited for Iron Age Britain where stone-walled hillfort ramparts were apparently designed to maximise visual impact. One of the best known is Moel y Gaer, Rhosesmor (Guilbert 1975a), where excavation of Rampart A showed the rampart face to have been built with a combination of vertical timbers and drystone walling, spaced at narrow intervals of 0.60m-0.90m post centre to post centre. The rampart face originally stood 1.7m high and Guilbert postulated that the vertical timbers continued up to support a wattle breastwork (ibid., 110, Figure 1). The core of Rampart A was built with transverse cellular divisions. The appearance of the ‘striped’ face of stone orthostats, walling and posts would have been visually striking (ibid., Plate XIII a); Bradley (1993, 98) suggested a practical purpose behind the cellular construction, allowing for piecemeal repairs. In the study area stone revetment was used in different ways and a considerable number of hillforts retain evidence for substantial stretches of stone walling surviving beneath the turf and grass of their main ramparts.

Figure 6.5 Castell, Tregaron. The steep outer face of the outermost façade rampart where it turns in towards its south terminal, on the approaches to the main gate. Despite erosion the rampart face still stands steep and intact. Scale shows 1 metre. (T. Driver, 18 February 2004) degrees (citing Wheeler 1943, site E, pl. IX). The 40 degree slope is mentioned again in Armit (2007, 27) , noting Wheeler’s observation that unclimbable ‘slippery ramps’ were created, presenting a ‘formidable’ obstacle. As we have seen above, certain north Ceredigion forts possess considerably steeper rampart faces today reflecting careful internal structuring and excellent modern preservation of earthworks.

At Pen y Castell, exposed revetment on the south rampart flanking the main gate is well-built, of neatly squared small blocks (details, Figure 6.8). In one patch there is evidence for repair with the subsequent insertion of smaller stones into the walling. In contrast, exposed 87

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

walling preserved at the west or ‘rear’ of the fort is built of large, rough hewn slabs in basic courses. A further excellent example of the uneven application of walling across site for the purposes of monumental display, is found at Trecoll hillfort. The fort is overlooked from high ground to the south-east, even though the main forwardfacing façade ramparts (partly founded on pre-existing outcrops), command the landward approaches to the north. How did the builders present a sufficiently impressive façade to people looking down on the fort from the south-east, utilising only the side ramparts? It appears from the field evidence that as this inner rampart forms the principal ‘side wall’ as seen from the high ground (Figure 6.9), it was walled with a revetment of large, weathered blocks up to 50cm across, almost exclusively from a point at which it emerged from behind the central rampart and ran south in full view. Many of the original walling stones have tumbled to the foot of the rampart but at the summit (Figures 6.10), and in other places intact courses survive. As traces of stone walling are not as evident on the other north-facing ‘front faces’ of the main ramparts, it appears that this walling was differentially employed for particular monumental effect from particular viewpoints or approaches.

rampart of Tre-Coll hillfort. The small blocks of quartz are used to wall quite a specific area, and begin only at some 50 cm above ground level towards the centre of the outer rampart face. Quartz blocks were also incorporated in the revetment of the prominent outwork flanking the western approaches to Castell Flemish, presumably to heighten its appearance (described in 7.5.4 below; Figure 7.29). By far the most prominent use of quartz visible at an unexcavated Ceredigion hillfort are the quite massive blocks found lining the main entrance passage to the fort at Cnwc y Bugail (Figure 6.14), and also once used to face the outward slopes of the bastion sited at the far end of the gateway annexe (see 5.2.2.3 and 7.5.6. for discussion of the monumentality of the hillfort). The aforementioned quartz boulder revealed in excavations at Darren hillfort in 2005, incongruously worked into the prevailing elevation of neat shale drystone blocks (Figure 8.17; ibid.) was a striking and unexpected discovery and lends regional context to those protruding through the turf at Cnwc y Bugail. The name Castell Grogwynion means ‘Stronghold (of) pebbles white’ (gro, ‘pebbles’, plus the plural of gwyn; in Lias 1994, 31). Such a telling place name at a hillfort would suggest the presence of quartz walling. No exposed stonework is visible at Castell Grogwynion, although the well-preserved rampart faces in the western part of the site suggests that they are walled beneath a covering of turf. However, all across the site small, squarish quartz blocks of a suitable size for dry-walling can be seen in the grass. Quartz does not occur naturally in the major outcrops crossing the site (although it is found locally) and so one could assume that parts of the fort were originally walled in quartz, and have since eroded or become overgrown. Excavations at Troed y Rhiw and Berry Hill defended enclosures, in south Ceredigion and north Pembrokeshire respectively, revealed very large quartz boulders in the ditch terminals, thought to have once been used in the entrance revetments (Murphy and Mytum 2012).

Excavations at hillforts where only earthen ramparts survive will usually yield buried evidence for stone revetment. Excavation at the gateway of Darren hillfort in 1996 revealed ‘…eight lower courses of well-set thin slabs of local shale, [superseded by] partial upper courses of rough work including a smooth cobble and quartz block’ (Driver 1996b). The full splendour of the gateway walling was revealed by more comprehensive excavations in July 2005 by Simon Timberlake for the Early Mines Research Group (Timberlake and Driver 2006), which showed a well-built stone-walled terminal at the gateway, a large quartz block flanking the entrance (Figure 8.17), and robust stone facing surviving below grass on the outworks where sectioned. 6.2.3.2 Quartz walling Quartz walling is employed to considerable effect at a handful of hillforts 1 . The right-hand bastion of the main gate at Pen Dinas, Elerch, is mostly built of shale slabs but features a proportion of quartz blocks in its construction, certainly enough to be highly visible. Quartz walling can be seen employed at the north terminal of the main inner 1

Briggs (1994, 135-6) counters suggestions that quartz was added to prehistoric burial monuments to enhance their general appearance, noting that quartz is very common locally and was apparently ignored by most cairn builders, particularly those building the Carn Owen cairn who ignored a vein 100m away. The Iron Age evidence for Ceredigion is quite different. Whilst quartz was not over-used in hillfort revetments, it certainly appears to have been deliberately and boldly incorporated at the few examples cited here. It is anticipated that future excavation will reveal further examples. 88

6: Impressing the neighbours

Figure 6.7 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, north rampart of south fort. A basic reconstruction of the original rampart profile after Forde et al. 1963, Figure 7 (top), p135, prepared from a drawing by the author for a popular guide book (Browne and Driver 2001, 24). This demonstrates well the contrast between the original appearance of the rampart wall and the present-day slumped earthwork and was produced to illustrate the extent of the buried structures on site to the visiting public. The ‘compacted surface’ recorded beneath the Period 2 rampart, the possible line of the silted in Period 2 ditch, and other complex details were omitted for the purposes of clarity (Graphic by Charles Green, RCAHMW after T. Driver. Browne and Driver 2001, 24. Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

Figure 6.8 Pen y Castell, Llety-Ifan-Hen. The defensive circuit of this fort varies both in its quality and outward appearance from the ‘front’, or main façade flanking the east gateway, to the ‘rear’ or west side. The three elevations demonstrate the use of better quality stone walling close to the main gateway at A and B, contrasting with larger, rougher quarried blocks in a less important ‘rear’ part of the defensive circuit at C. (T. Driver; based on the Ceredigion Archaeological Survey (Thorburn 1987), with additions to the original plan).

89

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 6.9 Trecoll, Llanbadarn Odwyn. Panoramic view of the east-facing slopes of the inner rampart, effectively the ‘side view’ of the hillfort, which was extensively stone-walled to present a monumental appearance to those looking down from high ground to the south-east. Scale 1m (T. Driver, April 2004).

Figure 6.12 Hen Gaer, Trefeurig. Vestiges of prestigious stone walling, made of squared blocks, on the outer face of the eastern rampart. Scale measures 50cm (T. Driver. CD_2005_621_003).

Figure 6.10 Darren hillfort. Excavations in 2005 revealed a well-preserved section of walling on the north-west outwork beneath an innocuous looking grass-covered earthwork, hinting at the buried potential of similar sites (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, DS2005_108_012).

Figure 6.13 Castell, Tregaron. Vestiges of once extensive monumental walling of weathered blocks, which faced the steep outer rampart. Such walling must have originally presented an impressive sight to those approaching, but its in-situ remains are now threatened by livestock erosion. Scale 1m (T. Driver, 2004).

Figure 6.11 Castell Bach, Llanrhystud. Stretch of wellpreserved stone walling flanking the south side of the east-facing gateway. Field evidence suggests that even this small promontory fort was fully walled on the landward approaches. Scale bar measures 50 cm (T. Driver). 90

6: Impressing the neighbours

6.2.4 Hillfort appearance and physical alteration 6.2.4.1 Levelling against the horizon A further feature contrived to enhance the appearance of façades and prominent ramparts is the conspicuous levelling of terraces and rampart tops to appear highly artificial (and to project considerable effort and status) against the contours of the prevailing terrain. This can be seen to great effect in the construction of the central eastern terrace of the south fort, Pen Dinas and in the approaches to Darren hillfort (Figure 6.17 and see section 7.5.3 where the phenomenon is fully described). The occurrence of this phenomenon appears to contradict the opinions of some authors that the positioning of a hillfort was meant to emulate the natural hills or topography. For example, Willis (1999, 90-91) noted that hillforts in northeast England sited in hilly or downland country, ‘… can often be seen as mirroring the character of their topographic settings in the landscape.’ According to Willis they have earthworks which can be seen as ‘…(human) imitations of the existing terrain… an ‘altering of the earth’ with the intention of creating places which are at once ‘human’ and ‘natural’.’ In this respect, I can envisage no situation further away than that observed for the character of hillfort defences of north Ceredigion and its contact areas, where it is apparent that architectural schemes heightened the appearance of artificiality to those viewing, approaching or passing by the hillfort at odds to the natural topography. Only a few forts in the study area exhibit these clearly levelled rampart lines (e.g. Castell Flemish and Caer Lletty Llwyd, Figure 7.22), but the feature can be clearly seen on the approaches to some other Welsh hillforts, notably Dinas Dinlle, Caernarfonshire which occupies a similar coastal position to Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth.

Figure 6.14 Cnwc y Bugail; in-situ blocks of substantial quartz walling lining the west face of the probable passageway of the inner gateway. The face of the central block measures 90cm across and 40cm high; the exposed face of the block on the left measures 80cm across and 60cm high. Compare with Figure 8.17. Scale bar measures 50cm (T. Driver, November 2003).

6.2.4.2 Topographic incorporation The practice of topographic incorporation, or the incorporation of an outcrop within the defences to enhance an appearance of strength and monumentality, whilst reducing the need for artificial work, is common to several hillforts, predominantly those at higher altitudes or in mountain positions. In extreme cases (Pen Dinas, Elerch; Pen y Bannau; Castell Bwa Drain), entire outcrops may be fortified to reduce the need for artificial enclosure, or to provide sufficient slopes for embellishment with monumental façades (e.g. Pen y Bannau). In other cases, striking outcrops or elevated rocky knolls have been incorporated into the defensive circuit (Castell Grogwynion; Tan y Ffordd; Caer Lletty Llwyd) which, with limited additional work, can be transformed or modified to project the impression of immensely strong, multivallate fortresses to those approaching. In one striking case, Darren, ribs of outcropping rock below the fortified summit of the ridge may have been intended to appear as ‘natural ramparts’, embellishing the approaches to, and distant views of, the hillfort and considerably

Figure 6.15 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Prestigious stone rampart wall excavated at the south fort, during Professor Daryll Forde’s 1930s campaign. The lower courses are well built and impressive, made from rounded stones possibly from the pebble beach below the fort. The upper courses are mostly of quarried stone blocks, perhaps from additional excavation of a rock-cut ditch, and appear to be of coarser work. Scales in feet. (NMRW; Pen Dinas archive. See also Browne and Driver 2001, 25. Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

91

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 6.16 South fort, Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, viewed from the hill shoulder to the south-east. The nineteenth-century Wellington Monument, which has long acted as a focal point on the hillfort, has been digitally removed. Without it, Pen Dinas appears more as a long, low, multi-terraced enclosure as was originally intended. This view illustrates the levelling of the upper terrace against the horizon, a major engineering feat intended to enhance the commanding, artificial appearance of the terraced façade. While this upper terrace was used for settlement and craft activities, the space enclosed by the lower terrace is an unusable slope (Figures 8.1 & 8.2). Therefore, its addition to the overall façade appears to be an act of ‘conspicuous construction’. The highly visible nature of the domed interior of the south fort is also apparent. According to Bowden and McOmish (1989), this would negate any tactical role for the fort yet its defensive strength is readily apparent (T. Driver, 5th Dec 2002, 2002/5088-44).

Figure 6.17 Darren, Trefeurig. The horizontal line of the rampart, which encircles the summit of this hill, as seen from the main western approaches. The resulting appearance of a ‘flat-topped’ hill, originally augmented with stone facing and a timber palisade, renders it highly artificial in the landscape. Compare with Figure 7.25 (T. Driver). enhancing its apparent defensive strength (see Figure 7.23 but also more detailed discussion in 7.5.3). 6.2.4.3 Conspicuous construction and false multivallation Various techniques for symbolic projection, or expressions of cultural affiliations, through the implementation of particular façade schemes or architectural devices, combine at some hillforts in a phenomenon best described as conspicuous construction. In these instances, additional ramparts, terraces or rockcut ditches appear to have been deliberately added, which do not fulfil practical requirements for defended enclosure and do not significantly enhance the functionality of the hillfort defences or interior; for example, they may not flank a main gateway or reinforce a tactically weak point in the defences. They may be evidence of a conspicuous demonstration of monumental strength. In a region

Figure 6.18 Castell Grogwynion, view from the north, showing the twin ramparts, which enclose the base of the high western outcrop. Additional natural cliff lines below the summit appear to suggest multivallate defences and a well-defended, towering fortress. (T. Driver, February 2000).

92

6: Impressing the neighbours

Figure 6.19 Tan y Ffordd. ‘Conspicuous construction’ at the eastern end of the hillfort, in the form of a large defended outcrop (right, background), and two outer banks (foreground) at a point where no gateway exists into the enclosure (T. Driver).

Figure 6.20 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth from the south-east, showing the terraced south fort (foreground), and the more utilitarian construction of the north fort beyond, linked by the isthmus defences. The possible early-phase enclosure can be made out in the north part of the south fort, visible as a curving bank (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001/5090-70). where the resources and workforce available to complete major communal building projects were clearly limited, these non-functional elements of hillforts were nonetheless implemented, in addition to the functional and utilitarian elements, for higher cultural, symbolic or political reasons. This is particularly well marked at Tan y Ffordd where the eastern end of the hillfort, that seen on descent from mountain passes higher to the east, is augmented with sizeable ramparts, which incorporate the natural height and impact of a pre-existing outcrop, yet they are unbroken by any gateway and are effectively impenetrable barriers (Figure 6.19). Less intensive

methods of signalling the presence, or appearance, of a well-defended hillfort to those approaching from below are particularly well illustrated by the cutting of a ‘notch’, or clear corner angle; These are usually found at the rampart terminal above a precipitous slope overlooking lowlands, in order to form a clear silhouette on the distant horizon from below where otherwise the artificial defences would make little visual impact. Very similar notches have been observed both at Castell Bach, Llanrhystud and at the northwest angle of Cnwc y Bugail, Trawsgoed.

93

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 6.21 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Perhaps the optimum view of the entire length of the defensive façade of this hillfort, seen from high ground to the east (the Penparcau/Southgate to Devil’s Bridge road). The visual dichotomy between the terraced, embellished façade of the south fort (on the left), and the earlier, utilitarian rampart of the north fort (on the right), is particularly marked (T. Driver; winter 2002). 6.3. FAÇADE SCHEMES CONSTRUCTION

IN

‘The most remarkable is Penydinas, near Aberystwyth, though indeed two encampments are discernable on this hill, one square, and the other circular, having beneath it on one side several shelves of earth.’

HILLFORT

6.3.1 The Pen Dinas façade scheme at the south fort, Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth

This dichotomy appears to result from functional and nonfunctional approaches to enclosed settlement. The earliest fort, on the north summit, was a simple oval enclosure defined by a dump rampart fronted with a palisade, with an outer ditch. The gateway was not fully explored but seems to have been fairly simple with inturned stone walls defining an entrance (Forde et al. 1963). Overall this early fortress was large, but extremely practical. The higher, steeper, narrower south summit was avoided in favour of a rounded hilltop with a flat summit, perhaps more amenable to construction work and human and animal access.

In analysing the designs and motives behind the façade schemes employed during the Iron Age in north Ceredigion, it is natural to turn to the largest and most coherently built fort as being a leading expression of the contemporary attitudes to hillfort construction and monumental symbolism. At Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, the largest and most complex hillfort on the south-western coast of Wales, we see a dramatic structural and visual dichotomy between the forts of the north and south summit (Figure 6.21). Pen Dinas is thought to have developed through at least four main phases, eventually spanning both the summits of a prominent coastal hill (Figure 3.9; Forde et al. 1963; Avery 1993a; Browne and Driver 2001). The two summits are linked by a saddle of lower ground known as the isthmus. The established phasing sees the earliest fort constructed on the north summit. After this was abandoned, a new fort was built on the higher, narrower south summit, followed by a period of abandonment or reduced occupation. The south summit was then refortified and enlarged, with the gateways developed. The final phase saw both the old north fort and south summit taken into a single defensive scheme with the construction of new ramparts across the intervening isthmus, and the establishment of a new isthmus gate. A sherd of Malvernian ‘duck-stamped’ coarse-ware, more common in Herefordshire hillforts like Sutton Walls, (not earlier than the second century cal BC (Davies and Lynch 2000, 155; see discussion in section 4.4.2) was found at the base of a wall thought to have been built in the final phases, when the early north fort was refortified. The visual dichotomy between the north and south forts was first noted by Meyrick in 1808 (300) who, in describing the forts of Llanbadarn Fawr parish, wrote:

The south fort, developed through at least two phases, is fundamentally different. Visually it is a bold fort, dominating the higher, narrower, south summit, with two enormous terraces quarried from the rock flanking the east side. This was a monumental façade, unbroken by any entrances and commanding views over much of the region. It represents a great feat of prehistoric engineering for mid Wales, and must have been a considerable achievement for the local work force. It was described as a characteristic feature by Ieuan Hughes (1926, 27-8) in his paper on the north Cardiganshire hillforts; ‘Two contour camps show the common feature of a broad terrace to the north of the main earthwork. These are Pendinas, Aberystwyth, and Pendinas, Elerch...while the terrace arrangement is found to be well developed in the Dinas and larger earthworks it is less evident in the smaller examples..’ At the south and north ends of the ridge, complex gateways were added, in principal both stone-lined passageways with arrangements of four posts supporting 94

6: Impressing the neighbours

Figure 6.23 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, south fort. Ground view of the upper eastern terrace, with a distant figure for scale, showing the very large levelled area which was created by the quarrying of material from upslope. This terrace alone represents one of the great feats of prehistoric engineering in mid Wales (right hand side; T. Driver, CD-2005_621_010).

Figure 6.22 Schematic plans of south fort, Pen Dinas (top) and Gaer Fawr (bottom), showing similar arrangements of terraced façades forcing access through the main gateways (marked by arrows). The north gate of the south fort, Pen Dinas, was later modified with the addition of an east-facing isthmus gateway. (T. Driver; Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

Figure 6.24 Gaer Fawr. Aerial view from the east, with the main gate in the centre foreground and the terraced northern façade connecting, in the background, to the west gate. A modern track cutting up through the terraced façade in the background, demonstrates that a more direct route to the summit would have been feasible, but was prevented with the construction of the façade (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001/5088-59).

crossing bridges for the rampart walk (Figures 5.2 and 5.3). Both these gateways represented exotic architecture for mid Wales and may well have been imported designs built by specialists (Browne and Driver 2001, 30).

are also postulated in this research for Castell Grogwynion, see 5.2.2.1). Both gates were asymmetric in plan, featuring exotic projecting bastions, probably ‘slinging platforms’, which dominated the right-hand side of the approaches, as found in some of the more advanced hillforts of Wessex(e.g. Cunliffe 1993,30-36; Chapter 5).

Comparable designs are seen at Castell Henllys, Pembrokeshire (Murphy and Mytum pers. comm. 2002) and at Moel Hiraddug and Dinorben (Guilbert 1979; and

95

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 6.25 Gaer Fawr, the vast northern terrace of this little-visited fort, looking south-west (T. Driver). Curiously, the one obvious import they could have employed, the guard chamber, was not found at Pen Dinas and is not recorded from any fort in the region (see Figures 5.1 and 6.1).

down-slope with quarrying at the rear. The upper terrace at Pen Dinas was fronted with a steep stone revetment and flanked by an outer ditch (Figures 8.1 and 8.2; Forde et al. 1963). This is the most obvious feature that links both sites, but there are further similarities. Both occupy ridgetop positions and are aligned with their long sides against a precipitous natural drop; the matching side is terraced. The gateways into the forts are sited at the narrow ends of the enclosures, rather than piercing the long side. However, they are not positioned centrally in the narrow ends, but are set immediately back from the terminals of the main façade. Both gateways are technologically elaborate or ‘exotic’ in a regional context (surface evidence suggests the main east gate at Gaer Fawr was flanked by a right-hand bastion; see Figure 5.7). However, neither is flanked by outworks; in this sense they lie ‘open’. The architectural ‘tradition’, or ‘façade scheme’, of the new Pen Dinas south fort, and Gaer Fawr, can be summarised thus:

6.3.2 The Pen Dinas façade scheme at Gaer Fawr, Lledrod Avery completed an extensive analysis of the defences of Pen Dinas as part of his wider research into the hillforts in southern Britain (1993a, Vol. II, appendix A, 255-263) placing particular weight on the military and strategic concepts, which might have lain behind each new phase or structural change. However, it is the overall layout and design of this terraced hillfort, and also Gaer Fawr close by, together with the spatial arrangement of elements, which is of interest in this consideration of the potential cultural traditions inherent in the architecture. Gaer Fawr (Figure 6.24) lies some 10.5 kilometres inland from Pen Dinas, dominating the central Ystwyth valley and the Trawsgoed lowland basin (see Figure 3.17, site 17). It occupies one of the few positions in this part of the region not intervisible with Pen Dinas on the coast. Thus if the two forts were broadly contemporary, Gaer Fawr may have commanded a substantially independent territory (See further discussion in Chapter 8 below; Browne and Driver 2001, 14-15). Both Pen Dinas and Gaer Fawr could be described as ‘comprehensive’ forts (see Chapter 8), envisaged as having been built by leaders with considerable regional power, executing coherent, well planned defences, well built with the provision of a sufficient workforce, and which use sophisticated defensive schemes and devices throughout.

Pen Dinas façade scheme (see plans in Figures 6.26 & 6.34): x Set against a precipitous cliff on one long side. x Façade with wide spaced terrace on opposing long side runs for length of hillfort. x Direct front access prevented by an impenetrable façade; therefore: x Gateways positioned at narrow ends, set back from main façade. x Gateways are ‘open’; direct access is not hindered by flanking outworks. x Gateways employ elaborate technology (in the regional context); bastions, slinging platforms etc.

Both Gaer Fawr and the south fort, Pen Dinas, share a similar defensive feature, the provision of wide-spaced terraces along one side. These are specifically terraced

Overall, the coincident architectural features are a pronounced terracing coupled with a gateway or gateways at the narrow end of the ridge. The shared concept is one

96

6: Impressing the neighbours

Figure 6.26 North Ceredigion hillforts sharing the Pen Dinas façade scheme (to scale). Arrows denote north; ‘G’ denotes gateway unless otherwise labelled (Tan y Ffordd, Gaer Fawr and Pen Dinas, Elerch, after Ordnance Survey with additions; Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth after Forde et al. 1963, with additions).

97

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 6.27 Tan y Ffordd. Conjectural reconstruction of the main elements of the hillfort as it might appear with removal of the tree cover, to illustrate the overall form of the monument in perspective. The pronounced topography of the site, the tree cover and the interesting form of the defences make a new three-dimensional survey of Tan y Ffordd highly desirable (T. Driver). monumentality were implemented throughout north Ceredigion. 6.3.3 Parallels: The Pen Dinas façade scheme in north Ceredigion Distinctive, unbroken, wide-spaced terraces below one side of the main fort, together with exotic entrances (in the regional context; usually with a bastion element) set at the narrow ends behind the façade, were implemented in various ways at a select and well-spaced group of north Ceredigion hillforts (Figure 6.26).

Figure 6.28 Penyffrwdllwyd. View of the hillfort from below and to the east showing the distinctive terraces which define its length, and the deep rock-cut ditches which so clearly break the horizon line, marking each end of the hillfort (T. Driver).

At Tan y Ffordd, the parallels with Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth and Gaer Fawr are quite striking. Tan y Ffordd is sited on a lower lying prominent spur above the Rheidol Valley, crossed by routes descending from a higher ridge above (Figure 7.8). This modestly sized fort is quite comprehensively developed, with a wide-spaced terrace and an inturned entrance at the narrow west end (Figures 6.26-6.27). The most elaborate defences occur at the rear (east side) where a series of natural outcrops have been heavily embellished to form blind ramparts and ditches, a show of conspicuous construction ostensibly to form a formidable façade to those approaching from high ground to the east (see Figure 6.19).

of prevention of direct access to the fort from approaches below, and controlled access through permitted gateways. The unbroken main façade, at once visually dramatic and intimidating to approaching strangers, is seemingly impenetrable. Although gateways at the narrow end would have been obvious on approaching, and at Pen Dinas were positioned to maximise their visual impact, they were certainly not ‘on show’; they were put in retiring positions, placed back from, and very much secondary to, the unbroken façade. The significance of the parallels between two of the largest regional hillforts becomes more evident when we wish to progress towards an understanding of the way hillfort architecture and ideas of

98

6: Impressing the neighbours

Figure 6.29 New plan of the great wooded borderlands fort of Gaer Fawr Guilsfield, showing terraces and the positions of gateways at the narrow ends, surveyed by Louise Barker for RCAHMW (Barker 2009; Crown Copyright RCAHMW). Variation in the Pen Dinas façade scheme can then be traced to other forts which, despite differences of approach to fortification, appear to have deliberately implemented architectural components of the Pen Dinas scheme. Pen Dinas, Elerch (site 39) is a strongly sited mountain fort in the north of the region commanding a distinct upland block (See 7.52 below). It is a complex, developed hillfort built around a conspicuous isolated outcrop with a freestanding bastioned entrance at the narrow end, and distinctive terraces added on the east side of the outcrop, overlooking a wide vista. The major inland stronghold at Castell Grogwynion, built on the edge of the Ystwyth Gorge, features a complex bastioned entrance as part of an unbroken terraced façade, implemented despite severe rocky topography on site (see sections 6.35 and 7.55). Caer Lletty Llwyd can be seen as a further example of this scheme in a developed hillfort (see 7.52 below). Whilst the site chosen is not an elongated ridge, the combination of strongly pronounced terracing on one side

Figure 6.30 Cefncarnedd hillfort, Montgomeryshire. Aerial photograph from the north-east showing the major terraces which define one side of the fort, with a complex north-west gateway beyond (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. AP_2010_330 (detail)).

99

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

artificial defences, with the north side defended by two main, and a third outer, ramparts defining a broad terrace. The final gateways are sited at the narrow ends of the hillfort and of the ridge. The main east gate is embellished by more impressive ditch terminals (ibid., 339) and inturned ramparts, but both are open to the hillslope with no blocking outworks. The east gate is ultimately enclosed by an outer annexe which may represent a later development of the ridge top fort. In many ways, this hillfort possesses all the characteristics of the Pen Dinas façade scheme. Gaer Fawr, Guilsfield (SJ 22 12) in the upper Severn basin (Figure 6.29; see Spurgeon 1972, 337; Burnham 1995, 64-58 and 81; Davies and Lynch 2000, 154 and Plate 22; Barker 2009), is so similar in design, and sophisticated in its execution, that one could infer direct cultural links between it and Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Gaer Fawr is an impressive hillfort, which commands a steep hill with precipitous slopes along the south-east side. The hillfort, which measures almost 400m across at its widest point, has a complex terraced façade on the northwest side which, before the hill became densely wooded, must have appeared bold and artificial, reinforcing a powerful visual presence across a wide tract of the Montgomeryshire countryside (a view reconstructed following detailed survey by Barker 2009; reproduced in Musson 2011, 12). Gaer Fawr shares many similarities with the south fort, Pen Dinas, in that it is sited along the ridge with the opposing gateways opening on to the narrow ends. Few artificial defences were built along the precipitous south-east slopes, but these were flanked by a terraced façade on the opposite slope. The summit area is open and was presumably the focus of settlement. Two scarps of the façade immediately below the summit define a steep upper terrace. The central terrace below is broad and level and may have been utilised for a range of activities as was the upper terrace at Pen Dinas; the final two scarps below this do not enclose any significant ground and may have been purely intended for the provision of additional ramparts, or to heighten the visual appearance of multivallation. The surface evidence suggests that the main south-west gateway was both larger and more advanced than those at Pen Dinas, featuring projecting, parallel rampart terminals enclosing a long passage. However, the north-east gateway at Gaer Fawr appears very similar to the surface earthworks of the main south fort gateways at Pen Dinas.

Figure 6.31 Castell Grogwynion. Ground view of northern terrace looking towards the band of outcropping rock which the ramparts negotiate and cross to continue the façade (T. Driver, CD_2005_620_023). of the elevated knoll, with a disproportionately enlarged façade embellishing only one approach to the fort, places this site firmly in this group. A final contender is Penyffrwydllwyd fort in the hillfringe bordering Cors Caron. This fine, complex hillfort, sited against a cliff edge, has clearly defined terraces along one side, with gateways sited at the narrow end. The main gate, however, is embellished with additional triple outworks flanking an approach track; the mixture of styles found at this fort is described below in 6.3.8. 6.3.4 Parallels outside the region Terraces are a fairly common defensive feature across Wales; indeed, the throwing of material downslope to form a wall or rampart is one of the most straightforward techniques of façade construction. However, not all terraces are employed following the distinctive traits found with the Pen Dinas façade scheme. Terraces may have been created between ramparts on hillforts which otherwise do not fit the specific criteria of this scheme. For example, Castell Cilcennin (Hogg and Davies 1994, 254, and Figure 51), just south of the study area overlooking the Aeron valley, is a substantial oval fort commanding a prominent summit. The defences enclose the fort on all sides and there is a single main gate passage which follows a zigzag approach through the outer and inner ramparts. The ramparts enclose a terraced area, but this fort is different in every way from the coherent Pen Dinas façade scheme.

Looking to another potential zone of cultural contact from north Ceredigion (Figure 4.3), the Brecknock area of the middle Wye valley is rich in diverse hillforts of varying complexities and sizes. Many have little in common with the Pen Dinas façade scheme. However, the modest ridge top fort of Gaer Fawr, Brecknock (RCAHMW 1986, HF 37, Fig. 88, 76) is similar, and indeed can be directly paralleled with Tan y Ffordd fort in particular, and in most respects to Pen Dinas, south fort.

In the upper Severn basin, Cefncarnedd is a major ridge top fort enclosing in its final stages some 6 ha (Figure 6.30; Spurgeon 1972, 339-341: Fig. 4, no. 44). It appears to share many characteristics with the forts in the Pen Dinas façade scheme. The hillfort began life as a 1.6 ha enclosure on the western part of the ridge, which was a bivallate, sub-oval enclosure with a single west-facing gateway. Through various phases it achieved its final form as an elongated hillfort, its south side formed by the precipitous slopes of the east-west ridge and lacking

100

6: Impressing the neighbours

Figure 6.32 Castell Grogwynion, draft plan of the 2012 Royal Commission survey by Louise Barker, which has revealed the complexity of this long-lived hillfort, defined by outcrops and natural topography (Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

Figure 6.33 Castell Grogwynion, 3D wireframe view derived from the 2002 survey. View from the north showing the severe topography of the site and the character of the northern façade terrace, which climbs 21 metres from the gateway bastion (left) to the base of the western outcrop (right). The height is slightly exaggerated; compare with Figures 7.327.35 which show similar views. (Copyright, T Driver/RKM Archaeological Surveying 2002). employed in different ways at other hillforts in the region. Elements of this tradition can be traced to hillforts outside the study area, into central Wales. Castell Grogwynion in the study area is a good example of a hillfort where a terraced façade and regionally exotic gateway have been carefully integrated into the design despite a difficult building site and extremely variable terrain. An architectural tradition appears to have been closely followed for some elements, but not for all aspects of the fort.

6.3.5 Case study: Elements of the Pen Dinas façade scheme employed at Castell Grogwynion We have seen above the main hillforts which appear to have been either closely modeled on Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, or built within very similar architectural traditions, these being Pen Dinas, Gaer Fawr and Tan y Ffordd (and see Chapter 8 for fuller discussion). We have then seen the characteristic elements of the façade scheme

101

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

6.3.5.1 Castell Grogwynion Castell Grogwynion is an inland hillfort of some size, strongly sited on the precipitous northern edge of the Ystwyth gorge near Pontrhydygroes, and commanding spectacular views. The fort has long been considered to be a fairly unsophisticated example, with the defences described as incomplete or even unfinished (e.g. Cadw 1988), but a new 2002 survey completed in 2002, superceded by a 2012 Royal Commission survey (Figure 6.32), has revealed its complexity. Castell Grogwynion has an unbroken façade along its northern (long) side, consisting of two wide-spaced ramparts, almost perfectly parallel, defining a broad terrace (Figures 6.31). An elaborate gateway is placed at the north-east narrow end, at the terminal of the northern ramparts. The implementation of such a clearly defined façade could not have been more difficult for the local workforce. The chosen plateau-edge position is crossed from north to south by ribs of outcropping rock, and the fort incorporates a towering outcrop at the western end with a stepped plateau below (the visual role of the outcrop which dominates the approaches to the fort is more fully discussed in 7.5.5 below). At one point the ground along the northern boundary of the fort rises almost 6.5 metres from a fairly gradual slope, up a near vertical rock face to the western outcrop. Both the surface topography and sub-surface geology must have made construction of the northern ramparts, and the cutting of the terrace, extremely difficult. The terrace is nevertheless executed with remarkable precision. On the ground this is less easy to appreciate without the original wall facing and timberwork which once defined the façade, but from the air it is obvious that the upper rampart especially has been ‘driven through’ the severe terrain and the rock outcrops, cutting a good straight line.

Figure 6.34 Two contrasting façade schemes: (a) South fort, Pen Dinas façade scheme (top). Direct access into fort prohibited by visually impressive, ‘impenetrable’ façade. Access granted via gateways set at narrow ends of the ridge, set back behind the main façade. Gateways are visually unelaborated and unprotected by outworks (T. Driver).

Without a commitment on the part of the builders to implement a specific scheme, the topography at Castell Grogwynion would have invited innumerable solutions for an enclosed space. Alternative arrangements could have been found for building a bivallate defence along the northern side. At both Gaer Fawr and Castell Grogwynion, modern farm tracks or cattle paths have forged direct routes upslope to penetrate the original façades, demonstrating that centrally-positioned gateways could have been practical alternatives. Although a main gateway at Grogwynion would have been desirable in a central position, the chosen point was at the north-east narrow end, at the end of an unbroken 145m long northern façade. The entire design of the façade was executed in spite of prevailing topography and the considerable difficulties this imposed. It is where a utilitarian approach

(b) Darren façade scheme (bottom). Gateway pierces centre of enclosure, and remains highly visible on approaches. Direct access is prevented or ‘baffled’ by overlapping outworks, which present impression of multivallation and elaborate the entrance path (T. Driver). has been avoided or modified that we can begin to identify the influence of cultural traditions in hillfort design. Similar findings have recently been described for some Northumberland hillforts, particularly Ring Chesters hillfort, where the surveyors note that the ‘local blueprint’ of a concentric, geometric design ‘…is common to many forts and is often laid out with little regard for slight variations in topography.’ (Oswald et al. 2002). 6.3.6 Divergence: The Darren façade scheme The implementation of continuous, wide-spaced terraces as an unbroken façade, in order to prevent direct access to the ‘front’ of the fort or to project an impressively long

102

6: Impressing the neighbours

obliquely around the terminals of the outworks (the dynamics of the long landscape approach to Darren are more fully discussed below in section 7.5.3). This is found at Darren fort, and at Penlan-isaf (site 62; Figure 6.35). It is also seen outside the study area at Caer Allt Goch in the Teifi valley near Lampeter. All these forts are strikingly similar in terms of their layout and overall appearance. A further linking theme is that all the façades directly face the lowlands below, or in the case of Penlan-isaf and Caer Allt Goch, they look out across the valleys of major rivers (the Ystwyth and the Teifi respectively). The differences between this scheme and the Pen Dinas 2 scheme is best illustrated in schematic form in Figure 6.34, and can be summarised thus: Darren façade scheme x x x x

Set on the summit of a hill or ridge Defences enclose the summit Main gate placed centrally in the long side of the façade Flanking outworks below the gate prevent direct access; access must be sought obliquely around terminals of outworks.

While Pen y Bannau hillfort on the peripheries of Cors Caron also features a centrally placed, and highly visible gateway blocked by outworks, it appears to conform to a separate, distinctive façade scheme, whose main characteristic is the siting of the blocking façade at the narrow end of the fort, rather than centrally placed in its long side. This scheme is described below in section 6.3.7. 6.3.7 The Cors Caron façade scheme

Figure 6.35 Darren façade scheme: Plans of Penlan-isaf fort (top, site 62) overlooking the Afon Ystwyth near Llanfihangel y Creuddyn, and Caer Allt Goch (bottom), Cellan, Lampeter (Penlan-isaf plan from air-photo mapping, with additional detail sketched in field, T Driver. Caer Allt Goch after Ordnance Survey Antiquity Model as published on Landline digital mapping. Crown

The Cors Caron sites are so named as they all occupy the hill-fringe zone bordering this major landscape feature, an expanse of bog close to the headwaters of the Teifi (see Figure 2.9). Pen y Bannau hillfort has one of the most perfectly-executed façades in this area, one of the finest in the region (Figures 6.37-6.39; Davies and Hogg 1994, 269; Davies and Lynch 2000, 158; Driver 2008). The very steep rampart faces preserved today, both at Pen y Bannau and Castell, Tregaron (Davies and Hogg 1994, 260; Driver 2008), display evidence for structured building techniques (see 6.2.2 above). The visual form of the short lengths of free-standing rampart flanking Pen y Bannau’s gateway, which mimic true multivallation, can also be seen at Trecoll fort (Figure 6.37; Davies and Hogg 1994, 260), in the form of two massive free-standing banks separated by ditches which the visitor must pass by. At Castell, Tregaron, in the south of the Cors Caron area, an

Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

and unbroken profile, is not a scheme found uniformly across the region. In his 1962 ‘List’, Hogg drew attention to a ‘group of bivallate contour forts with their ramparts separated by an unusually wide space’. In these he included not only Castell Grogwynion and Gaer Fawr, but also Darren (section 7.5.3) and Castell Tregaron. It may have seemed reasonable to group together all forts with wide-spaced ramparts flanking the weak approach, but in reality this list cuts across major differences in façade layouts and approaches.

2

As yet, there is no evidence that the alignment of the entrance breaks was more significant than the location of the entrances on the defensive perimeter, as has been shown by Hamilton and Manley’s work (1997, 99). Such detail would require a greater amount of excavation across the region.

An alternative scheme to that already discussed is where access into a fort is via a gate placed centrally in the long side of the façade, flanked by outworks hindering direct access (Figure 6.34). The central gate remains highly visible when approaching the façade. Entrance is sought

103

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Whilst the Darren façade scheme sees the long façade sited across the ridge, a major difference in the Cors Caron façade scheme is that the complex façade is sited at the narrow end of the ridge, outcrop or promontory, essentially restricting the area for potential display. The long sides of the forts usually lack extensive artificial ramparts as they are formed along steep natural slopes. The second chief characteristic is the use of steep-faced, at time free-standing, ramparts to form the blocking façade. Entry to the hillfort is oblique in nature, around the terminals of the blocking façade ramparts. However, the final position of the main gate varies; Pen y Bannau features a highly visible gateway, centrally placed at the narrow end of the ridge. At Castell, Tregaron, and Trecoll, a different approach is employed, namely an invisible inner gateway, entirely obscured by the outworks. The ultimate position of the gate is by no means obvious, and it must be sought behind, or alongside, the terminals of the outworks. 4 The Cors Caron façade scheme can be summarised thus: Cors Caron façade scheme (see Figure 6.36):

Figure 6.36 Cors Caron façade schemes: two variations on the same theme of impressive free-standing ramparts flanking the narrow end of a ridge, promontory or summit (T. Driver).

x x

Hillfort occupies prominent ridge, outcrop or promontory The long sides of the fort lack extensive artificial defences The gateway and façade are sited at the narrow end The main defences will comprise steep, close-set ramparts forming a façade at the narrow end, and blocking direct access to the interior Access may be sought around the terminals of the façade, obliquely through the façade to a centrally-placed gate, or at Penyffrwdllwyd, via a road directly through the outworks

inland outcrop is defended on its landward (north-east) side by a sweeping curved façade with a steep outer face, originally walled with large, weathered stone blocks (Figure 6.13). This outer façade entirely conceals the main access to the gateway behind. The gateway lies at one end of the inner curving rampart, which completes this bivallate façade, and appears to be quite a simple structure formed in the gap between an inturned rampart footing on the south side (which must have been augmented by timberwork) flanking the steep terminal of the inner rampart on the north side. The fact that the inner and outer ramparts do not run parallel to one another suggests they may represent at least two phases of expansion – and also that in a univallate phase the inner rampart and gateway were obvious, but that a deliberate concealment of the main gateway occurred with the later addition of the uncompromising outer façade rampart (Figure 6.4). Castell, Tregaron, does not have the levelled terraces of the Pen Dinas/Gaer Fawr forts; rather, the free-standing nature of the façade ramparts, together with their visual appearance, couples it more closely with Pen y Bannau and Trecoll. 3 The recently discovered hillfort at Gilfach y Dwn fawr possesses none of the distinctive hallmarks of its neighbouring forts, having instead a complex overlapping gateway, with well-defined inner bastions, sited at the narrow end of a commanding promontory and defended on its lower slopes by a partial cut terrace and a footing bank, presumably for a palisade.

There are parallels at Corn y Fan, Brecknock (Figure 6.40; RCAHMW 1986, HF 14, 41-43) where a very small plateau against a crag has been enclosed by three ramparts. The ramparts present a striking visual appearance of impregnable multivallation with no clear gateway visible, very similar to the façade at Pen y Bannau. Access must be sought obliquely up the side of the fort, effectively bypassing all the substantial ramparts and gaining access via a small gate, similar to the situation at Castell, Tregaron. RCAHMW (1986) noted ‘The entrance approach is from the N.E., … between the ends of the earthworks and the sheer slopes and crags of the S.E. side. In its present form this approach seems more poorly defended than is consistent with the strength of the main defence...’ They go on to suggest that this dichotomy in the tactically-weak entrance and the very strong defensive façade may be a product of later destruction and

3

4

x x x

It is worth noting that Castell, Tregaron, bears many similarities to Moel Arthur hillfort in Clwyd (see Burnham 1995). This is discussed in Chapter 8.

It remains to note that original timber elements could conceivably have funnelled the approach around these rampart terminals and guided visitors to the main gates.

104

6: Impressing the neighbours

Figure 6.37 Cors Caron hillfort plans, Trecoll, Pen y Bannau and Castell, Tregaron (North to top. All plans and sections based on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 Antiquity Models, with additions by T. Driver). that ‘… some additional protection and… other works [may] have been destroyed.’ This appears to be a misinterpretation of a fully-finished façade type which can now be seen to be well-attested in north Ceredigion, where the means of access, and the tactical strength of the access, appear to have been secondary to the desire to present a false appearance of considerable strength and multivallation. Looking at the plans of the main Cors Caron forts (Figure 6.37) and the main ground views of their façades (Figures 6.3, 6.4 & 6.9), in comparison with Penyffrwdllwyd (Figure 3.10), which shares a number of elements with other hillforts, it is clear that the Cors Caron group shared distinctive design elements. Pen y Bannau particularly may have sought to emulate the ground-views of superior multivallate fortresses like Old Oswestry in Shropshire, or even Pen y Crug near Brecon (RCAHMW 1986, 68-70; Burnham 1995, 70), thus conveying an impression of strength without circumvallating more than a small part of the whole defended summit.

Figure 6.38 Pen y Bannau hillfort, exemplifying monumental display ‘on a budget’ (Driver 2008). View from the north-east, showing the fine triple ramparts flanking the main gateway. Access through the ramparts to the gateway was possible obliquely from the left. The striking visual character of the main façade contrasts dramatically with the minimal defences which enclose the remainder of the hilltop, a fact not easily appreciated on the ground (see figure 6.39 below; Crown Copyright RCAHMW, DI2005_0213).

6.3.8 ‘Hybrid’ designs and the intermingling of architectural traditions Penyffrwdllwyd (Figure 3.10), one of the largest and more complex hillforts in north Ceredigion, is spectacularly sited against the sheer edge of an inland cliff, in an interesting ‘liminal’ position in the context of the north Ceredigion topography (Figures 4.1). It sits astride the general line of the watershed between Cors Caron to the southeast, and the Ystwyth fault to the north-west. It

105

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 6.39 Pen y Bannau, the formidable north-eastern façade as viewed from the ground. The centrally-placed main gate remains highly visible but the ramparts prevent direct access; a way in must be sought around the lefthand (eastern) side (T. Driver 2012). Figure 6.41 Caer Penrhos, Llanrhystud, (site 52). View from the east in low light, November 2012, showing very low earthworks in the foreground, which relate to the outer defences of this hillfort. The fort was later modified with the addition of a ringwork. Compare with figure 3.4 (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, AP_2012_4280). entrance passage are embellished with taller terminals, and while the inner two sets are well-planned and broadly symmetrical, the third, outer, outwork is positioned slightly further out and is quite roughly built. Taken together, this trivallate entrance façade formed from short lengths of rampart would appear to borrow directly from the Cors Caron façade scheme, sharing particular similarities in arrangement at least with Trecoll. The complexity of the defences at Penyffrwdllwyd suggest development through more than one phase (see discussion in section 3.1.4.3). It may be that architectural ideas from one particular façade scheme, which were initially favoured, were superseded during phases of redevelopment, or indeed reoccupation by entirely different peoples.

Figure 6.40 Corn y Fan, Brecknockshire (Crown Copyright RCAHMW 1999, GTJ 60026). commands extensive views over north-west Ceredigion, to the Trawsgoed basin, Ystwyth valley and beyond; yet its main east-facing façade looks out over, and remains highly visible from, the hillfringe around the northern part of Cors Caron; the notches of the rock-cut ditches at the north and south (narrow) ends of the fort form clear silhouettes on the horizon line from many miles away (Figure 6.28).

6.3.9 Hillforts which cannot be readily grouped and concentric hillforts The presentation, in this chapter, of three possible façade schemes, which may have been built following particular cultural influences, should not obscure the hillforts not categorised within the newly identified schemes. It would be a great mistake to list these others as ‘unclassifiable’ or to disregard them altogether. Among those hillforts not discussed in this chapter are two of the largest in the county, Old Warren Hill at Nanteos, and Caer Penrhos at Llanrhystud (Figures 3.3 and 3.4). These hillforts, along with many others, lack a sufficient range or mix of readily diagnostic architectural components to allow them to be easily cross-compared on the basis of field evidence alone.

These dualities in the setting of the hillfort appear to be continued in its architecture. Penyffrwdllwyd has much in common with the Pen Dinas façade scheme. It is sited with its long edge against a rocky cliff with a terraced façade built on the opposing gentler slopes. At the north narrow end is the main gateway; this lies ‘open’ as a direct entrance path into the gate is not blocked or hindered by outworks. However, in a departure not seen among the other hillforts that share the Pen Dinas façade scheme, the main gate is augmented or embellished by three rampart lines, the main inner rampart plus two short lengths of outwork beyond. The ramparts lining the 106

6: Impressing the neighbours

including West Hill, was noted by Frodhsam et al. (2007, 252) as a particularly prevalent design, yet one that was not universally implemented in the Iron Age landscape. However, as the identification of façade schemes in this volume has demonstrated, rapid classificatory assumptions achieved for particular hillforts on the basis of plans alone, and without detailed field visits, can be misleading (see further discussion in section 8.2 below). 6.4 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS This chapter has examined the hillfort architecture in two ways; the initial investigation of architectural complexity in hillfort architecture has drawn considerably on new field data and may be the first time details of such apparent constructional complexity have been recorded and interpreted at a number of hillforts within a region. The second half of the chapter has tackled different issues, in arguing for the implementation of façade schemes of shared architectural components. With the notable absence of good excavated data or an established chronology, these two new themes can help us move some way towards a regional understanding of the north Ceredigion Iron Age. Fuller discussion of the implications of this architectural research will be developed in Chapter 8.

Figure 6.42 Castell Nadolig, Ceredigion. Aerial photograph showing the concentric layout of this fort, which occupies a low summit on the coastal plateau near Aberporth. While the concentric field banks appear to fossilise the original lines of the Iron Age ramparts, parchmarks in the foreground show an additional line of original bank, which continues through presently open fields. This interesting and unusual site would repay detailed investigation in the future (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, AP_2006_3877). Hillforts not discussed include some with very distinctive architectural traits, particularly those with pronounced circularity or of concentric form. Caer Pwll Glas (site 30, Figure 1.2), north of Bow Street, is a large and wellexecuted circular hillfort built against a precipitous hillslope with a curving sweep of defence on its north and western sides. Another concentric hillfort is the smaller site at Banc y Gaer (Figure 2.25) on the coastal plains of the Llanfarian-Lledrod-Llanrhystud plateau (see section 3.2.6). Both these forts may be part of a distinctive architectural group worthy of further investigation. Well-executed circular forts are more common in the south of the county, between the Teifi valley and the west coast, and include sites like: Pen-coed Foel hillfort at Llandysul (NPRN 92243), a univallate circular fort occupying the rounded summit of a prominent hill; Pen-yGaer at Llanybydder (NPRN 303873), a univallate circular hillfort again on a rounded summit, but with an impressive outwork flanking the north-east side presenting an impression of multivallation looking up along the Teifi corridor; and even perhaps Castell Nadolig near Penbryn (Figure 6.42; NPRN 304136), an unusual concentric hillfort with very wide-spaced outer ramparts, which occupies a prominent, low summit on the undulating coastal plain to the east of Aberporth. Distinctive concentric circular forms can also be found farther afield, and include the unusual site at Pentre Camp/Pen y Castell, Montgomeryshire (see Musson 2011, 87; Driver and Davis 2012, Figure 48). Caer Pwll Glas certainly stands out as a confident and well-planned hillfort, so radically different from others in the surrounding landscape that some particular cultural reason and architectural influence must lie behind its final form. Marked circularity at some forts in the Cheviot Hills, 107

108

7: Hillforts and human movement

7 Hillforts and human movement: Approaching, entering, experiencing and passing the hillforts in the landscape

7.1 INTRODUCTION The preceding chapter examined the structural evidence for architectural complexity at the north Ceredigion hillforts, including the phenomenon of conspicuous construction and other architectural devices, and went on to look in detail at three main schemes, which defined the architecture and façade appearance of particular groups of forts.

twentieth century trend to highlight the intervisibility of hillforts by noting ‘…but hill tops can usually be seen from other hill tops.’ From what has been learnt about hillforts it is now possible to appreciate that approaches to monumental architecture were more complex than simply siting a fort on a hill to ‘show it off’. Many hillforts occupy highly conspicuous locations, either heightening their visibility with extensive artificial defences (e.g. Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, Darren, Gaer Fawr) or utilising, and ‘borrowing’, the pre-existing natural strength and visibility of a commanding outcrop to make their mark (e.g. Pen y Bannau (Figure 7.2), Pen Dinas Elerch (Figure 7.19), Penyffrwdllwyd (Figure 6.41), Castell Grogwynion (Figures 7.34-5), Castell Bwa Drain (Figure 7.4) and Gilfach y Dwn Fawr. In these cases it can be argued that the hillfort builders saw visibility, and visual command of the surrounding landscape, as important politically and culturally. For the Atlantic roundhouses or brochs of western Scotland, Armit (1997, 249-50) described the consistent selection of highly dominant settings, on highly visible sites, as an attempt to imprint the household on the landscape. He wrote:

This chapter looks at the hillfort façades ‘in action’ in the Iron Age countryside. In the first part of the chapter some general observations are made concerning the visibility or otherwise of particular hillforts, and the likely existence of ‘prime locations’ which must always have been highly desirable settings for the siting of hillforts. These themes are developed to look at groups of hillforts whose façades appear to be orientated towards trackways or overland routes, thus relating to human movement. The second part of this chapter comprises detailed descriptions of the approaches to six key hillforts. These case studies begin to achieve a level of field analysis which could, if time allowed, be applied to all the major monuments in mid Wales and would probably yield valuable insight for every one studied.

‘It served as a symbol to outsiders of the control of the household over the surrounding land… their centrality within the landscape which supported them, and of their isolation and independence from other households.’ (ibid., 250).

7.2 General observations regarding the landscape settings of north Ceredigion hillforts It is clear from fieldwork that there were major differences in the way the monumental architecture was made visible or invisible by different communities of ‘hillfort builders’. It may seem obvious that a community investing heavily in a prestige building project, incorporating cutting-edge architecture, would want to ‘show it off’, and that a hillfort with a role to command, or control, a population or an area of territory (see Chapter 8), would need to be highly visible. The ‘intervisibility’ of all manner of prehistoric monuments is, after all, a common discourse driven by a basic premise that prehistoric people wanted their monuments to be visible (see Brown 2009). Hogg (1975, 53) questioned the early

Similar findings about the conspicuous nature of hillforts, or a choice of setting or positioning to heighten visibility from valleys below (as at West Hill, Oswald et al. 2000), have been described following recent surveys at some Northumberland hillforts like Great Hetha (Pearson and Lax 2001). In north Ceredigion, however, one cannot employ generalisations. Some key hillforts have their elaborate façades built on the least visible hillslopes, facing away from the most commanding vistas or the approaches, which would afford the longest visual impact 109

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Pen y Castell, Lletty Ifan Hen, is positioned away from the lowlands on a prominent knoll in a valley overlooked on most sides (Figure 7.9). It is highly visible during the descent from the mountains to the east, but remains invisible until reached on most journeys into the interior from the lowlands to the west, along ridge routes or following the valley sides. Pen Dinas, Elerch, is a commanding hillfort but again sits well out of sight of the main lowland valleys and through-routes to the west, along the coastal plain north of the Rheidol; instead, it can be seen as a relatively conspicuous knoll on one side on an upland plateau as one descends from the mountains to the east. Similar differences between hillforts occur throughout north Ceredigion; Tre-Coll, with its massive façade ramparts, is concealed on an inland promontory along a valley and indeed was only re-discovered in 1971 when A.H.A Hogg spotted it from a car (Hogg 1971a). As already discussed in 6.2.3.1 above, the Tre-Coll façade faces north, but additional revetment on the eastern slopes would have heightened its appearance from the side which was overlooked from higher ground. Similar uses of revetment walling are discussed in this chapter for the hillforts of Pen Dinas, Elerch (see 7.5.2) and Castell Flemish (see 7.5.4). The impressive façade of Castell, Tregaron (Figure 6.6 and 7.39), faces a blind hillslope, and most of the defences of the large hillfort of Caer Penrhos remain inconspicuous from the coastal lowlands just to the west, only coming in to view when approached from inland routes. Figure 7.1 Traversing the landscape: braided trackways, no doubt of some antiquity, ascend the slopes to the east of Gaer Fawr hillfort (site 17; upper left) from the Trawsgoed lowlands, fossilising centuries of foot and animal traffic (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 983534-17).

7.3 PRIME LOCATIONS: OWNERSHIP AND COMMAND OF PROMINENT LOCATIONS IN THE IRON AGE LANDSCAPE

to those approaching, in favour of less remarkable vistas or localised valleys (e.g. Pen y Bannau (Figure 7.11), Pen y Castell (Figure 7.9) and Tan y Ffordd (Figure 7.10). Often, there are complex topographic factors that become apparent during a site visit (see below). There are considerable differences between those hillforts built in conspicuous locations with long anticipatory approaches (Hamilton and Manley 1997; 2001) which could be described as ‘landmark hillforts’, seemingly designed to form enduring and obvious monuments in the landscape, and others, built in more local settings and ‘encountered’ in the context of more immediate approaches. Some of these were built along inconspicuous valleys, but an equal number were sited close to commanding ridges or summits but nonetheless avoided them, apparently by design.

‘Prime locations’ are those locations which offer optimum positions for hillfort siting, whether in terms of prominence, natural strength or clear geographical advantage suitable for effective political, visual or even military command of a given territory or region. They may be non-functional from a purely utilitarian perspective, perhaps with a steep or high summit which is difficult to access and resource, has inadequate supplies of water and timber for building, or may be uncomfortable for year round settlement given the exposure of the houses within on a bare, rounded summit. As well as providing tactical or geographic superiority, steep-sided summits or outcrops would have allowed and invited the development of complex architectural schemes involving terraces, ramparts and commanding gateways, virtually impossible to implement in topographically undifferentiated hillslope or valley bottom positions.

7.3.1 Definition

North of the Rheidol, most eastward vistas from the lowland towards the hillfringe zone are dominated by the flat-topped fort of Darren (e.g. Figures 7.24 & 7.25). The equally large hillfort at Hen Gaer, Penrhyncoch, actually avoids a summit position and is built to enclose a steep hillslope, ‘half on and half off’ the ridge top (Figure 7.5).

That these prime locations may have been sited above and away from the productive lowlands, and therefore may have required networks of food supply and communication to be in place to service the fort, suggests

110

7: Hillforts and human movement

Figure 7.2 Highly visible hillforts: Pen y Bannau hillfort (crag, centre) on its upland block, seen from the northwest. The peak of the crag marks the point where the main façade and ‘citadel’ (on the left) is separated by the larger, more lightly enclosed remainder of the hillfort (on the right). The highly visible nature of the entire ridge, which the hillfort dominates, when seen from the surrounding lowlands, is clear (T. Driver, winter 2002). Figure 7.4 Castell Bwa Drain. View from approaches to the east, showing the prominence of this otherwise small hillfort. On its far side the hillfort abuts the sheer side of the Rheidol gorge (T. Driver. Crown Copyright RCAHMW. CD2005_620_019).

Figure 7.3 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. A long landscape view from the southern approaches showing the southern tip of the south fort and the extremely steep coastal flanks of the hill. The Wellington Monument stands on the summit of the hill (T. Driver, 2001; Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

Figure 7.5 Hen Gaer. Aerial photograph from the west illustrating the pronounced hillslope, which the defences of this hillfort incorporate. A modern covered reservoir can be seen in the left foreground, with the freestanding ‘entrance mound’(see Figure 5.15) lying between the reservoir and the putative west entrance in the defensive circuit (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 881364-4).

a degree of control over the farming populace and some differential status enjoyed by the occupants or builders. In other, ‘non-prime’, locations on hillslopes or valley sides and bottoms, there would have been little opportunity for display, or for the construction and elaboration of artificial defences through terracing the sides of the enclosure. The vista from the enclosure may also have been restricted by valley sides or hillslopes. The choice of location can therefore tell us a great deal about the political standing

and power of the builder, and how social organisation manifested itself in the landscape. 7.3.2 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. A hillfort in a prime location Pen Dinas occupies an exceptional position on a coastal hill, which rises towards the western end of a long ridge 111

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 7.6 Aerial photograph of Pen Dinas hill from the south-east, with Penparcau (a suburb of Aberystwyth) in the foreground. The view illustrates the pre-eminence of this coastal hill flanked by the confluence of the Ystwyth and Rheidol (right) rivers and their associated lowlands. It is highly likely that the unchecked growth of the original garden village of Penparcau, and the subsequent spread of development visible in the foreground, has obscured or destroyed a variety of unrecognised settlements and structures contemporary with the hillfort (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, GTJ 22722).

Figure 7.7 ‘Ponterwyd Junction’. Schematic map showing the intersection of major river valleys approximating to the location of the village of Ponterwyd. Hillforts in the vicinity of this valley junction are marked, with black directional lines indicating the orientation of their main gates. The only exception is Tan y Ffordd (site 64), low down on the sides of the Rheidol valley, whose main gate faces west but whose defences are augmented with impressive blind ramparts facing east, towards traffic descending from higher ground. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown

separating the valleys of the Rheidol and the Paith (see location map, Figures 3.14 and 7.6). Its location is optimal; one of the strongest and most readily defensible hills in the region. This coastal hill boasts precipitous slopes on its seaward (western) side and along the south, but is approached by more gradual slopes across a lower lying saddle of ground to the east and north-east. It sits at the coastal confluence of the rivers Rheidol and Ystwyth, allowing exploitation of a variety of resources within easy reach, including marine resources, seaweed, river fish, good grazing land and soils suitable for arable cultivation, a point well made by Fleure in 1922.

copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

motte were eventually superseded as power-centres by the new castle and walled town of Aberystwyth to the north, which commanded a good harbour from the rocky crag of Castle Rock. Aberystwyth remains a focal point in mid Wales, in settlement, economic and educational terms. The strength of the position no doubt lies in a coincidence of factors, particularly the presence of a harbour, the sea routes, north-south land routes on the lowland coastal plain, and east-west land routes facilitated by mountain passes. These factors have long attracted people to this area and have also provided the means for control exploited by the hillfort and then, in later centuries, by other military, political and ecclesiastical installations.

The strategic and economic importance of this hill is illustrated by many factors. Mesolithic occupation is attested at its foot whilst finds of a polished axe from the western slopes, and a palstave from the Bronze Age, together with a putative round barrow on the summit (see Briggs 1994; Browne and Driver 2001), show that the hill attracted attention in pre-Iron Age times and may have held some sacred importance. In post-Roman times, one of the most important early Christian sites in Wales, a clas, was founded at Llanbadarn Fawr (Dodgshon 1994), across the Rheidol valley from the foot of Pen Dinas at a point where a small stream valley issues from the hill above. It is conceivable that an earlier prehistoric ritual site, Y Garreg Fawr (Browne and Driver 2001, 41), once lay close to this same spot, in a similar topographic setting to other later prehistoric ritual monuments in the region. The first medieval castle to be raised at Aberystwyth was the motte and bailey at Tan y Bwlch, across the salt marshes of the Ystwyth to the south of Pen Dinas, and in full view of the hill. Both Pen Dinas hill and Tan y Bwlch

The success of this hillfort’s location raises an interesting paradox; the strategic and economic power of its position is not in doubt and must have had a considerable bearing on the political standing of the occupied fort and its occupants. This strong hill had always existed as an optimum place for settlement, defence and communal meetings throughout prehistory but was only artificially enclosed from perhaps the Middle Iron Age onwards. This raises interesting questions about its ‘ownership’ as a prominent hill in a settled landscape, particularly regarding (1) the feat of organisation and the labour force required to raise a large enough enclosure on its summits to adequately defend the position, (2) the weight of

112

7: Hillforts and human movement

authority which may have been acquired through the capacity to defend such a prominent landmark, regardless of any pre-existing authority which was held by the person/s responsible for its construction. 7.4 HILLFORT FAÇADES AND THEIR RELATION TO TRACKWAYS, PASSES AND OVERLAND ROUTES A number of hillforts which lie in the eastern, more upland, part of the region appear to have close relationships with mountain passes (a topic introduced in Chapter 4, sections 4.5 and 4.6). The gateways or main façades of these eastern forts face the mountains to the east or north-east, overlooking the routes used by travellers entering this coastal region. Fitzpatrick (1997, 28), in discussing the easterly orientation of gateways and entrances at Iron Age sites, notes that the required orientation for the crossing of thresholds ‘… in turn helped define the directions and paths which people and animals might follow in entering and leaving these places.’ That said, no convincing evidence has yet been found in the region to suggest that gateway orientation was deliberately designed on cosmological grounds, as suggested by researchers examining the British hillforts (e.g. Oswald 1997; Parker Pearson and Richards 1999).

Figure 7.8 Present day footpaths, minor roads and trackways (dotted lines) descending the ridge towards the blind eastern façade of Tan y Ffordd hillfort (site 64). These appear to fossilise a pattern of movement which sees east-west mountain traffic utilising a useful route between the lowlands of the Rheidol and ‘Ponterwyd Junction’ to the northeast, bypassing the Melindwr valley and pass of Bwlch Nant yr Arian which can be seen in the top of the picture, east of Banc y Castell (site 41) and Esgair Nant yr Arian (site 50). The conspicuous construction of the blind eastern façade of Tan y Ffordd appears to be designed specifically to react to traffic descending the slopes above the fort from the northeast

7.4.1 Hillfort façades at ‘Ponterwyd Junction’ The main points of entry that can be traced across the mountains separating north Ceredigion from eastern Wales and the borderlands have been described in sections 4.5 and 4.6 above (and see Figure 4.1). In certain areas it appears that some forts were orientated in anticipation of visitors approaching from these mountains, rather than confronting people approaching from the lowland coastal plains to the west, or making more local choices for orientation overlooking specific valleys or basins. One of these locations, termed ‘Ponterwyd Junction’, is where the Afon Castell (which gives access east over Plynlimon) meets with the Rheidol gorge heading south, and the shallow valley of the Afon Llywernog, which drains from the west, allowing travel between east and west. To the north of the Rheidol, three of the first forts to be met by travellers approaching from the upper Wye/Rheidol route have gateways facing the east or south-east (Figure 7.7). Travelling directly west to Bwlch Nant yr Arian, one would encounter the opening of the Melindwr basin and one of the first main settled landscapes since the Clywedog group of forts. Both the promontory fort at Esgair Nant yr Arian (site 50) and the large hillfort at Banc y Castell (site 41) have eastward facing entrances, directed away from the lowlands of the Melindwr basin, which they command, to face the mountains. It is true to say that the gateways of both these forts face the only possible general direction of access to the fort across the necks of promontories (e.g. Esgair Nant yr Arian). Yet, the impression made by the monumental gateways as one

(Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

came into the area from the east would have been considerable. The entrance orientation of Pen y Castell (site 40) to the north is striking in that it faces directly towards the mountains (Figure 7.9) even though an aspect west, down along the valley towards the sea, may have been preferable in purely practical terms to face the lowland area of greater population and activity. This fort lies alongside a potential overland route west route from Ponterwyd, which may have descended from Pendam via a ridge route towards Penrhyncoch and is marked intermittently with later prehistoric monuments (see Bird 1972; Timberlake 2001, 185-6 & Figure 17.4). The fort occupies a highly visible position, on an isolated knoll towards the head of the constricted Stewi valley overlooked from the south by the Pendam-Penrhyncoch ridge-route. This was certainly not a fort constructed to dominate or command the lowlands, as its views to the west are cut off by a bend in the valley. J Graham Williams noted its non-strategic positioning in his 1867 description; ‘It… lies between two hills, and commands no prospect, so that it may have served as an occasional retreat, or for an ambush, as it is not visible until one comes unexpectedly upon it’ (ibid., 286-7). It may not be 113

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

visible from a westerly climb up from the coast, but descending from the mountains around Pendam its presence is unmistakable. Details of its gateway construction show that Pen y Castell directed views of its finest stone walling, highest ramparts and deepest rock cut ditches towards the mountains to the east. By contrast, the western circuit of the rampart is low and unimpressive, and walled with rough-hewn blocks (see Chapter 6, sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.1). In addition to these forts, the gateway at Dinas hillfort (site 51) to the north-west of Ponterwyd, faces south, while the promontory fort of Castell Bwa Drain (site 47; Figure 7.4) looks east and the main façade of Tan y Ffordd fort (site 64) faces north-east with an impressive blind rampart facing approaching traffic descending from high ground to the north-east (Figure 6.19). Looking objectively at the façade and gateway orientation, we find that at least four forts had no clear alternative orientation for the gate; Banc y Castell and Esgair Nant y Arian are sited on westward promontories where the only comfortable access was across a neck to the east. The main gate at Dinas hillfort (site 51) faces south, to the easiest approach up to the summit of the ridge. Castell Bwa Drain (site 47) is built against a promontory on the Rheidol gorge, but its entrance could have been directed to the north-west or the north-east. It should therefore be asked whether the orientation of gateways and façades at these sites has anything to do with the direction of approaching traffic from the mountain passes to the east, and whether any useful conclusion can be drawn from the diagram presented in Figure 7.7.

Figure 7.9 Pen y Castell; aerial photograph from the west illustrating the particular siting of the hillfort on a prominent knoll towards the head of a valley. Its single main gate faces east towards the mountains, one potential reason for this being the orientation towards human traffic descending from mountain passes to the east (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001-cs-1876).

The entrance orientation remains significant in the context of the main overland mountain pass linking the Castell valley with the Wye valley, at all these forts, chiefly because their very siting in more marginal upland or mountain positions away from the coastal lowlands and valleys signals a recognition of a significant population focus at these higher altitudes, and the likely presence of human traffic crossing the mountains. Dinas, Ponterwyd, is an isolated fort in the context of any distribution map. Yet, in the context of the mountain pass it is well sited, comparatively close to upland communities represented by Castell Bwa Drain at Ystumtuen and the forts of the Melindwr basin to the west. Locally, its position is not marginal, as it is sited just upstream of fertile meadows which flank the Rheidol at Ponterwyd. Lower-lying contemporary ancillary structures and smaller settlements similar to those found close to larger hillforts in the lowlands, could be expected in the environs of Dinas but may never be discovered by aerial photography.

populations with a more lengthy journey to the lowland zones below and to the west, if this is where we conclude that the majority of daily farming activities were taking place. The orientation of the gateway at Pen y Castell seems to be deliberate and reinforces the importance of a mountain vista to this fort; alternative orientations were clearly avoided. The outworks which flank the eastern side of Tan y Ffordd fort face away from the hillfort entrance, yet form an impressive blind façade. Castell Bwa Drain’s entrance is also oriented north-east, rather than alternatively to the north-west. The only possible conclusion one can draw from their construction and orientation to the north-east, is that they were designed to face traffic descending obliquely south-west from the ridge above, by travellers entering north Ceredigion from the mountain routes from the east 1 .

The entrance orientations of Banc y Castell and Esgair Nant y Arian are strictly imposed by the nature of the preexisting terrain, but these promontory positions were deliberately chosen over other potential locations in the local area for the construction of forts which would directly face the mountain passes, not the lowlands to the west; potentially this choice would have left the hillfort

1

On the eastern side of the Plynlimon massif are the Clywedog group of hillforts, the first major group reached

114

7: Hillforts and human movement

Figure 7.10 Tan y Ffordd hillfort. A close view of the hillfort from the north-west on its prominent knoll (centre), now thickly wooded. Traces of the northern terraces can be made out through the trees. This local valley, which the hillfort ultimately dominates with its terraced façade, is quite wet, bisected by a stream which is fed from a spring issuing just below the hillfort. Compare with sketched visualisation in Figure 6.27 (T. Driver).

Figure 7.11 Pen y Bannau; ground view of façade seen from the north-east, descending the minor road from the Teifi pools towards Ffair Rhos hamlet. This is the only approach from which the dramatic façade is clearly and briefly visible from afar, being neither obscured by higher ground nor viewed in profile from the lowlands to the west (compare with Figure 7.2. T. Driver, 16 Oct 2012).

7.4.2 Hillfort façades bordering Cors Caron The routes west into Cors Caron from the Elan valley have been described in Chapter 4 above. Evidence from the orientation of the leading hillforts in this landscape appears to suggest that the main gateways and façades faced the expected points of entry into the landscape. Within the Cors Caron group, the landscape prominence of the monumental façades is split from east to west. The hillforts which occur in the Cwm Gwyddyl group on the western fringes of Cors Caron, including Tre-Coll, command a complex set of minor valleys and rounded hillocks (See 3.2.5.4 above). Whilst Castell Flemish (see section 7.5.4. below) and Pen y Gaer defend locally prominent summits, Tre-Coll is hidden on an overlooked river promontory. It is inconspicuous, skirted on most sides by higher ground.

Figure 7.12 Penyffrwdllwyd. Ground view of the main gateway from the north, illustrating the main triple outworks which lie to the left of the clearly demarcated entrance trackway (T. Driver, 1995). towards the mountains. Yet again there is variation in the visibility and siting of the monumental façades. The impressive façades at Pen y Bannau and Castell Tregaron were given an extremely limited north-east orientation. Pen y Bannau is constructed on a rugged outcrop which is orientated north-east, and is bounded by steep slopes on the west and south sides. Its trivallate gateway façade is orientated north-east, looking out to the mountain approaches between Ffair Rhos and the Teifi pools. The best view of Pen y Bannau’s triple gateway façade is obtained from the north, from the mountain road descending into Ffair Rhos village from the Teifi pools area (Figure 7.11). It seems likely that this was the first and most important view of the fort’s main gate, obtained by travellers descending from the mountains. The Pen y Bannau façade visually commands the mountain fringe, well away from the potential panoramic lowland vistas which surround Cors Caron. Slopes exist to the west of the façade which, if monumentalised, would have rendered the defences far more visible from the lowlands in the vicinity of present-day Pontrhydfendigaid village to the west; yet this was not implemented.

On the east side of Cors Caron the dramatic hill fringe ultimately gives access to the east-west mountain trackways which cross over to the Wye valley (see Chapter 4). The hillforts on this hillfringe, Penyffrwdlwyd, Pen y Bannau and Castell, Tregaron, all appear to face north-east or thereabouts, with their main entrance façades directed away from the lowlands and

on the journey east along the upper Wye valley. The gateways of these forts do not face west to anticipate traffic descending the mountains from north Ceredigion. Instead their gateways face either east, towards the lowlands of the upper Severn valley, or respond to local topography opening out onto the easiest approaches. 115

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 7.14 Castell Rhyfel, aerial photograph looking south-east, with the valley of the Groes Fawr beyond. The quarry pits behind the rampart can be clearly seen, as can the central damp hollow within the fort, which is a major feature of this otherwise bare hilltop (compare with Figure 7.26; Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001-cs-0321).

Figure 7.13 Castell, Tregaron, near-vertical aerial showing the sweeping façade (left), rear rampart and outcrop (right). Compare with Figure 6.5, the ground view of façade (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, AP_2009_3600). Similarly, Penyffrwdllwyd’s well-defended entrance faces north-east, into the mountains (Figure 7.12). Although this fort, like Pen y Bannau, is necessarily aligned in a particular direction through dint of the topography of the chosen site, there is scope at both sites for the main entrances to have been positioned differently. Despite the north-east orientation of the outcrop occupied by Pen y Bannau, and the cliff-bounded ridge occupied by Penyffrwdllwyd, alternative solutions to building monumental façades on both sites could have been found, if required. Pen y Bannau, for example, has a minor gate or postern on the steep west side while the ‘back’ of Castell, Tregaron, employs large and impressive ramparts in its sweeping, north-east facing façade (Figure 7.13). Penyffrwdllwyd is pierced by a simple gate or postern on the south-west side. The strategic role served by these two tall, steep, stone-walled façade ramparts is questionable, as the fort faces a blind hillslope, and the view of the façade rapidly disappears from the main approach, to the north-east, after only 200m (well illustrated in the aerial view, Figure 7.39). The ‘zigzag silhouette’ terminals of the ramparts on the north side do, however, form an impressive feature on the skyline from the lowland approaches to the north. From the main north-east approach, the rocky interior is also fully on view, thus rendering it tactically weak in the conventional sense (Figure 6.4). It is worth noting that the physical position chosen for Castell, Tregaron may have been governed by the existence of an important overland route and valley junction just to the east (see Figure 7.17).Tre-Coll hillfort does not have a northerly prospect, but like Castell, Tregaron its major façade is geared to facing approaching traffic from this direction although this is also the functional ‘landward’ approach to the site across the neck of this river-defined promontory.

The main conclusion one can reach about the impressive façade of Castell, Tregaron, facing a blind hillslope, that of Tre-Coll looking north-east, together with the mountain vistas shared by the façades at both Pen y Bannau and Penyffrwdllwyd, is that they were all specifically orientated towards the mountain approaches to the northeast, either in an actual display of power to approaching visitors or in a symbolic orientation. 7.4.3 Castell Rhyfel and its relationship to overland mountain passes The importance of mountain routes to the very existence of certain hillforts in the hillfringe and mountain zone in the east of Ceredigion is shown in the setting of Castell Rhyfel, in the south of the study area near Tregaron. Castell Rhyfel (literally ‘war/battle castle’) occupies an exceptionally high position at 500m O.D. on a bare, rounded hilltop which is completely exposed (Figures 7.14-7.15). It is probably an early site, at least of the Later Bronze or Early Iron Age (see Figure 3.7) if not with earlier origins. In historic times the Abergwesyn pass along the Berwyn valley 2km to the south was a busy droving route between the market town of Tregaron and the markets of mid and south Wales to the east (see Eurfyl and Jones 1930). When one examines the pattern of surviving monuments in this valley, with its rather steep ascents at Diffwys (SN 73 57) out of Tregaron, it appears not to have been a focus of activity in later prehistoric times. Rather, the valley of the afon Groes leading to the Groes Fawr just to the north seems to have been used as an overland routeway. This valley connects in the west to the river Berwyn, at a major valley junction just east of present-day Tregaron. This opening from the Teifi lowlands at the southern edge of Cors Caron was clearly significant for its potential through route across the mountains to the east, a point reinforced by the siting of Castell, Tregaron, on a rocky

116

7: Hillforts and human movement

Figure 7.15 Castell Rhyfel. New sketch plan. Whilst still a morphologically simple site, the fort and its natural topography are far more complex than originally thought. Note the central hollow and spring, which may have long marked this bare hilltop as a meeting place even before enclosure, and the natural chevaux de frise formed by lines of upright outcropping rocks (T. Driver; based upon the Ordnance Survey with numerous additions).

Figure 7.16 Map of Castell Rhyfel and environs. Key: triangles show cairns; stippling shows cairnfields of multiple small cairns; square (right) shows standing stone. North to top of map (T. Driver). 117

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

7.5 APPROACHING SIX KEY HILLFORTS: MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE IN THE LANDSCAPE 7.5.1 Approaching six key hillforts The construction of each hillfort would have been a matter of great importance, deliberation and investment to the persons who wished it to be built; accordingly, the only way to fully appreciate the subtleties of architecture and monumentality employed at these forts is to describe them in some detail and augment the writing with illustrations. An ideal level of analysis would see every fort in the region, where monumentality appears to have been deployed or developed, described in detail and given a new topographic survey; however this is far from practical. Instead six of the most interesting hillforts are described as case studies from which generalised conclusions may be extrapolated to others in the region.

Figure 7.17 The ‘valley junction’ of the rivers Berwyn and Groes with the Teifi, close to present day Tregaron. It is overlooked and commanded by the hillfort at Castell, Tregaron (site 11), while the valley of the Afon Groes, then Groes Fawr, leads inland to the valley dominated by Castell Rhyfel (site 42; Crown Copyright RCAHMW. ©

7.5.2 Movement from lowland to upland: Caer Lletty Llwyd and Pen Dinas, Elerch 7.5.2.1 Summary

Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Caer Lletty Llwyd and Pen Dinas, Elerch represent two potentially contemporary forts, each apparently reacting to expected ‘traffic’ from the other, seen in the construction or modification of their respective monumental defences.

crag immediately adjacent to the valley junction (Figure 7.17). Travelling east, and climbing first along the valley of the afon Groes and then connecting to the Groes Fawr heading east, one passes directly below Castell Rhyfel and past a great concentration of burial and clearance cairns on the valley floor (Briggs 1994, 129 & Fig. 16, citing plan by D. M. Metcalfe in 1976). This route penetrates the high ground to the east and gives ready access across moorland to the valley of Nant y Maen (SN 7658), thence east to Abergwesyn, rejoining the favoured historic drovers’ route from the more southerly Berwyn valley. The potential antiquity of this passage through the hills as a prehistoric antecedent of the Berwyn route is shown in the concentration of Bronze Age monuments, which line the way; from the two cairns and a standing stone at Nant y Maen (the stone arguably a ‘waymarker’ showing the route off the moorland towards the head of the valley, as with the Bwch a’r Llo (SN 7283) standing stones west of Ponterwyd), past a cairn at the head of Groes Fawr, and several more along the Groes Fawr where it winds around the base of Castell Rhyfel and gives access to the more fertile, lower-lying valley of the afon Groes approaching Tregaron. The existence of this later prehistoric thoroughfare gives the lie to present perceptions of Castell Rhyfel as an isolated, even ‘lonely’ hillfort in a remote mountain setting, and sheds new light on the reasons which may have lain behind the choice of setting for both this fort and Castell, Tregaron. The close association of Castell Rhyfel with monuments of the Early Bronze Age makes an early, pre-Iron Age, date for this interesting site more likely.

7.5.2.2 The two hillforts As described in Chapter 6 (see 6.3.3) these forts share wide-spaced terraces as an integral part of their design, which may suggest they were occupied contemporaneously 2 . However, both also appear to incorporate non-utilitarian aspects in their defences which are difficult to explain without considering their particular landscape setting, namely: (1) at Pen Dinas, a west-facing gate with a bastion and stone revetment formalising the otherwise precipitous western slopes, show a need to monumentalise the western hillfort approaches even though the main gateway and entrance works are situated at the southern tip; (2) at Caer Lletty Llwyd, the orientation of the most impressive façade earthworks towards the hillslope on the east, rather than to the west, contradicts an assumption that a monumental façade should command a broad vista rather than face towards the restricted vista of a hillslope. Therefore, some good reason must have underpinned the orientation of the façade towards the hillslope.

2

Dodgshon 1994, 355 suggests that Caer Lletty Lwyd, along with Caer Argoed, was occupied in the Early Medieval (EM) period on the basis of its gaer place name and its valley bottom setting. While EM occupation is certainly possible, an EM foundation date is considered extremely unlikely on the basis of architectural and archaeological evidence presented in this volume.

118

7: Hillforts and human movement

Figure 7.18 Map showing the relationship of Caer Lletty Llwyd & Pen Dinas in landscape (T. Driver).

Figure 7.19 The western face of Pen Dinas, Elerch, with revetment. Compare with Figure 7.20 (T. Driver).

Figure 7.21 Caer Lletty Llwyd. An elevated view from the summit of Caer Allt Goch to the west, illustrating the fundamental relationship of this lowland-edge hillfort with the hillfringe beyond, and the well marked pass giving access to the mountain plateau. This view also illustrates the high visibility of the hillfort interior, and the pronounced terraces that define its western side (T. Driver).

Figure 7.20 Interpretive drawing of Figure 7.19 (T. Driver). The relationship between Pen Dinas, Elerch, and the Leri basin was noted by Williams in 1867. He described the upland block which Pen Dinas commands (1867, 288) and went on to note: ‘The western base of the mountain is, moreover, defended by the Gaers of Lletty Llwyd, Alltgoch and Pwllglas.’ 3 We now associate Caer Pwll Glas with facing into the Bow Street basin, but the very large fort at Bryngwyn-mawr (see Figure 3.1), discovered in 1969, would have formed a significant element of the landscape at the foot of this hill. Williams’ observations suggest a symbiotic relationship between the mountain fort at Pen Dinas and those in the valley.

The small hillfort of Caer Lletty Llwyd (Figure 7.21) sits on the perimeter of a lowland basin, but its vastly disproportionate trivallate façade faces away from the lowlands to a blind hillslope (Figure 7.22). This would appear to be a non-utilitarian expenditure of effort, if one were to assume that the façade should face passing ‘traffic’ in the busy lowlands. Further, due to the choice of a natural, partly defensible knoll, the fort is highly visible from the Leri basin below but its interior is also exposed to view, tipped towards the south-west and the lowlands (see Figure 8.4). Monumental defences here would certainly have concealed the interior somewhat but evidently the builders of Caer Lletty Llwyd wanted to orientate the most impressive façade eastwards, towards the hillslope. This skewed orientation is

3

His description of Caer Lletty Llwyd has already been cited above (section 3.2.5.3.2) in the description of the Leri basin hillfort group. 119

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 7.22 Caer Lletty Llwyd. Panoramic view of the main eastern defence, which are terraced up around the summit. In this view the photographer already stands atop the main outer defence; without trees, the external view of these three terraced defences would be dramatic to anyone descending the mountain pass from above and to the east. From the lowlands to the west, these defences are hidden. Note the conspicuous levelling of the middle rampart (T. Driver, 8th April 2005). explicable only when viewed within the landscape context; the façade faces a well-marked routeway linking lowland with upland, preserved today by farm tracks and paths, but also with the place name ‘Bwlch-y-ddwyallt’ (Pass of the/on the two slopes; Figure 7.18). The ‘bwlch’ or pass gives access to a high plateau and, ultimately the complex hillfort of Pen Dinas (Elerch). The Welsh place name bwlch (pass) usually refers to a point at which a trackway passes through a well-defined cleft or notch, or across the watershed between one valley and another. In both cases, the place name records the chosen point through which routes of communication pass. There are many bwlch place names in north Ceredigion and it is generally accepted that some reflect very old-established patterns of movement and communication.

have been later modified or blocked up (Figure 7.20). Such a relationship in the way the defences of two hillforts relate to one another may suggest that they were broadly contemporary, and may in part fossilise the otherwise transient and frequently invisible activity of human movement between two centres of upland/lowland population in the Iron Age landscape. 7.5.3 The long approach to Darren 7.5.3.1 Summary The middle to late Iron Age hillfort at Darren is an exemplar in the north Ceredigion region, displaying interwoven schemes of symbolic projection, topographic incorporation, and monumental aggrandisement (see site plan, Figure 5.17; Timberlake and Driver 2006).

One potential reason that Caer Lletty Llwyd’s massive façade faces Bwlch-y-ddwyallt may have been to greet (or confront) visitors descending from this upland plateau. The only evidence for later prehistoric settlement and activity from this plateau is the major hillfort of Pen Dinas Elerch, which lies almost due east of Caer Lletty Llwyd, occupying a prominent outcrop on the line of the pass (Figure 7.19).

7.5.3.2 The approaches As we have seen in Chapter 6, this fort employs a central gateway piercing the main, long side of the hillfort, necessitating complex outworks, which baffle and hinder a direct path to the gate. The sophistication of the hillfort runs deeper than its plan. Darren occupies the highest point of a long, ascending west-east ridge, which runs inland, connecting the fertile coastal lowlands to the barren high ground and moorland of the Cambrian Mountains (Figure 3.23). The hillfort sits astride the long axis of the ridge and directly faces the coastal lowlands below, commanding a great vista from the main gate; numerous neighbouring forts have alternative orientations. The characteristic flat hilltop profile formed by the defences at Darren is highly visible from the lowlands to the west, the full width of the oval rampart and façade boldly facing the sea. So characteristic is the distant silhouette (shown in Figure 7.25), that the hill is recognisable as forming a significant background feature in a mid-nineteenth century engraving of Gogerddan house (Figure 7.24). Wright observed in 1914 (51);

What evidence is there that the defences of Pen Dinas react to this westerly traffic in any special way? Once on the upland, one approaches Pen Dinas from the west, effectively approaching the less monumental side of this hillfort which actually has its main gate and entrance approach to the south, and the main terraced façade to the east, commanding a wide mountain vista. The west side of the Pen Dinas outcrop is very steep and so has few artificial defences. Despite this, the western slope is embellished with stone revetment with a definite capping line or palisade footing, still visible in places through the grass, apparently intended to heighten the appearance of this steep slope to visitors from the west, approaching from Bwlch-y-ddwyallt. This west side of the hillfort also has a minor gateway or postern, which may

120

7: Hillforts and human movement

‘The camp itself is remarkably well preserved, and its western vallum forms a conspicuous feature against the skyline; it is visible from a great distance. The defences have been built around a knoll that rises above the ridge.’ Approaching from the lowlands, the fort remains in view until one begins to climb the ridge. From some 50m O.D. in the valley, to nearly 200m O.D ascending the ridge, the fort is entirely hidden. A crucial point comes at a break of slope, hard on the 220m contour, where the ridge ceases its steady climb and levels out in a long approach to the fort. Suddenly, the artificial defences come plainly into view, considerably closer than before (Figure 7.25). The centrally placed main gate today cuts a clear notch on the horizon, and would still have been highly visible even with the addition of timberwork. Presumably the prominent quartz boulder excavated at the south gateway terminal in 2006 (Figure 8.17) was matched by a flanking partner for the purposes of display. The skyline is formed by the main rampart of the fort, which is further contrived to form a perfectly level horizon line at odds with the undulating terrain. The outworks are not visible, as they fall into a gully below the fort.

Figure 7.23 Approach to Darren in landscape, showing local topography, present day ridge-road, and the position of the cliff-like outcrops which cut across the ridge. Bwlch y Dderwen may mark the site of a previously used route up the hill from the valley floor (T. Driver).

Topography may have been considered by the hillfort builders when scouting this site, as prominent ribs of outcropping rock cross in front of the summit giving the appearance of additional, massive, ramparts, particularly when the fort is viewed from neighbouring ridge-routes to the north (Figure 7.26). These outcrops no doubt considerably enhanced the physical strength of the artificial defences but were also tremendously potent visual symbols, providing yet another ‘wall’ between the Iron Age pasture or fields on the flanks of the ridge and the defended interior of the fort. The new hillfort may well have been seen to have developed within and around pre-existing ‘natural ramparts’ on the summit.

Figure 7.24 A mid-nineteenth century engraving of ‘Goggerddan’ house, in the valley near Penrhyncoch, looking south-east from the north of the house. One sees in the left background the ascending ridge, which leads to Darren hillfort, and the characteristic silhouette of the hillfort which can be compared to Figure 7.26 (by kind permission of Ros Laidlaw, private collection).

A Bronze Age cairn within Darren shows this to already have been a ‘special place’, and the low structure survives to this day unmutilated. Similar respect for pre-existing Bronze Age monuments is seen at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (Browne and Driver 2001, 7), and most prominently at Foel Drygarn in Pembrokeshire (Driver 2007, 134-6), both of which were similarly not robbed. One of the best examples is the unrobbed, presumably Neolithic, long cairn at Carn Goch (Carmarthenshire; Rees 1992). For the passer by covering the last kilometre (Figure 7.25), the main gate appears to be open to the west with unhindered access. As one draws closer still, the view of the rampart steadily disappears until only the main gate remains on show, framed behind the rock outcrops. On suddenly coming across the outworks one would be surprised that direct access to the highly visible gate was barred, and that the fort appeared to be multivallate. The whole gambit of defensive, monumental and visual schemes employed at Darren are thrown into perspective

Figure 7.25 Darren hillfort from the close approaches. In this view the outworks below the main gate are not visible, and the notch of the gate appears open to approaches. The natural rock cliffs which cut across the north of the ridge are visible in the left foreground. Compare with Figure 6.17 (T. Driver).

121

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 7.26 Darren: view from Penrhiwnewydd ridge to the north showing nature of ‘forward defences’ provided by natural outcrops (T. Driver, 8th April 2003). Figure 7.28 Castell Flemish. Aerial photograph from the east, showing parching of the ramparts and interior. Compare with interpretative drawing, Figure 7.29 (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, GTJ 25648).

Figure 7.29 Castell Flemish. Schematic interpretation of aerial photograph showing the main monumental features of the hillfort and their dynamic relationship to human traffic passing the fort (T. Driver).

Figure 7.27 Castell Flemish. Schematic plan based on Ordnance Survey digital mapping showing main features. Originally created at 1:1250 scale (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

(Driver 1996a), and is one of the few sherds of its type known from the west of Wales (Davies and Lynch 2000, 199). However, the sherd may need to be re-examined given the more precisely dated deposits from the 2005 excavation.

by the east gate or ‘back door’, merely a simple, unprotected gap giving relatively unhindered access to any would-be attacker from the back of the fort. The defences here clearly had little to do with surviving an actual attack. At Darren it is hard not to draw parallels with the Sussex Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age enclosures (Hamilton and Manley 1997), the defences of which appear to have been designed for maximum visual impact during long approaches (ibid., 100) with ‘anticipatory views’ (ibid., 106), coupled with functions to look out; ‘…perhaps to enable the co-ordination and planning of activities in the landscape that is being exploited…’.

7.5.4 Castell Flemish: facing out from Cors Caron 7.5.4.1 Summary The monumentality of Castell Flemish is focussed on the ‘rear’ of the fort, opposing the orientation of the main gate which looks out across Cors Caron. The rear ramparts appear to command an approach into the Cors Caron landscape, and thus the monumentality may have been designed to impress passing travellers.

Excavations in 2005 (Timberlake and Driver 2006; Timberlake 2007) confirmed that these forward-facing ramparts were originally constructed between 400-380 Cal BC, the Middle Iron Age, and had been faced with bold dry-stone walling; this was of thin spalls of careful walling near the main gate, with larger boulders utilised in the face of the western outworks. The only potsherd known from the fort is Late Bronze Age in character

7.5.4.2 The defences Castell Flemish is an oval or pear-shaped hillfort of superficially simple, yet massive, construction, which occupies the eastern end of a low but locally prominent spur on the south-western fringes of Cors Caron (Figure

122

7: Hillforts and human movement

Figure 7.30 Castell Flemish. View from the south-west showing the impressive scale of the western defences, flanking the ‘rear’ of the fort, which stand 3-4 metres tall (T. Driver). 3.26, site 10). The fort effectively sits at the intersection between two well-defined landscape areas and hillfort groups. To the south lies the Cwm Gwyddyl group of forts focussed on a small valley system at the head of the Aeron valley, while to the east and north-east lie the major hillforts which dot the perimeter of Cors Caron. There are no known hillforts to the north-west and west of Castell Flemish, where the approaches are dominated by the upland plateau of Mynydd Bach. Classification of the fort in traditional terms would shed little useful light on the reasons for its position in the landscape, or the arrangement of its defences. However, an analysis of the variable treatment of the defences around the circuit and the nature of the façade sheds new light on its setting and the probable nature of human movement towards and past it.

Figure 7.31 Castell Grogwynion (site 48); location map. This map shows neighbouring sites (including Cnwc y Bugail, site 22, and Cefn Blewog, site 25), together with the nature of the high plateau to the west and north of Castell Grogwynion and the steep descents (some 200m) to the Ystwyth gorge along the south. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

east gateway, there is some argument whether the gap at the south-west angle is also an original entrance. Given that this second gap is reinforced by a short outwork, also faced with rounded cobbles, it is probably an original gate. For a visitor walking either into the south-east gate, or passing around the fort to get into the east gate on the far side, the height and scale of the defences would not have diminished as one passed beneath them. The ramparts are evidently cut out from the sloping knoll the fort crowns, requiring the excavation of a ditch on the downslope side only, leaving a high rampart face above. The land surface within the fort is at a much higher level, preserving the summit of the knoll, with material for the top of the rampart quarried from immediately behind it. Along the south side the ramparts are built along higher ground and are thus less imposing, presenting more of a functional enclosing barrier.

The defences and main façade of Castell Flemish appear to be placed expecting visitors from this north-westerly direction, from points outside the Cors Caron landscape, even though the main east gate is sited on the ‘far side’ looking directly down into Cors Caron. The pear-shaped, univallate fort is enclosed by a very strong, single rampart, which reaches a considerable height (up to 4m above the ditch bottom) on the west and north-west sides (Figure 7.30). The southern sweep of the defences is much less strong, being little more than an enclosing bank. The north-west angle is further protected externally by an outwork in the form of a scarped bank dug out of the slope and faced externally with stone (Figure 7.29). This outwork would have presented an impressive façade to those approaching from the north-west. Approaching from this direction, one clears the low summit of a long ridge some 250m away from Castell Flemish, at which point the fort and its outworks first come into view. Field inspection showed there to be a high incidence of water-worn cobbles in this outwork, plus the remnants of a wall-face of quartz blocks along the summit. Behind this white, cobbled bank rose the highest rampart of Castell Flemish, presenting a fairly formidable face. As well as the main

7.5.5 Incorporating topography: the approach to Castell Grogwynion 7.5.5.1 Summary Returning to Castell Grogwynion, the gateway of which was discussed in Chapter 5 (section 5.2.2.1) and the architecture of which was discussed in Chapter 6 (section 6.3.5), we find that, like Darren, this is a complex fort which can be understood at a number of levels. It incorporates a prominent outcrop at the west that 123

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

positioned back from the ditch with an intervening berm of 1.5m – 2.0m. The outer ditch is in all probability a quarry for the lower rampart, which is substantial and is partly flanked by a rock-cut outer ditch. Both ramparts curl around the outcrop on the western side, but the lower one fades out as the natural western slopes become precipitous. Figure 7.32 Castell Grogwynion. 3D wireframe view from north-west showing the visual dominance of the western outcrop and the mound of the entrance bastion far to the left. Compare with Figure 7.35, a comparable view (T. Driver; vertical height has been slightly exaggerated in this view).

There are two matching gaps at the north-west angle, the upper of which is likely to be an original minor gate. This highest point of Castell Grogwynion between the upper rampart and the slopes of the outcrop appears to contain several platforms, but space is restricted. A notable feature is the ‘lookout’ (marked on site plan, Figure 6.32). This rocky ledge protrudes from the body of the summit and allows one to step out close to the edge of the Ystwyth gorge and look down to and across the entire prospect of hills and valleys. Elaboration of the western outcrop is similar to the situation at Corn y Fan, Brecknock (RCAHMW 1986, 41-3; also discussed in Chapter 6 (Figure 6.40)), where the space actually enclosed by the elaborate multivallate defences encircling a towering outcrop is minimal. Browne (in RCAHMW 1986, 43) described Corn y Fan thus; ‘The surface of the interior is very irregular, the main features being two rock bosses separated by a hollow. The least exposed and most habitable area is the base of the quarry ditch behind the inner rampart.’

Figure 7.33 Castell Grogwynion: View from the minor road to the north-west, moving past the fort in an easterly direction. The main bulk of the lower hillfort still remains hidden from view. Compare with Figure 7.34 (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, DI2006_2002).

7.5.5.3 The monumental role of the western outcrop The role of this western part of the fort is more readily understood when following the natural approach from the north and north-west. Castell Grogwynion is not readily visible until one drops down into the small valley it commands on its ‘landward’ side. From these approaches, only the towering western outcrop is visible; the main body of the fort is largely hidden from view save for the prominent bastion of the main gate far down the slope, which signals the way in. The well-built bivallate defences, which encircle the outcrop combine with slight cliffs in the natural rock above (possibly artificially cut back) to mimic multiple defences; palisades, if present, would have enhanced this view. The impression from below, with the main lower fort hidden from view, is that this is the entire fort; that Grogwynion is a steep, towering, multivallate stronghold on the edge of a gorge. It is only on reaching the fort that it becomes clear that the fortified outcrop forms but a small part of the total defended area. Whilst Castell Grogwynion would indeed have been a truly strong hillfort in its day, this high outcrop perhaps conveyed a more awesome first impression to strangers than would the reality of the larger, lower fort beyond.

provided only a very limited space for settlement inside the fort and very likely represents a first-phase promontory fort in the style of Castell Bwa Drain (Figure 7.4; a point originally made by Hughes 1926, 26). It is highly visible and is the first part of the hillfort which comes into view from certain approaches to the north. The elaboration of the outcrop with ramparts, even though there is little space to settle on its summit, appears to suggest an important monumental role, to proclaim status over a wide area and to present a somewhat false impression of strength to visitors (Driver 2006 & 2008). 7.5.5.2 Description of the western outcrop Castell Grogwynion is divided into two distinct, though unequal, parts by a steep rock outcrop which crosses the site from north to south (Figure 6.32). The westernmost part of the fort is the highest, including this outcrop, and provides excellent views in all directions including those to the east, over the lower fort. Two sets of ramparts enclose this western outcrop; the upper is a neat wall

124

7: Hillforts and human movement

Figure 7.34 Castell Grogwynion; Interpretive sketch of features based on ground photography from the north showing the landscape context of the hillfort, and the true extent of the defences below the high western outcrop. The eastern (here, left-hand) extents of the main hillfort can be seen. The entrance bastion of the main north-east gateway is just visible at the far left of the image. This view also shows the main terraced façade, which defines the northern (nearside) boundary of the fort, and the way the twin ramparts climb several metres from the low saddle, to enclose the western outcrop. Compare with 3D wireframe view (Figures 6.33 & 7.32) and Figure 7.33 (T. Driver).

Figure 7.35 Castell Grogwynion; ground view from high ground to the north-east showing the northern (upper) terrace of the hillfort below the outcrop (centre-right), with denuded house platforms just visible as ‘dimples’. The highly visible nature of the interior is apparent in this view. In prehistory the confident rectangularity of the hillfort would have been a formidable sight. November 2011(T. Driver).

125

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

7.5.6 Cnwc y Bugail, Trawsgoed: a small fort with a major gateway annexe 7.5.6.1 Summary This small inland fort commands a roughly triangular natural knoll, which has been modified by the scarping and enclosure of some steeper slopes and the addition of elaborate entrance features to the south. The fort occupies one of several potentially defensible knolls which occur close by and is not sited on the higher, yet far more constricted, ridge to the south occupied by the second, smaller and less elaborate of the three Ty’n-y-cwm camps. The third camp (site 105) was discovered during Royal Commission aerial reconnaissance in 2005 and is now scheduled. Thus Cnwc y Bugail is overlooked to the east and south, yet commands wide views out over precipitous slopes to the west, across the Trawsgoed lowland basin, and north over steep slopes of the valley of the Nant Cwm-newydion with wide prospects over much of the northern county (location map, Figure 3.17; Driver 2006). 7.5.6.2 Monumentality at the hillfort Cnwc y Bugail is a small hillfort, yet we see evidence of considerable effort being expended to develop defences, which appear to be strong and towering from afar, and which are augmented by complex, high-status defensive modifications.

Figure 7.36 Cnwc y Bugail; new sketch survey made in 2003. North is to the top (T. Driver).

The fort is notable for its elaborate entrance features, fully described in Chapter 5 (section 5.2.2.1), which comprise a main gate with an entrance passage lined with large quartz blocks, flanked externally by a free-standing quartz-faced bastion some distance away and an outwork guarding the path of approach, these external features framing an annexe area (see 6.2.3.2 above). The defensive circuit has been visually enhanced in key places, to ensure that the minimum effort expended on construction was repaid with the appearance of maximum strength to those approaching the gateway on the south-east side, or indeed ascending the almost unclimbable slopes from the north or west. Along the west side of the hillock, no apparent artificial defences were required (apart perhaps from a palisade or fence) to supplement the steep scarp edge leading from the southern gateway to the north rampart. This north rampart is simple, comprising no more than a low wall on the summit of the slope, with no discernible artificial rampart below save for the enhancement of the natural scarp slope. The north-west angle has been modified with the provision of a terrace at the angle below the rampart, perhaps to enhance the profile when seen from a distance. The north rampart sweeps around to the east-south-east, where, after a small break (c. 7m), the east rampart runs back southwest towards the gateway. 4

Figure 7.37 Cnwc y Bugail; general ground view from high ground to the east, November 2003. This view shows the main, triangular defended enclosure occupying the high knoll to the right. Towards the centre of the frame, the east rampart rises and ends at the putative ‘command post’ which looks down on the gateway and bastion to the left. At far left is the south bastion, the annex being the saddle of ground enclosed between it and the main fort. The lower outwork below the outer gate is virtually invisible due to the angle of the sun and lack of shadow (T. Driver, November 2003). The eastern rampart faces out over the main approach to the fort and consequently was constructed in a more

4

The aforementioned gap has been noted as a possible gateway in the Cadw FMW report but it appears that a rib of outcropping rock made rampart construction difficult at

this point; the slope below the gap is also too steep and treacherous to make a good approach. 126

7: Hillforts and human movement

Figure 7.38 Cnwc y Bugail. Aerial photograph, December 2001. A low-level shot in raking winter light. This shows the entire layout of this small fort, with the main triangular fort in the centre, and the annexe, bastion and outer gateway to the right. The outwork below the outer gate can also be seen (See Figure 5.14; Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2001/509742). elaborate fashion. Again, there is little height to the rampart on the summit of the slope apart from a low wall footing (also marked by parched ground in the summer), possibly the footing for a palisade. However, the natural slope of the knoll has been visually enhanced with the excavation of a ditch at the foot of the rampart and the probable steepening of the slope through scarping. This eastern rampart curves around its southern extremity and runs back north for a short distance, making what is effectively a ‘command post’ on a minor summit which dominates the south-easterly approaches.

at its base. The outwork below the main gate reinforces the correct approach. The bastion is an exotic feature usually employed at the larger hillforts in the region (Castell Grogwynion; Pen Dinas, Elerch) and not at the smaller forts. The conspicuous use of quartz walling both in the outer bastion face and the main inner gateway is difficult to parallel elsewhere in Ceredigion without excavation and is a bold gesture. The whole entrance approach is dominated and overlooked by the so-called ‘command post’, actually a natural high point enclosed by the main defences. It is conceivable that this point was utilised for strategic purposes, and a sling stone was found during the survey on its slopes (Driver 2004d).

7.5.6.3 The dynamics of the entrance approach The fort already occupies a position that is naturally strong (at least from the steeply sloping approaches on the west and north) and prominent. However, the intended approach seems to have been to ascend from the shallow valley to the south.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that this was a fort of some considerable status, although it may not necessarily have been occupied for more than one phase. Exotic features are employed in the entrance arrangements that one would normally associate with a far more substantial fort. Its chronological and strategic relationship to the two further, less complex, forts at Coed Ty’n-y-cwm is uncertain. Only excavation on all three sites might resolve the relationship.

The dynamics of the entrance approach dominate the plan of this small fort. Nearly half the length (north-south) of the entire defended knoll, or nearly a third of the enclosed space, comprised the bastion and annexe arrangements, which form the entrance, rather than enclosed space for settlement (schematic plan, Figure 5.20). The defences are all geared to this south-easterly approach. The main eastern fort rampart was augmented with a rock-cut ditch

127

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 7.39. Castell, Tregaron (centre-right). Aerial view from the west, November 2009. Castell employs two impressive ramparts (here on the upper left side) in its sweeping, north-east facing façade which encircle a prominent, exposed outrop. The strategic role served by these two tall, steep, stone-walled ramparts is questionable, as the fort faces a blind hillslope (above and to the left of the fort in this view), and the façade rapidly disappears from view on the ground after only 200m. The prominent and very visible interior of the hillfort, centred on the outcrop, was not similarly enclosed by built ramparts on the south-west and looks out over open country (to the lower right in this view) and the valley junction which Castell dominates (See section 7.4.2 above. Crown Copyright RCAHMW, AP_2009_3596). 7.6 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Chapter 7 draws together themes established across many parts of this research, in discussion of the settlement pattern (Chapter 3), trade and human movement especially cross-mountain (Chapter 4), the approaches to hillforts and the dynamics of gateways (Chapter 5), and the crucial use of architectural complexity and monumentality to heighten the symbolic appearance of the hillfort on approaches (Chapter 6). The necessary splitting of discussion about components of Castell Grogwynion and Cnwc y Bugail, in particular, illustrate the complex and strongly interrelated nature of so many themes involved in the study of the north Ceredigion hillforts and their landscape. The role of the following, final, Chapter 8 is to attempt to combine these strands of evidence into a narrative and interpretation of the later prehistoric settlement of the region.

128

8: Discussion and conclusions

8 Discussion and conclusions: Towards a new Iron Age for mid and west Wales

“As to the purpose of hill-camps, we can but say that many of them still testify to the unerring choice of site and amazing skill with which their defences were conceived and carried out…” (Hughes, 1933, 14)

8.1 DEVELOPING A NARRATIVE FOR LATER PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT IN NORTH CEREDIGION There is general agreement that the development of strongly defended settlements and hillforts, which chiefly began in the later Bronze Age but achieved their maximum numbers during the sixth and fifth centuries cal BC, the Early Iron Age, followed by a contraction in numbers but increasing complexity during the fourth to the second centuries cal BC (Davies and Lynch 2000, 152-154; Cunliffe 1991, 537 & 541-5; Haselgrove et al. 2001, F1.2), the Middle Iron Age, was linked to a growing propensity for complexity and ostentation of the defences and gateways. Cunliffe (1984b, 562) summarised the two main concepts which the act of building a hillfort incorporated, these being ‘enclosure’ and ‘defence’. However, developing ostentation was often on a scale which exceeded mere practical requirements for defensive enclosure, suggesting instead a symbolic role (see Bradley 1984; Cunliffe 1991, 537, Sharples 1991), perhaps to reinforce the status of the inhabitants (Collis 1994, 90) or for other social or regional purposes. More recently such symbolic display and ostentation has been described under the term ‘monumentality’ (Mytum 1996; Hamilton and Manley 2001; Driver 2008; Barker and Driver 2011).

have been recognised here, addressing issues such as the response of hillforts to topography and some consideration of other hillfort styles. It will then attempt to summarise and define complexity and symbolism in later prehistoric architecture and identify how architectural symbolism was manifested in the study area. Questions of land ‘ownership’, proximity and isolation will be addressed, firstly by an analysis of site distribution informed by ground observation, and then by assessing the landscape settings of hillforts which share architectural schemes. It will conclude by attempting to reconstruct some aspects of the social organisation, which may have existed in north Ceredigion during later prehistory. 8.2 RECOGNISING MONUMENTAL IRON AGE ARCHITECTURE IN NORTH CEREDIGION This research has demonstrated that in north Ceredigion, (and in wider contact regions across central Wales) there existed, principally during the Middle and Later Iron Age, a concept of complex, largely ‘non-utilitarian’ architecture, which was consistently implemented in a variety of forms. The majority of hillforts in the study area employed architectural complexity at some level, identified in Chapter 6 as a suite of constructional elements whose purpose was apparently to aggrandise and monumentalise key parts of the gateways and defences of certain hillforts above and beyond the requirements for basic enclosure and defence, to project certain symbolism to those viewing or approaching the fort.

In all but a handful of studies of monumental architecture (e.g. Mytum 1996; Frodhsam et al. 2007), the hillforts under study have been large and complex examples, competently constructed by considerable workforces over a number of years and often occupied by successive generations (e.g. Maiden Castle; Danebury). What is less clear is how monumentality was developed in the regions of Iron Age Britain outside Wessex, and what the significance of monumental architecture was to more marginal or fragmented communities in less agriculturally prosperous parts of the country, who nonetheless managed to construct impressive hillforts. This detailed study of the north Ceredigion monuments has provided a methodology that begins to address some fundamental, and more advanced, issues. This discussion will firstly outline the main characteristics of the regional façade schemes which

In addition to the recognition of widespread architectural complexity in the Iron Age of mid Wales, one of the most significant discoveries has been the recognition of shared 'façade schemes’, interpreted as being the construction or remodeling of a given hillfort along certain required architectural lines, governing both the overall spatial

129

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

chambers common on the Welsh Borders appear to be absent here. Three main hillforts share these characteristics; Pen Dinas Aberystwyth, Gaer Fawr Lledrod, and Tan y Ffordd. In addition, certain key components of this façade scheme can be found employed among some of the larger and more complex hillforts north of Cors Caron, these being Pen Dinas Elerch, Castell Grogwynion and Penyffrwdllwyd. A seventh fort, Caer Lletty Llwyd, is not characteristic or built against a precipitous edge (it occupies a steep-sided knoll), but nevertheless employs pronounced terraces and shares forms of ‘conspicuous construction’ with Tan y Ffordd. Indeed the occurrence of pronounced terraces on one side, along with the siting of the gateways at the narrow ends, are the more consistently traceable elements among forts which occupy different topographic settings including narrow or broad ridges, knolls and outcrops.

Figure 8.1 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Two sections through the eastern terraces of the south fort demonstrating the existence of the ‘occupation layer’ along the floor of the upper terrace, contrasting with a lack of activity along the constricted and unusable lower terrace save for evidence for ditch cleaning and a counterscarp exposed in the main 1933 cut (after Forde et al. 1963, Figure 8. Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

Among these seven hillforts, the worst generalisations of traditional morphological or typological classificatory systems described in 1.4 above have been avoided. Instead, hillforts have been included on the basis of the physical, three-dimensional appearance and character of their defences, conforming either to a ‘blueprint’ (Oswald et al. 2002), with a clear vocabulary of particular elements, or in a more piecemeal fashion where builders have attempted to implement architectural elements of more coherent schemes despite limitations of terrain or, perhaps, workforce. At the three main hillforts, Pen Dinas Aberystwyth, Gaer Fawr and Tan y Ffordd, implementation of the façade scheme is striking. At the developed hillfort at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, we still see the fundamental architectural/symbolic dichotomy between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ hillforts. The former (on the north summit) being a strong, yet basic hilltop enclosure with a single gate; the latter (on the south summit) a taller, steeper, terraced hillfort, probably successively enlarged and developed, whose striking symbolic façade was visible from far across the region. The impenetrable, unclimbable terraced façade of the south fort comprised two rock-cut terraces constructed on a massive scale. The upper created a functional, sheltered space within the hillfort for settlement and craft activities (see 3.2.3.1.1 above), whilst the lower was apparently built purely for symbolic effect and completeness, being sloping and constricted and thus not providing a usable area (Figures 8.1 and 8.2). The implications are that the available workforce was charged with completing this extremely large monumental façade above and beyond the basic defensive requirements of the hillfort population. In doing so, they created a monument with enormous symbolism.

arrangement of defences and gateways, and also the details of defensive style and technical characteristics. This results in a hillfort with an appearance and structural arrangement that apparently belongs to a distinct architectural tradition, regardless of the physical constraints of topography. Attention has also been drawn in Chapter 6 (section 6.3.9) to other characteristic hillfort designs which occur in the north Ceredigion landscape and can be recognised in wider contact areas, particularly concentric forts, which are distinctive and found dispersed along the west coast of Wales. The evidence for shared designs from these other forts is less coherent in the study area than for the principal façade schemes described. These other styles have not been interpreted in any detail, as it is felt that a good deal more field work would be required for the entire county of Ceredigion and for spheres of inter-regional contact in north, mid and south Wales. 8.2.1 The two principal regional façade schemes in north Ceredigion The hillforts classed within the Pen Dinas façade scheme share common characteristics (see section 6.3.1 above). They are all set against a precipitous edge on one long side of the fort, utilising steep natural slopes for defensive purposes. They feature a wide-spaced terrace or terraces on the long opposing side running the length of the fort. There is no direct access through these terraces in the form of purpose built gateways; therefore access is only possible at the narrow end/s of the ridge. The gateways sited at these narrow ends are ‘open’, meaning that access is unhindered by blocking outworks or overlapping banks and ditches. The gateways employ regionally ‘exotic’ technology, such as stone-lined passages, bastions or command posts, and crossing-bridges, although the guard

At Gaer Fawr, Lledrod, a very similar scheme was implemented. Access on the north side would have been entirely blocked by the great terrace and ramparts, permitting entry only along the narrow ends of the hillfort in line with the summit of the ridge (Figure 6.25).

130

8: Discussion and conclusions

Figure 8.2 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. The terraced defences seen from below, approaching the south gate. The upper, level terrace can be seen, with the lower, sloping terrace below. Their massive scale can be judged by the fencing and small trees (T. Driver, CD2005_621_009). Perhaps the most interesting among the principal three forts is Tan y Ffordd, an inconspicuous site today (Figure 6.27). With its terraced defences, and the main gate at the narrow end of the fort, it is virtually a copy of south fort, Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, albeit at a reduced scale. This hillfort would have required a design impetus at the outset, to enable the narrow ridge with a precipitous drop on one long side to be developed and defended. There are modifications from the Pen Dinas façade scheme; the approach to the gate follows a dog-leg approach past a putative command post, similar to the ‘exotic’ gateways with bastions at Castell Grogwynion and Pen Dinas, Elerch. Massive blind ramparts, unbroken by any gateways, also flank the ‘rear’ of the hillfort and are built upon and around a pre-existing tall outcrop. This act of conspicuous construction appears to be designed to present a symbol of strength to those descending a mountain trackway from the north-east, mirroring the situation seen at Caer Llety Llwyd.

defining its façade; on the contrary, the façade here is long and sweeping, but still serves the purpose of providing a physically and visually impenetrable barrier to all those approaching. Also of considerable interest is the occurrence of the ‘hybrid’ fort, Penyffrwdllwyd, within both groups which occupies a liminal position on crags on the northern watershed of the Cors Caron landscape, where the land to the north falls away to the catchment of the Ystwyth. More restricted, dispersed façade schemes were also no doubt prevalent in the landscape at different times. The Darren façade scheme is one such that can be identified, described in 6.3.6 above, which appears to link Darren hillfort, Penlan-isaf hillfort and Caer Allt Goch, Lampeter through very similar architecture and façade morphology, and through the propensity for the hillforts to command extremely wide vistas over lowland areas from prominent summits or spurs. Darren hillfort is striking and complex and dominates the surrounding landscape (described in 7.3.5 above).

Hillforts sharing the Pen Dinas façade scheme contrast markedly with those within the Cors Caron façade scheme, whose distinctive architecture is exemplified by Pen y Bannau hillfort, but is also well demonstrated at the hillforts of Trecoll, Castell Tregaron and within key components of Penyffrwdllwyd.

The façade schemes could be described as ‘iconic’ within Broadbent’s (1980) evolution of architecture or design types, in so much as they present a fixed mental image of a building form shared by members of a culture (cited in Parker Pearson and Richards 1999, 55-6). This appears to be a more appropriate classification than the ‘analogical’ form of architecture, which works by forming a visual analogy with other structures or natural features, although there may be common ground between both classes, an ambiguity noted by Parker Pearson and Richards (1999, 56).

In summary these hillforts are all sited around prominent outcrops or ridges, but with few artificial defences along the sides of the fort. Instead, the main ramparts are sited at the narrow end of the promontory or ridge, are steep and close-set, and serve to block direct access to the gateway. Implementation is variable; the topographic situations of all forts vary and this has influenced the spatial layout of some features, but the visual characteristics of the defences remain similar. Trecoll is sited on a riverpromontory overlooked on most sides, but its pronounced façade ramparts are nevertheless steep and impressive. Castell, Tregaron, does not have short lengths of rampart

8.2.2 Topography and its influence on hillfort architecture It is worth briefly addressing the obvious question of whether more distinctive hillfort designs, together with the 131

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 8.3a Pen’r allt hillfort, Llanidloes, Montgomeryshire. Discovered in 2003, this hillfort almost exactly mirrors, on a miniature scale, the façade scheme of Pen y Bannau hillfort, 28 km to the SW, and appears to reinforce the potential for overland contact between the central Wales regions of later prehistoric Wales. Three short lines of rampart cut off one end of a defensible promontory. Further complexity in the siting of the hillfort is suggested by the façade being built in a hollow, becoming visible from only a few hundred metres to the east. Thus the setting of the fort on a ridge is highly conspicuous, but its monumental architecture is highly inconspicuous (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, 2004-cs-0473). particular modeling of gateways and key features, were merely responses to the choice of site, constrained by and altered to fit the prevailing topography. Such a view would envisage hillfort architects modeling their buildings against the more gently sloping ridges and hilltops north of the Ystwyth, or the more rugged country bordering Cors Caron with its outcrops and ridges, developing different forms of prevailing architecture through adaptation to prevailing topography. It is argued here, however, that the evidence suggests otherwise; that (1) architectural complexity and façade schemes were imposed on the building site regardless of more convenient, easier solutions suggested by the topography and (2) in most cases similar ridges or outcrops in different areas were defended differently according to architectural traditions. For (1) we see many instances where hillfort builders have consciously overridden the prevailing topography on site, apparently in order to implement particular façade schemes or architectural styles. At some sites they have blocked or diverted natural approaches to the hill summit, thus complicating the siting of gateways and the whole path of approach to the hillfort. In section 6.3.5, the architecture found at Castell Grogwynion was described, where the main northern terrace was driven through outcropping rock to implement a straight façade. In one place this façade terrace climbs 6.5m up a steep rock outcrop in order to continue the straight line. At both Castell Grogwynion and Gaer Fawr (see 6.3.2) the main terraced façades block direct access to the summit of the ridges, forcing longer approach paths

Figure 8.3b Plan of Pen’r-allt fort showing its triple facade ramparts, and the method of approach through the gateways, completed by Louise Barker for the Royal Commission in 2005 (Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

132

8: Discussion and conclusions

below the façades to gateways set at the narrow ends of ridges. At both hillforts, modern farmers have breached the façades centrally in order to forge more efficient routes to the summit.

allt, Llanidloes, Montgomeryshire (Driver 2004b). This latter hillfort has been designed along very similar lines to Pen y Bannau, although it is less monumental, and at only 28 km to the NE, beyond the Wye Valley, it again reinforces the possibility of extra-regional prehistoric contact.

For (2) we can look at any number of similar topographic settings within the study area and see very different approaches to their enclosure and defence. Many hillforts do not stand as utilitarian responses to the enclosure of their chosen site following the principle of least effort. If a basic task was deliberately complicated on a number of fronts we must begin to assume that the required outcome was not a ‘basic’ enclosure defined by the site. Thus at Pen Dinas, Elerch and Pen y Bannau we find broadly similar outcrops set against precipitous cliff edges; yet each has been treated differently. The former has terraces on one side, an elaborate gateway at the narrow end flanked by a bastion and a compartmentalised interior. The latter has all its monumental architecture focused at one narrow end, with the main gateway passage flanked externally by two overlapping lines of façade rampart.

The hillforts sharing the Pen Dinas façade scheme can also be widely paralleled outside the study area, notably in the major terraced hillforts of the upper Severn basin 2 . Some similarities between hillfort designs in the study area and beyond certainly imply direct contact between building communities. Looking south across the county of Ceredigion there are no readily identifiable hillforts with direct parallels to the Pen Dinas or Cors Caron forts. Castell Moeddyn, Llannarth (Hogg and Davies 1994, 250-251, Figure 48) was built along very similar lines to the Pen Dinas forts, being an elongated fort against a precipitous edge with an entrance at the narrow end. However there is no terraced facade on the level ground of the ‘landward’ side. Hillforts sharing the Darren façade scheme in the study area are paralleled in Caer Allt Goch, Lampeter, as noted in 6.36 above. Other potential schemes, which will not be described at length, can be discerned in the settlement record, particularly the arrangements of circular or oval forts, with a whole or part encircling terrace, seen at Castell Perth-mawr, Talsarn (NPRN 300148), in the Aeron Valley, and Castell Goetre (NPRN 303540) near Lampeter, both with strong similarities to Castell Flemish in the south of the study area, a fort otherwise unusual in the north Ceredigion context.

In these instances, and others, where complex architecture has been conceived and implemented by the hillfort builders, design schemes have been clearly imposed on the terrain for a higher symbolic purpose, often requiring more work. This is a complex matter, already addressed through various examples and case-studies in Chapters 6 and 7 above, and for the remainder of this chapter, through more detailed analysis of the some of the complexities of prehistoric architectural symbolism. 8.2.3 Looking wider: tracing north Ceredigion architectural traditions in central and eastern Wales

In summary these broader architectural parallels, particularly those across the mountains to the east, suggest the existence of widely distributed design concepts in the monumental architecture of later prehistoric western Britain, and the transportation of these influential and exotic ideas along lines of communication long established for trade and exchange. These ideas will be further discussed below.

It is possible to demonstrate the wider use of similar elements of these façade schemes. I am not proposing that groups of people, conceivably chiefdoms, in north Ceredigion had developed a particular solution to hillfort construction; rather, that ideas derived from the hillfort architecture of central and eastern Wales informed or influenced the choices of different building communities. The Cors Caron façade scheme can be widely paralleled. For example, in the Clwydian range are found five of the most impressive hillforts in north Wales 1 , each very different architecturally from each other (Gale 1991; Burnham 1995; Driver 2011a). Yet, within this group is Moel Arthur hillfort which is virtually identical to Castell, Tregaron with two sweeping and impenetrable façade ramparts blocking direct access to a summit. The topographic settings vary considerably; Moel Arthur commands a rounded summit with panoramic views, whereas Castell Tregaron occupies an outcrop facing a blind hillslope. The chief characteristics of the Cors Caron façade scheme can be paralleled at at least one Brecknock hillfort, Corn y Fan, and even closer at the hillfort at Pen’r

8.3 ARCHITECTURAL OVERVIEW

SYMBOLISM:

AN

8.3.1 Hillfort architecture: defensive/utilitarian versus symbolic/non-utilitarian When considering the extent to which hillfort defences were symbolic or functional, we need to ask how far hillforts served military roles and were specifically designed to repel attacks, or whether instead the defences performed primarily symbolic functions augmenting settlements with façades not designed to withstand actual

1

Moel Hiraddug, Penycloddiau, Moel y Gaer Llanbedr, Moel Arthur and Foel Fenlli.

2

133

Cefncarnedd, Gaer Fawr Guilsfield and Fridd Faldwyn.

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 8.4 Caer Llety Llwyd (site 36). Panoramic view west from inside the hillfort showing, in the foreground, the expanse of the sloping and highly visible interior (grazed by horses with trees on the left-hand perimeter), with the encircling landscape of the Leri lowland basin beyond. As is apparent, the interior of this lowland fort is fully overlooked from even minor hills nearby (T. Driver, 8th April 2005).

Figure 8.6 The engineering achievement: infilled rock cut ditch and 3-4m high rampart at Hen Gaer (site 28), surviving on the north-east side (T. Driver, Crown Copyright RCAHMW, CD_2005_621_002). or sustained attack. This is a subject that has recently been the subject of lively debate by those involved in Iron Age studies (Armit 2007; Lock 2011). From the outset, Avery (1993b, 2.1, 6) considered hillforts to have been strategic machines built to repel attack, with the ‘hillfort engineer’ (rather than my preferred term ‘architect’) judging his tactical aims for the hillfort against the type of attack he would encounter, whether close combat or missile warfare. Avery noted (ibid., 2.10, 8) that ‘The ramparts and entrances of hillforts were responses to three methods of attack: close combat attack; missile attack; and attack by fire.’ Avery further stipulated (ibid., 3.1, 10) that ramparts served two purposes; to repel attack, and to be well built within the principles of soil engineering (see 6.2 above). These themes remain in favour. In a study of the Black Mountains, Olding (2000, 56) supports a thesis of a threat of Roman incursions by

Figure 8.5 The engineering achievement: well-preserved infilled rock cut ditch at Gaer Fawr (site 17), with the original quarried lip of the ditch (left) still visible (T. Driver. Crown Copyright RCAHMW CD_2005_620_018).

134

8: Discussion and conclusions

noting that ‘… the fact that all the known Iron Age settlements in the eastern Black Mountains are fairly strongly defended suggests that the risk of attack was always present.’ It is true to say that a few of the borderlands hillforts have revealed good evidence of what might be Roman attacks, which can even be linked to specific Roman campaigns in the early years of the conquest of western Britain (see 3.1.5.2 above; Manning 2001). However, we cannot necessarily presuppose that all impressive, or ‘strongly defended’ hillforts were actually engineered in this way to fulfil a military role (e.g. Bradley 1991, 66).

communication’ against their assailants. Bowden and McOmish’s argument regarding visibility of the interior is a problem when we consider the north Ceredigion evidence. The interiors of several main hillforts including Pen y Castell, Caer Llety Llwyd (Figure 8.4), Trecoll and Castell, Tregaron (Figure 6.4), are fully overlooked from nearby high ground 3 , whilst part or all of the interiors of Pen y Bannau, Darren, Hen Gaer, Caer Penrhos and a number of others can be readily looked in to from surrounding approaches. Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, occupies a prominent convex ridge that renders the interior highly visible from afar (Figure 6.16). Are we to consider all these hillforts to have been unusable as defensible enclosures?

The limited defensive strength of some hillforts and defended enclosures has long been recognised, principally by Fox (1960) in her identification of hill-slope forts, and latterly by Collis (1996, 87-9) who made a tripartite distinction between defence being the major aim, an appearance of defensive strength even though the fort was actually weak, and those sites which were clearly nondefensive. He further noted that display and ostentation were important factors in the defence of a fort, with the defences of Maiden Castle, Dorset, acting as ‘… a very strong demonstration of force to outsiders.’ The point was also made by Hogg (1975, 49) who noted that a terrifying façade easily fulfilled a military role, for ‘…ideally a fortress should be so strong as to make any thought of attack appear hopeless.’ The non-defensive nature of hillforts was also extensively examined by Hill (1995, 5253).

The field data raises quandaries. Many were heavily defended with well-designed gateway systems, clear ‘command posts’ and putative slinging platforms commanding the field of approach. They were armed; traces of sling stone caches have been recovered from Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (Browne and Driver 2001, 12), Pen Dinas, Elerch (Driver 1998b) and from Cnwc y Bugail (Driver 2004d); a cache of some 5000 sling stones was excavated at Castell Henllys (Mytum 1999). Yet, as we have seen in Chapter 6, the north Ceredigion defences barely conform to Avery’s rules for good tactical engineering, and certain authors have even questioned whether sling stones were actually used as weaponry (e.g. Hamilton and Manley 2001, 26). In truth, the north Ceredigion hillfort defences, and perhaps those requiring modern reappraisal in the other regions of Iron Age Britain, appear to have been frequently built using a complex suite of monumental devices, to heighten the appearance of the defences from particular approaches (see below). This rendered the defences both non-functional in strategic terms, yet at the same time highly effective in communicating greater strategic strength than the hillfort actually possessed. In addition, being able to look into the interior from afar may have revealed a populous, well-organised community, communicating messages of strength and impregnability through visibility. Davies (2000, 158) has already likened the monumental impact of the Castell Henllys gateway (described by Mytum in 1996) to the ‘boasting platform’ that is the Pen y Bannau façade, fronting a small and ‘quite insubstantial’ univallate enclosure. The author has described this situation as ‘Monumental display, but on a budget’ (Driver 2008, 85) and this research has demonstrated that the arrangements at Pen y Bannau were common throughout the region.

Savory reinforced this coincidence of display and strength by noting the political importance of the hillfort gateway. ‘The enduring nature of the authority under which hillforts in the Marches were constructed, at least in the early period, and its wide scope, are above all proclaimed by their entrance features…’ (Savory 1976, 264). The military role of hillforts is not a theme that can simply be accepted or rejected by concluding that hillforts, which may have been difficult to defend when judged by modern military or functional criteria, could never have been used as defensible sites. Bowden and McOmish (1989) suggested that hillforts with highly visible interiors were untenable as military strongholds, and perhaps had alternative, ceremonial roles. Their paper took the example of Scratchbury, arguing that this hillfort could not have been a military site because it has a number of inherent strategic problems. It is overlooked from nearby high ground which ‘Modern military opinion… renders the site undefendable in that a potential assailant is enabled to observe all the dispositions of the defence.’ (ibid., 13) The conclusion, rather hastily reached, is that the positioning of the hillfort ‘…suggests it was not built for defence’ with the implication that the highly visible activities taking place in the interior ‘…were of a special nature.’ Avery (1993b, 2.21, 8) noted that a functional hillfort rampart should be high enough to obscure the view of the interior, allowing the inhabitants the advantage of ‘…interior lines of

Recently the debate over a military or symbolic function for hillfort defences was revisited by Armit (2007), in an 3

This is a common feature of many Welsh hillforts which enclose prominent, elevated ridges, like Foel Fenlli in the Clwydian range, or those which enclose sloping sites rendering the interior highly visible from neighbouring lowlands, as with Caer Drewyn, Corwen.

135

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

article where he argues strongly that hillforts can never be fully ‘pacified’ (ibid. 31). He also argues that in postprocessual terms, the symbolic view of a hillfort’s defences has become, of late, ‘…the default starting point for interpretation’. Ethnographic examples are cited to remind the post-processualist that wars did happen in nonwestern societies, albeit often highly ritualised and symbolic in their approaches. In a response to Armit, Lock (2011) challenged the direction of Armit’s paper and argued against the ‘Iron Age warfare grand narrative’ (ibid. 360). Lock restates the likelihood for multiple functions and roles for the hillforts of Britain and that ‘…in some areas of Britain at some times during the many centuries of the Iron Age some hillforts may have been conceived, built and maintained without warfare in mind’ (ibid.).

there is increasing evidence to suggest that the entire fabric of the hillfort may have been initiated and shaped by non-utilitarian symbolic agenda on occasions. Millett (1992, 139-142) has argued that the defensive elaboration of towns and civitates in Roman Britain beyond civic or practical means, witnessed far earlier than in other western provinces, was a cultural leftover from the practices of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA). He noted (ibid., 139) that the fashion ‘…may be the result of a continuation of the prehistoric tradition of defining a settlement’s status by the provision of earthen ramparts… [where] the substantial dykes around first hillforts, then oppida… must surely have functioned as much for status as for any purely defensive function’. Millett drew a distinction between the civitas, which may have been under the control of a local elite, and Roman communities like London which were above such ‘indigenous systems’ of status-display. Towers appended to town defences in the late Roman period are further seen as evidence for status embellishment, standing chiefly as ‘… symbols of impregnability and as such… also status indicators…’ facing east to greet visitors arriving up the Thames.

It is likely that the North Ceredigion defences were more suited to the frequent feuding or cattle raiding recorded within some chiefdoms. Davies (2000, 158) suggested that the intermittent phases of short-lived occupation and disuse at Moel-y-Gaer (Flintshire; Guilbert 1975b) may be evidence of a ‘…sub-regional cycle of unrest or open warfare… a pattern that might be inferred for other areas as well’. Dodgshon (1996, 104-7), in describing the chiefdoms in the Scottish highlands and islands, records how feuding and feasting were the two principal forms of display behaviour practised by chiefs. He noted (ibid., 106) ‘…feuding itself was food-focused. Raids on rival clans routinely involved… destruction of standing corn, and the theft of cattle.’ It is perhaps against this backdrop of irregular, low-level aggression and inter-clan rivalry that we should read the highly symbolic, structurally intermittent defensive architecture of most Welsh hillforts, rather than supposing that they were all fortresses in the vanguard of the threat of military attack.

Collis (1994, 91) noted three potential symbolic roles for ‘the hillfort’ in Middle Iron Age society, these being either as a symbol of the status of a small group within the fort, such as a king and court, a symbol of the status of all the inhabitants, or ‘A symbol for the whole of the society…’. In the latter case it may be assumed that only one (central/prime) hillfort could stand as a symbol to the society, or community, in the regional context. What we see with the promulgation of façade schemes in north Ceredigion is that many hillforts shared and projected a unified symbolism. This may be evidence for a more fractured and fluid state of control and sociopolitical integration in the region, with a perpetual state of competitive emulation among lesser chiefs. Alternatively, prevailing façade schemes may have been developed within the jurisdiction of a single ruling chief/powerful person. These questions are examined in the landscape context in section 8.4 below. We can increasingly appreciate that later prehistoric domestic and monumental architecture was imbued with complex symbolic and display elements, which varied in terms of their position within or around the enclosed space, or even in opposition to other spaces and structural elements (see Gwilt 2003, 107). Recently Parker Pearson and Richards (1999), among others, have worked to promote the importance of symbolic complexity and cosmology in prehistoric design, in the face of more utilitarian interpretative models. Through their work and that of others it is now possible to demonstrate that ‘…the structuring of space incorporates cosmological and symbolic principles in many situations.’ (ibid., 38). In common with the prevailing practice in the study of phenomenology (e.g. Tilley 1994), where the principal monuments under study belong to the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, greater potential for symbolism in the division and manipulation of enclosed space still appears

The ideology of warfare, and the ability to launch an attack from a hillfort, would have served as a strong deterrent in itself (Kristiansen 1991, 38). Hillforts were, no doubt, vital components in the chieftain’s/powerful person’s ‘psychological armoury’ against his aggressors or rivals, functioning as permanent artifacts of display behaviour, less transitory than feasting and raiding. Woolf (1993, 217) noted that exotic imports like wine, for example, were ‘…used in much the same way as techniques of rampart construction.’ Thus the hillforts would stand as constant reminders to the populace of the conspicuous constructions made possible by a leader, or leadership, of great power and means. 8.3.2 Iron Age architectural symbolism In his detailed study of the hillforts of southern Britain, Avery (1993b, para. 1.10) discounted the influence of ‘inexplicit cultural assumptions and unconscious tribal traditions’ in the construction of hillforts, preferring to consider that fort construction was guided by locally available materials, and a sound understanding of building techniques and the military tactics required on site. Yet

136

8: Discussion and conclusions

FRONT REAR MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE UTILITARIAN BUILDING FAÇADE RAMPART VISIBLE INVISIBLE SYMBOLIC NOT SYMBOLIC ARTIFICIAL/CONTRIVED NATURAL/UNREMARKABLE FORMAL INFORMAL PUBLIC PRIVATE MAIN GATEWAY POSTERN/REAR OR NO GATE MOST EFFORT LEAST EFFORT STRUCTURE NO STRUCTURE CLOSED/BLOCKED UNENCLOSED/OPEN Figure 8.7 The duality of monumental hillfort architecture in north Ceredigion as encountered in the field. In practice, at a complex hillfort, there may be many ‘fronts’ and many ‘rears’ present in any single defensive circuit (T. Driver). x

to be granted to monuments of the Bronze Age by Parker Pearson and Richards than to later Iron Age monuments. However, the symbolic potential of Iron Age architecture has been explored by other authors (notably Bowden and McOmish 1987 & 1989; Oswald 1997; Gwilt 1997; Giles and Parker Pearson 1999; Hamilton and Manley 2001; Sharples 2007).

x

Despite these changes the authors note continuity of certain practices concerned with the segregated deposition of animal carcasses, both in western and eastern areas of settlements and in different associations with the dead. There are some problems with this approach from a panBritish perspective; fundamentally it is rooted in the study of Wessex hillforts (and settlement sites of earlier periods) although other regions of Britain are discussed. Secondly there is a preoccupation with the cosmological significance of gateway/house/doorway orientation which, whilst apparently present in some Wessex contexts (Fitzpatrick 1997) and the brochs of Scotland (Sharples and Parker Pearson 1997, 264), does not appear to have influenced hillforts or round house/house platform orientation in upland or central Wales. In addition, Parker Pearson and Richards do not seem to note the continued importance of correct approaches or paths through the segregated space, recognised at the Springfield Lyons Bronze Age enclosure, in the Iron Age.

8.3.3 Two halves don’t make a whole: duality in later prehistoric architecture Collis (1994, 87) postulated two binary oppositions in Iron Age enclosure, that between ‘enclosed and unenclosed/open’ - where some sites oscillate between ‘enclosed’ and ‘open’ phases - and that between ‘enclosed and ‘excluded’, or the opposition between keeping people or animals out as an act of segregation or protection, and keeping people and animals in, for example in a stock enclosure. The symbolic and cosmological approach to Bronze Age domestic architecture is centred on the spatial segregation of enclosures within a ‘consistent dualistic structure’ (Parker Pearson and Richards 1999, 52) as in front/back, north/south, visible and ‘out of sight’ etc. Parker Pearson and Richards see this consistent dualistic approach to site layout and organisation, including paths of access through sites and spatial patterns of deposition, effectively ceasing around the start of the middle Iron Age, a shift caused by three major factors. The most relevant to this study is the increased emphasis on settlement nucleation and definition by enclosure which ‘…seems to have negated the need for directional conformity of house entrances within the hillfort enclosures.’ (Parker Pearson and Richards 1999, 52). Their summary of the symbolic changes to Iron Age hillfort architecture which occurred in the Middle Iron Age (ibid., 52-54) can be summarised thus: x x

Emphasis on enclosure and definition of single units and internal variation of activities Uniformity of hillfort design and gateway orientation under new political authorities

At Springfield Lyons a ‘correct path of movement’ kept refuse and cooking activities out of sight (Parker Pearson and Richards 1999, 50-61). In the north Ceredigion hillforts it is also possible to recognise paths of movement, often made more complex by the positioning of bastions (at Pen Dinas, Elerch), or bastion and annexe arrangements (Castell Grogwynion; Cnwc y Bugail) or even overlapping schemes of outworks, which baffle a direct path to the gate (Darren; Pen y Bannau; Castell, Tregaron), which forced entrants along ‘correct paths’. The positioning of gateways within the Pen Dinas façade scheme, at the ends of the enclosure with the central mass of the hillfort ‘blocked’ by a terrace or terraces, implies almost an organised ‘choreography’ whereby the architects wielded power to impose longer journeys on those approaching perhaps for the symbolic purpose of heightening the visual impact of the monumental parts of the building.

Hillfort boundaries emphasised by elaborate defences Household units bounded by aggrandised entranceways and house porches

137

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

This may represent a further symbolic or ideological difference between the Pen Dinas and the Cors Caron style façade schemes; a long journey past the impressive horizontal defences to the end-gates at the former, in contrast to a more direct sight of the gateway at the latter group, albeit obscured behind or to the side of very impressive vertical defences. There are cases where the symbolism would still overlap. Castell, Tregaron’s sweeping vertical façade is still an impressive artificial feature today; the gate is hidden in the inner line of defences, around the eastern terminal of the main impregnable façade and would thus have required the visitor to walk along past the façade and ‘seek out’ or ‘discover’ the gateway within (see 6.3.7 above).

consumed by the hillfort alone would have required extensive woodland management over a wide area, the builders having access to the timber produced and the labour required to fell the trees and haulage. In this respect, later changes to glacis-style defences were seen as something of a revolution by Manning (ibid., 28), who saw that all effort previously invested in off-site activities such as timber harvesting and transport of logs to site could be fully focused in on-site construction. We must assume nothing less than an impressive organisational structure to manage the logistics of such building projects, and almost minimum requirements for the work to have been undertaken during stable political periods. Cunliffe (1984b, 559) estimates Danebury was continuously occupied for 450 years, with sufficient resource or supply networks in place, primarily from a productive agricultural system, to support the workforce. Other examples of ‘comprehensive’ hillforts in Wales could include Pen-y-Crug hillfort near Brecon (RCAHMW 1986; Driver and Davis 2012, 73) with its impressive circuit of multivallate defences, or even Foel Fenlli hillfort in the Clwydian range, built on a far larger scale than the Ceredigion hillforts and augmented with complete defences on all sides.

8.3.4 Timber and rock: regional capability and engineering effort Other studies of monumentality, particularly by Mytum (1996) in a Welsh context, have begun to demonstrate the importance of non-functional display in hillfort defences and the dangers of adopting simplistic or over-generalised approaches to the enormous variety of Welsh hillfort defences. Avery’s (1993b) seminal work on hillfort defences in southern Britain, which remains the most comprehensive of its type in the twentieth century, is nothing less than an exhaustive engineering and tactical manual for hillfort construction. However, while it draws on evidence from a sample of 150 excavated sites (1.16, p4) it suffers from a focus on what are usually the ‘ideal types’ of hillforts, those being the largest, most impressive and most heavily defended examples such as Old Oswestry, Herefordshire Beacon, Maiden Castle and Danebury.

8.3.5 Front/rear symbolism in the hillforts of mid Wales Lessons learnt from long-term excavations and careful consideration of the defences of a far smaller inland hillfort, Castell Henllys, by Mytum (1996), have shown that monumentality was employed within a single hillfort in such a way that some sections of the defences were constructed above and beyond purely tactical requirements, whilst others were virtually non-existent.

The construction of such ‘comprehensive’ monuments, coherently planned and completed, was chiefly enabled by the landscapes they occupied, being predominantly fertile, lowland regions; these supported populations sufficient to provide plentiful labour allowing major construction projects to be realistically undertaken and apparently completed. We must not underestimate the considerable labour inputs and support networks required by these major building works (e.g. Earle 1991b). Describing brochs in Scotland, Sharples and Parker-Pearson (1997, 264) noted that ‘The construction of this necessary barrier would only have been available to a few families with the resources to control specialist builders and to move large quantities of stone’.

In north Ceredigion we see ‘complete’ hillforts, but not ‘comprehensive’ monuments on the scale of those discussed. The hillforts appear to have been finished, but perhaps not in the sense of having complete or homogenous defences on all sides of the enclosure. Duality played an essential part in their construction, the recognition of a public front and a private interior and rear, the requirement for highly symbolic elements of the hillfort, which would see a heavy investment of design and labour at the expense of less crucial parts of the defensive circuit where the bare minimum of care and effort would suffice for enclosure. It is very possible that where successive lines of ramparts or terraces were built, creating an impression of multivallation, albeit from particular approaches, that this was a conscious emulation of more distant multivallate hillforts and an attempt to replicate the visual impression of ‘comprehensive’, complex, multivallation but on a far more restricted scale. A similar response to human movement and approaches was identified in the Cheviot hillforts where, among others, the defences of Mid Hill saw ramparts of contrasting strength, varying between those of ‘negligible height’ and those of ‘massive’ proportions (Frodsham

Cunliffe (1984b, 552) reminds us of the 1700 x 5m long timbers required for the Danebury ramparts, with an equivalent for cross-bracing, and the digging carting and dumping of over 20,000 cu metres of rubble. More recently, Manning (1999) provided extensive calculations of the resources consumed by timber-faced hillfort defences, calculating for example that a 4 ha hillfort (like Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth) may have required 4680 trees from 76ha of land to provide sufficient timber for vertical posts and tie beams (ibid., 24, Table 2). The resources

138

8: Discussion and conclusions

et.al 2007, 254). The authors concluded that ‘… the function of the rampart was more about impressing the approaching visitor than about defending against a wellplanned or prolonged attack’ (ibid.).

control of the hillfort and also, clearly, key paths of human movement either approaching the fort, passing by or anticipated by the occupants (e.g. long-distance routes descending to the hillfort).

Against this is also possible to see the monuments having originally functioned as ongoing sociopolitical ‘projects’ whereby the construction work in progress would have acted as a conspicuous, continual display of status and vigorous activity to outsiders. These themes were further explored by Sharples in 2007 for the Wessex enclosures of southern England. This permanent state of flux would have resulted in an ‘incomplete’ monument today which nonetheless played a significant role during its lifetime. Some authors interpret this asymmetry, or variation, within the context of a poor quality of construction work or having been caused by hillfort abandonment during construction (e.g. Mynydd y Gaer hillfort, Pencoed, Glamorgan, postulated as unfinished by Whittle (1992, 41-42), but supported as a finished hillfort damaged by later cultivation by RCAHMW (1976, site 637, ‘Coedcae Gaer’, 27-29)). Hogg (1975, 54) discussed the issue by noting that the workforce on unfinished hillforts clearly lacked ‘efficient organisation’ and, in the context of the easternmost fort on Hardings Down, Gower, for which the inner enclosure remained half built, he noted ‘…work on it must have been very haphazard’.

We should probably expect that social systems, methods of working and living in the landscape, ideas of symbolism and monumental architecture were in a state of flux from at least the early Iron Age to the Roman conquest of Wales (Hill 1995), and were subject to regional variation (e.g. Woolf 1993, 215). Unfortunately the north Ceredigion hillforts cannot yet be tied to a coherent regional chronology, which could demonstrate changing trends in monumental architecture through time, as has been demonstrated to effect with Collen’s (1988) thesis on the upper Severn valley in Montgomeryshire, the study of prominent enclosures in the Iron Age of Sussex by Hamilton and Manley (1997 & 2001), or even with the changing prominence of the Western Isles Atlantic roundhouses (Armit 1997, 250-1), which were first dominant monuments in the regional landscape, but were superseded by semi-subterranean wheelhouse structures.

As the lengthy descriptions of architectural complexity in the region have shown (Chapter 6), monumentality was coherently implemented at most hillforts in the region, but was usually designed to concentrate effort in particular, visible parts of the hillfort where it would have most effect. In addition, apparently incomplete sections of the defences may have been completed using perishable barriers such as palisades or even hedges. Although presented by some authors as a basic ‘front/rear’ model, often this was more complex with monumentality concentrated ‘on many fronts’; for example, for a hypothetical fort, at a gateway, overlooking a rear gate, and on one particular side visible to approaching persons. The key elements of this monumental duality are summarised in Figure 8.7 below.

8.4.1 Territorial division in Iron Age landscapes: some primary issues

8.4 ‘CULTIVATING MEN AS WELL AS LAND’: HOW THE LANDSCAPE WAS ORGANISED

For the Iron Age monuments of north Ceredigion, certain patterns of landscape division can be suggested, chiefly based on observations of the distribution and positioning of hillforts. These observed patterns are worthy of discussion for what they might indicate about the ways the landscape was organised and managed during the Iron Age, although numerous questions (addressed below) remain about the ways territory may originally have been perceived, used or divided. Some authors (e.g. Woolf 1993, 213) have questioned whether the notion of control of territory, as opposed to the control of people or populations, characterised Iron Age society. In practice, patterns of land ownership and the control both of resources and people were no doubt complex, and subject to continual change, a point reinforced by Hill in 2006. Dodgshon (1996, 101) discussed the two ways that Highland chiefdoms ‘secured themselves’, both as controllers of ‘…social networks of kinship and alliance and… as controllers of land and its resources’. Thus hillforts built closest to fertile tracts were best placed to cultivate abundant resources, but Dodgshon (ibid.) also reminds us they were ‘…cultivating men as well as land…’ In addition, clans drew meaning and relevance from being rooted in particular areas, and became ‘broken clans’ without land (Dodgshon 1998a, 8 & 13; and see Earle 1991b). Natural, cultivated and human resources may to some extent be regarded as indivisible within a given territory, yet clearly each

Thus we can see tensions, Collis’ (1994) ‘binary oppositions’, in how monumental and non-monumental parts of the fort would be treated, built, worried over, by those ultimately in charge. Thus we have a way of ‘reading’ the different situations we might encounter at a mid Wales hillfort, and some context within which to interpret contiguous complete and incomplete rampart sections; not necessarily as poor workmanship but as part of a wider practice of monumental symbolism. We also have some appreciation of the symbolic role and importance of the façade or ‘front’ of the hillfort, and it is reasonable to assume that the orientation of these main façades was carefully considered and contrived. Façade orientation may well indicate the direction of key lands, which fell within the visual command and territorial 139

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

possessed quite different relative values for the ruling authority.

group of settlements occupying a distinct block of land developed over millennia from the Early Bronze Age to the post-Roman periods.

The modern ‘map view’ against which data is presented today reflects little of the perceptions of territory and landscape experienced and valued by Iron Age people (see Johnston and Roberts 2003). Nevertheless, basic patterns observed in the field during the course of this research require articulation in some form to communicate with readers who are not entirely familiar with the landscape.

However in later periods of the Iron Age settlements generally proliferated and more dense patterns of contemporary settlements did emerge. Such a phenomenon is seen at Llawhaden, in that between two and four neighbouring hillforts were occupied at any one time during three of the four main phases between the fourth-third centuries BC and the Late Roman period. Phased maps of settlement for dated sites in the Upper Severn valley produced by Collens (1988) suggest dense, regularly spaced patterns of larger hillforts and small enclosures throughout her study area during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age (ibid., Figure 67), into the Middle Iron Age (ibid., Figure 68) during which time there was contraction into fewer evenly spaced hillforts and defended enclosures, returning again to scattered proliferation in the Late Iron Age and Early RomanoBritish periods (ibid., 71 and 72). Cunliffe’s well-known map (1984b, Figure 10.2) of smaller defended enclosures to the south of Danebury in the Wallop Brook area also suggests that particular blocks of land between river valleys were parceled up between regularly-spaced ‘farms’. In that example the settlements were all ‘…1km from the other and a similar distance from each other…’, commanding about 200 ha of land divided between watered valley and unwatered downland (ibid., 552). These observations were in the main generalisations which Cunliffe felt worth making, set against a background of spatial and chronological uncertainty for the Danebury hinterland.

These patterns may indicate fundamental facts about the relative proximity or isolation of certain enclosures or groups of enclosures, and the existence of certain regions, which were particularly favoured for settlement and some which were apparently avoided. When combined with field evidence about the variable architecture of certain hillforts, emerging patterns can provide first evidence for the potential division of territory between hillfort neighbours. The maps presented in this section have therefore been compiled not as outmoded tools to ‘reconstruct’ the hard boundaries between different hillfort populations and their territories; nor have they been presented to suggest possible contemporary settlement extents in any given period. They are purely offered to articulate the variable influences which must have been exerted by certain hillforts on the landscape around them. During this process, drawing statistically accurate polygons around and between every fort has not been attempted as this would imply a level of precision simply not possible or useful when making subjective decisions about the ways the Iron Age landscape may have been used and shared. ‘Flat’ statistical calculations take no cognizance of topography which probably exerted considerable influence on the perception of landscape and territory. Nor have weighted territories been calculated from enclosure size as Stanford (1972) attempted for the Welsh Marches as again, this would imply a level of precision impossible in a subjective study. Therefore to visually highlight issues of proximity and isolation, simple circles (or GIS ‘buffers’) of set radii have been applied to the main hillforts to enhance the visibility of the sites and clearly illustrate pertinent issues of proximity or isolation between neighbouring sites.

Certainly, enclosures in north Ceredigion show evidence for very regular spacing in some areas, and clustering in others. The regular spacing observed, for example, along the Rheidol valley (see Figures 8.9 and 8.10) suggests either that the sites were broadly contemporary or, if they were not, there was deliberate avoidance of previously occupied sites. The close relationship between Caer Lletty Llwyd (site 36) and Pen Dinas, Elerch (site 39; both sites discussed in detail in 7.5.2 above) seen in the construction of major façades at each which appear to respond to traffic from the other, certainly implies contemporary occupation and therefore a contemporary relationship between some of the upland and lowland hillforts in north Ceredigion. The extent to which hillfort building in Wales altered or ceased in the Later Iron Age, (see Davies and Lynch 2000, 156-7), is still open to debate. As Davies notes (ibid.) hillfort usage during the period is still poorly understood, with continued occupation of hillforts seen along the borderlands and into south-east Wales, yet a propensity for populations to have occupied smaller hillforts and constructed new small ringforts in the south-west of Wales.

8.4.1.1 ‘Contemporary landscapes’ of later prehistoric settlement Chronological issues for the study area have been discussed in Chapter 3. The distribution of later prehistoric settlement which survives for the study area is a product of settlement change and development over a number of centuries. Musson (1994, 131) noted that in the Welsh borderland ‘…neighbouring forts may have been occupied at quite different times…’ and useful phased summary maps resulting from years of excavation at the Llawhaden sites in Pembrokeshire (Williams and Mytum 1998, Fig. 82) demonstrate how a seemingly coherent

Although we lack detailed chronological data for the Ceredigion hillforts, interaction between some continuing hillfort populations and the Roman legions following the

140

8: Discussion and conclusions

conquest is certainly possible, and indeed probable. Evidence interpreted as that of Roman attacks is recorded for some hillforts in Wales, principally in the invasion ‘contact’ areas (see section 3.1.5.2), while the Llawhaden sequence (see section 3.1.4.1) showed a perpetuation of settlement in the form of strongly defended enclosures into the Roman period, although the authors (Williams and Mytum 1998, 142) recorded that larger hillforts were abandoned. In the study area, that Pen Dinas Aberystwyth was occupied, and potentially expanding in c.100 BC is shown by the discovery of an imported Malvernian pot from that period (see 3.1.4.1. above; Davies and Lynch 2000). Palaeo-environmental work presented in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.6.4) included Taylor’s (1973) evidence for widespread clearances and deforestation in the Ystwyth Valley in the Late Iron Age and early Roman periods. The presence of an active local population in this region would also be consistent with the evidence presented by the Roman marching camp at Esgair Perfedd beyond the eastern boundaries of the study area, whose presence demonstrates that an expeditionary force of some 5,000 Roman soldiers camped overnight in preparation to march west to the Ystwyth valley region (see section 3.1.5.2 above; Davies 1994b, 281; Davies and Jones 2006). In summary, the north Ceredigion hillforts in their most developed phases may have been occupied until the Roman conquest and potentially for a time following.

point that structures for which there is no dating evidence should follow the date of similar structures for which there is dating evidence, it is reasonably safe to assume that similar patterns of land ownership may have evolved during the ‘age’ of the Pen Dinas style hillforts in north Ceredigion. In between the four largest hillforts Collens (1988) reconstructed a contemporary landscape of other probable Middle Iron Age enclosures, resulting in a ‘…network of regularly spaced sites, from 6.5 to 9.2 km apart’, either side of the river Severn (ibid., 344). She further noted that three of the four largest hillforts in the upper Severn basin (The Breiddin, Ffridd Faldwyn and Cefncarnedd) were ‘…situated in commanding positions overlooking river confluences.’ The final fort, Gaer Fawr, does not command a river crossing as such but looks out over a lowland area sloping down to the river Vyrnwy. Collens notes that the river confluences are the ‘…junctions of significant routeways’, and may have been focal centres for surrounding areas (ibid.). In one of Stanford’s main papers on the hillforts of the Central Marches (1972), he concluded that most sites were 7km apart on average, and few less than 5km. This varied between different landscape areas and for the Severn valley, for example, sites were found to lie 1115km apart with an average for nine sites being around 13km (ibid., 310). The smaller enclosures which lay to the south of Danebury in the Wallop Brook area originally sat much closer to one another, on average 1km apart and a similar distance from the river (Cunliffe 1984b, 552-553). Rivers may have formed significant natural boundaries for Iron Age territories. This interpretation was put forward by Stanford in 1972 (313) on the logic that streams and rivers provided ready-made boundaries, were valuable as watering places and for riverside materials and were thus probably ‘desirable possessions’ within society. Bradley (1990) has suggested that rivers may have acted as tribal frontiers on the basis of prestige artifact deposition. The marked difference in distribution of defended enclosures to the north and south of the river Teifi, which currently separates Ceredigion from Pembrokeshire, also suggests that it acted as a major boundary in the later prehistoric landscape (see distribution map in Murphy et al. 2007, Fig. 1).

8.4.2 Land ‘ownership’ patterns and topography in the Iron Age Collis (1994, 89-90) observed that the initial act of enclosure may have had many more purposes than simple protection, including the ability to delimit activity areas or even reinforce boundaries between communities. Bradley (1991, 65) noted that hillforts, as ‘ceremonial centres’, ‘…must have played a major role in territorial organisation’. But, how may territories have been divided between hillforts in a region? Surviving boundary dykes and complex enclosed landscapes in parts of Britain, notably Yorkshire, Wessex and the Cambridgeshire Fens, indicate that Iron Age communities could create complex patterns of apparent land ‘ownership’ and ‘territorial division’. For Fowler (1983, 188-196) at least some of these major land divisions were related to pastoralism and the management of herds. Collens’ (1988, 343) assessment of the Iron Age enclosures of the upper Severn valley, a neighbouring region to north Ceredigion, revealed a potentially contemporary pattern of settlement and land division during the Middle Iron Age (her Phase II), the period when the hillforts of southern Britain are thought to have been at their most numerous and complex. In its ultimate phase Collens saw the landscape principally in the control of the four largest hillforts (The Breiddin; Ffridd Faldwyn; Gaer Fawr, Guilsfield and Cefncarnedd). It is notable that three of these four hillforts shared architecture along the lines of the Pen Dinas façade scheme, with terraces and entrances sited at the narrow ends of the ridge (parallels described and discussed in section 6.3.4). Noting Avery’s (1993b, 1.8, 2) general

In north Ceredigion, as elsewhere in Wales, rivers probably acted as significant through-routes in the landscape, and potentially also as territorial barriers (see Chapter 4, and particularly 4.5.1). A certain relationship between hillforts and ‘valley junctions’, similar to that noted by Collens for the major hillforts of the upper Severn valley, is present in north Ceredigion. The hillforts of Pen Dinas Aberystwyth (see Figure 3.14), Castell Tregaron (Figure 7.17), Dinas Ponterwyd (Figure 7.7) and others were erected close to junction points on valleys which may have been significant places for trading, communication, and even for the division of territories. However, a landscape with such pronounced topography 141

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

presented many more opportunities for division and separation between hillforts than those presented by valleys and rivers alone. It is highly likely that ridges and watersheds between lowland areas and valleys acted as significant barriers between hillforts and their territories, and this is seen in landscape evidence presented below. Similarly, sheltered minor valleys (encircling Pen y Castell and Castell Grogwynion (on the north side), and the closed valleys running to the east of (behind) Darren) created opportunities for localised territories and for hillforts to be visually ‘encountered’ or revealed on a journey; further, lowland basins as exist north of the Rheidol and around Llanfihangel y Creuddyn (see Chapter 3) could conceivably have accentuated a feeling of shared territory, community and security for the Iron Age farmsteads therein. Figure 8.8 The main hillforts and defended enclosures north of the Rheidol. Small enclosures and ancillary structures have been excluded. No attempt has been made to weight this distribution map, or those which follow, according to enclosure size as this would enhance a perception of statistical precision, where in fact the maps are purely intended to visually articulate subjective observations describing the variable patterns of settlement and the proximity or otherwise of different sites based on field observation. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All

8.4.3 Proximity and isolation: the settlement pattern north of the river Rheidol 8.4.3.1 Hillforts commanding ridges and valleys The hills and valleys north of the river Rheidol present us with one of the most interesting Iron Age landscapes available for study in central Wales. Within an area just over 11 km north-south (from Talybont to the Rheidol Valley) by 14km east-west (from Aberystwyth to Ponterwyd), there are large hillforts in mountain positions (e.g. Pen Dinas, Elerch (site 39); Darren (site 38); strong hillforts in lowland positions, e.g. Caer Pwll Glas (site 30); Caer Lletty Llwyd (site 36); and smaller defended farmsteads, valley bottom enclosures, and lightly-enclosed or palisaded sites, which can be interpreted as elements of the pastoral farming landscape (described more fully in section 3.2.5.3 above). Hogg argued (Davies and Hogg 1994) that the strongly-placed univallate forts in this region (Coed Bryngwyn-mawr (site 33); Pen y Castell (site 40); Hen Gaer (site 28)) may represent very early Iron Age incursions into this landscape, and it has already been suggested that a number of the upland and lowland hillforts in this part of the region may have been occupied at the same time.

rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

from the coast to the inner country.’ In this central zone, hillforts (including plough-levelled aerial discoveries like Banc y Gwmryn (site 61)) are wellspaced within good tracts of surrounding territory. Each appears to have occupied a distinct block of the hillfringe zone which may either have equated to ‘ownership’ of an entire east-west ridge (in the case of Penrhyncoch camp (site 35), sited on the leading western edge of a descending ridge); or block of upland (in the case of Pen Dinas, Elerch (site 39) which exclusively occupies the upland plateau of Banc Mynyddgorddu); or respective ownership of western/lower and eastern/upper parts of the long ridges. This latter relationship can be seen with the siting of Hen Gaer (site 28) towards the western, lowland edge of a main ridge and Banc Troed Rhiw Seiri (site 62) with Pen y Castell (site 40) at the upland, eastern end of the same ridge; or, a little further south, Banc y Gwmryn fort (site 61 plough-leveled) at the western, lowland end of a forked ridge which is dominated by, in its eastern upland part, Darren hillfort (site 38).

A dominant feature of the landscape is the prevailing eastwest ridge-and-valley system which characterises the central hill-fringe zone between Talybont in the north and the Capel Bangor in the south, leading inland from the coastal lowland basin (Watson 1957, 288). Watson (ibid., 294) noted the peculiar intermingling of different landscape types which this dissected topography affords ‘…with the interlocking of valley and ridge, mountain grazing and improved land…’, while Williams (1867, 289), in one of the earliest surveys of the hillforts, suggested something of the opportunities this landscape may have offered the Iron Age communities when he described the hillforts north of the Rheidol thus: ‘… all these works of each kind, whether Gaer or Dinas, admirably commanded… the different valleys leading up

The basic map of hillforts with 2km diameter ‘buffers’ (Figure 8.9) indicates the dispersed nature of the principal hillforts in this central zone of east-west ridges. The map of possible territories modeled against the topography modifies the initial buffers in a non-scientific way, based instead on close knowledge of the terrain, to provide potential indications of the zones of influence of particular

142

8: Discussion and conclusions

Figure 8.10 Putative territories or ‘zones of influence’ suggested for the main hillforts north of the Rheidol. These ‘zones’ aim to articulate graphically the potential, and variable, natures of hillfort territories as suggested by their particular locations, and do not intend to depict a contemporary ownership/settlement pattern. Hillforts focused on restricted lowland basins of the Leri (top) and Melindwr (bottom right) and the northern valley sides of the Rheidol are closely spaced, whereas more widelyspaced hillforts occupying the central belt of east-west ridges and valleys, connecting mountain to lowland, may have had ownership of correspondingly elongated eastwest territories divided by rivers or watersheds. See text. Numbers have been omitted for reasons of clarity, but compare with Figure 8.8. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright.

Figure 8.9 Proximity and isolation: Main hillforts north of the Rheidol with 2km diameter buffers. Note the clusters of hillforts in the north, around the central Leri valley, and in the southeast, between the Melindwr and Rheido1 valleys. This contrasts with the absence of defended enclosures on the west coast near Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, and the group of larger, more widely spaced hillforts in the centre of the map, which dominate key ridges, upland plateaux or other more isolated locations. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

forts (Figure 8.10). This map reflects the great visual dominance of Darren hillfort along its westward approaches (described in section 7.5.3 above), the potential shared ownership of the Hen Gaer/Banc Troed Rhiw Seiri ridge and the independence of Pen Dinas, Elerch on its upland block. It is also interesting to note the obvious apparently unsettled locations in the landscape, particularly the prominent ridge of Allt Derw (SN 63 83), which juts out between Hen Gaer and Banc y Gwmryn (sites 28 and 61; Figure 8.10), providing an excellent commanding promontory overlooking the lowlands which was apparently not utilised. The hillforts occupying the neighbouring valleys of the Rheidol and the Melindwr close to their confluence near Capel Bangor, display considerable regularity in their spacing (see Figure 8.10, lower right; compare with Figure 3.22 with named lowland basins). The locations of recent (1999 and 2003) aerial discoveries at Cyncoed (site 86) and Pant Da Wood (site 84) are also notable in the way they infill and complement this pattern. Marked differences in the architectural styles of certain neighbouring hillforts, like Tan y Ffordd (site 64) and Castell Bwa Drain (site 47) potentially indicate considerable differences in age. For this reason the regular settlement pattern cannot be entirely explained by the assumption of contemporary occupation (see below).

All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

8.4.3.2 Resourcing the ‘chiefly feast’ The positioning of the principal hillforts in the hill fringe/mountain edge zone, Pen Dinas, Elerch (site 39), Pen y Castell (site 40) and Darren (site 38), suggests that while a variety of potential reasons may have governed their eventual siting, the three forts commanded particular ridges and valleys so as to exploit a variety of resources such as woodland and areas for hunting and fishing. This would compare well with other studies, such as that of the Brecknock hillforts (RCAHMW 1986, 9) which were sited ‘…on hilltops… all within easy reach of good or medium-quality land and adequate water’ while; ‘Enclosures… on hill-slopes, appear to be sited at the transition between the open uplands and the more wooded valley slopes, indicating a mixed economic strategy.’ (ibid., 9) Bevan (1997, 185) observed similar factors in his discussion of Iron Age settlement in the Yorkshire Wolds, where; ‘Each settlement is situated within a very specific topographic zone, at the junction between upland and lowland. Both Staple Howe and Devil’s Hill occupy spurs of the chalk outcrop which form promontories into the Vale of Pickering.’ We should read access to these mixed resource zones from the hillfort not just in the economic 143

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

year Pen Dinas, Elerch and Darren would have been exposed to the harshest south-westerly gales, another reason for suggesting that the forts were built here for purposes other than utilitarian farming or settlement requirements. They occupy highly conspicuous, psychologically potent ‘prime’ positions whose acquisition and fortification perhaps would have shown that influential groups were at work; the Darren hill was already home to a Bronze Age cairn. These factors suggest two things about the occupants: they were sufficiently powerful to ensure a supply of workers, tradesmen and consumables to difficult locations during construction and occupation; further, they were able to acquire and defend very prominent, commanding locations with accompanying territories, presumably in order to acquire new regional status and intimidate surrounding populations through the high visibility of the new fort. The long ridges which descend from the mountains may have provided direct routeways linking highlands and the coast. Such ‘pathways’ connecting the mountains to the lowland basins would have greatly facilitated human and animal movement for pastoralism, hunting, coppicing and communication between the zones, including the exploitation of meadows in the upland valleys to the east. The presence of these routes between upland and lowland surely introduced a greater range of opportunities both for resourcing and control, than in the landscape zones to the south of the Rheidol, where eastwest/lowland-upland routes were not so clearly defined, with the landscape more difficult to traverse away from the main lowland corridors like the Ystwyth where the main ‘resource’, good agricultural land, was focused. In other parts of the study area, it has been possible to demonstrate that some of the hillforts may have had a very strong relationship with human traffic entering or leaving across mountain passes and along valleys, being built either to dominate valley junctions in the lowlands, or to face and overlook key east-west passes in the upland zone.

Figure 8.11 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, and major hillforts and settlements north of Cors Caron. Schematic map describing the potential zone of influence of Pen Dinas as depicted by an 11km diameter buffer. Effectively Pen Dinas occupied an area of landscape relatively isolated from neighbouring forts. The exception is the large univallate hillfort at Old Warren Hill, Nanteos (site 13) which occupies an inland valley close to the coast. Contours at 50m, 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

context of providing daily food, but also for their value in allowing the ownership and regulation of varied lands for the supply of a range of lavish foodstuffs, including game and conceivably seafood, to supply chiefly feasts and thus reinforce the position of the local leader (see Dodgshon 1998a, 85-6). 8.4.3.3 Ridges and routeways The positions chosen for each of these three mountainedge forts suggests a degree of separation from the more densely occupied lowlands, and a measure of mutual separation (each is on average 5.1km from the other). The forts are separated by tracts of apparently empty ground suggesting that even if the settlements did not co-exist in the landscape, derelict settlements and their accompanying legends or stories may still have been respected or regarded with superstition by the builders of new forts. Dereliction may also have been regarded as temporary in political communities which were fluid and unstable, and where ‘defunct’ social and political structures and significant families could ‘rise again’. Similar patterning in the distribution of major settlements has recently been identified in a new study of the coastal promontory forts of south Pembrokeshire (Barker and Driver 2011, 79-80).

Figure 8.10 shows putative territories or ‘zones of influence’, drawn partly to articulate the perceived patterns of proximity and isolation, but also to clarify the potential changing relationships of certain hillforts with the landscapes around them. Thus it is clear on the ground that the hillforts of the central area, including Hen Gaer (site 28), Darren (site 38) and Penrhyncoch Camp (site 35), have a close association with the extended east-west ridges which they dominate. Putative zones of influence have been reconstructed to show the potential east-west landscape areas these hillforts may have controlled, linking upland with coastal lowlands. To the north and south of these ‘ridgeways’, hillforts were focused in close ‘neighbourhoods’ around inward-looking fertile valleys; the Leri lowland basin in the north-west and the valleys of the middle Rheidol and Melindwr in the south-east. The nature of land ownership may have been very different here with tracts of lowland pasture and hillslopes predominating and a putative need for increased communal use of restricted fertile riverine lowlands.

The construction and continued occupation of these higher forts would have required robust networks for the supply of workers, foodstuffs and other consumables. During the

144

8: Discussion and conclusions

Figure 8.12 The Pen Dinas façade scheme in north Ceredigion. The hillforts which appear to share key elements of the scheme are shown on this map. The implications for regional landscape control are interesting. Three principal hillforts in the façade scheme, Pen Dinas Aberystwyth (site 7), Gaer Fawr (site 17) and Tan y Ffordd (site 64), are evenly spaced occupying (respectively) a coastal inlet, an inland hill dominating the Ystwyth and an inland valley side dominating the middle Rheidol. Schematic boundaries suggest the potential areas that fell within the control of each hillfort, probably equating to main river valleys and key upland blocks. Remaining forts which incorporate key elements of the scheme are also shown (Caer Lletty Llwyd (site 36) and Pen Dinas Elerch (site 39) at the top of the map, and Castell Grogwynion (site 48) and Penyffrwdllwyd (site 43) at the bottom right of the map), The unsettled coastal plateaux to the west may have formed areas of communal, shared agricultural land, perhaps within the jurisdiction of Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, but shared between Gaer Fawr to the south-east and the Leri Basin forts and Pen Dinas, Elerch to the north-east (Crown Copyright

Figure 8.13 Detailed map of the Clarach-Borth coastal plateau between the Clarach valley (bottom left, running east-west) and Borth (at the top left of the map), with contours at 50m and 100m. Consideration of the distribution of hillforts within the Pen Dinas façade scheme suggests these coastal hills could have been an unsettled, shared area of plateau reserved for communal pastoral activities. In this respect the location of the Ruel Uchaf hillslope gully enclosure (centre, circled) is significant. It may well have been a communal corral enclosure, carefully sited on the inland edge of the plateau to collect in livestock from its pastures and funnel them down into the inland lowland basins to the east. Compare with figure 3.28 above showing the Ruel Uchaf and Ty’n Rhos palisaded enclosures (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

Dinas appears to have precluded the development of comparable larger hillforts within a distance of 8-12km. The closest large hillforts in this area were Caer Pwll Glas (site 30) and Darren (site 38). These were built 8 km and 9.8 km away respectively, whilst Pen Dinas, Elerch (site 39), was separated by 11.9 km. This may suggest a ‘zone of influence’ to the north and north-east of Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, in the region of 8-12 km, within which the construction of significant hillforts was subject to a level of control.

RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

8.4.4 Regional territorial divisions and cultural hillfort groups 8.4.4.1 Pen Dinas and the regional landscape The exceptional position of Pen Dinas allowed for visual command and political control of two vital regional arteries, the rivers Rheidol and Ystwyth. The inland view from the fort is extensive, with lands as far as Plynlimon visible to the north and east, together with the hillfringe zone north of the Rheidol, the hills bordering the lower Ystwyth to the south and, across Cardigan Bay, the whole sweep of the Pembrokeshire coast, the Llǔn Peninsula and the mountains of Snowdonia to the north.

By contrast, the land to the south east, along the Ystwyth valley, was visually far more concealed from the coast and difficult to traverse. In this landscape strong, small hillforts were built only 5-10km away from Pen Dinas, hidden from view by rolling hills. Old Warren Hill was only 3.41 km distant and an anomaly, potentially built in a different period from nearby Pen Dinas and apparently controlling a distinct territory of the restricted valley of the Nant Paith. Pen y Castell, Llanilar (site 15) was situated at 5.32 km whilst Gaer Fawr (site 17), a major inland hillfort was 10.50 km away. This c.5-10km ‘zone of influence’ is less than the 8-12 km zone evident in the

To the north of the river Rheidol, where most hills and valleys are visible from the coast, the presence of Pen 145

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

area to the north of the Rheidol. It may have resulted from the fact that although Pen Dinas was highly visible from many points along the Ystwyth valley, the interior (e.g. non-coastal) landscape was far less easy to penetrate once off the main thoroughfare of the Ystwyth corridor, than the more open valley systems to the north of the Rheidol. Consequently, although geographic distances from Pen Dinas to larger hillforts were less in this area than to the north, journey times on foot to the coast through more difficult country may have been comparable. The map also clearly shows the ‘clear ground’, which exists along the coastal fringes to the north and south of Pen Dinas, apparently an archaeological fact given that no new enclosures have been discovered in this coastal zone, despite good aerial photographic cover and the discovery of non-Iron Age plough-levelled sites in the same area. The suggestion is that an area of the coastal plateau and pasture was set aside for pastoral control, woodland or the management of the agricultural resource. There is also the suggestion that the majority of the coastal plateau was utilised as an area of shared communal grazing, among the larger hillforts of the region, potentially contemporary with the promulgation of the Pen Dinas façade scheme. Willis (2007) describes at length the special qualities of ownership and resource potential that the coast may have possessed in later prehistory, and which may have subjected it to a level of control by a ruling authority. A similar ‘exclusion zone’ to that in north Ceredigion was identified around the major coastal promontory fort at Greenala on the south Pembrokeshire coast in a recent study (Barker and Driver 2011, 80) and others no doubt exist elsewhere in western Britain. The detailed landscape implications of the recognised façade schemes in the study area are considered below.

The spatial arrangement of these hillforts suggests a coherent, planned pattern between neighbouring forts, a pattern of political power equating with a fairly comprehensive system of territorial division. Figure 8.12 shows the positions of the hillforts sharing the Pen Dinas façade scheme, with schematic boundaries suggested between the three principal forts of Pen Dinas Aberystwyth, Gaer Fawr and Tan y Ffordd. These schematic divisions begin to suggest a regional strategy in the hillfort siting, with Pen Dinas dominating the zone of coastal influence at the confluence of the two major regional rivers, Gaer Fawr on a significant inland hill which is not intervisible with Pen Dinas, and which commands the central Ystwyth valley and visually commands the upper Ystwyth Gorge, and Tan y Ffordd which is set low down on the northern valley side of the Rheidol and commands the central Rheidol valley. Depending on the political roles shared by the other hillforts incorporating elements of the façade scheme, these would have offered excellent spatial command of the remaining region. One can now suggest parts of the landscape which may have been shared, particularly the overlap in ‘territory’ between Pen Dinas Aberystwyth and Gaer Fawr of the Llanfarian-Lledrod-Llanrhystud plateau, which I have already argued (in 3.2.6 above) may have constituted a tract of communal agricultural ground. At the same time, a similar role can be postulated for the area of shared plateau to the north of Pen Dinas along the coastal hills between the Clarach valley and Borth, potentially between Pen Dinas and the hillforts of the Leri basin group. In this respect, the potential role of the hillslope enclosure at Ruel Uchaf, on the inland edge of this coastal plateau, can be more convincingly postulated as a communal corral enclosure serving a wide area (see Figure 8.13)

8.4.4.2 Landscape division amongst potentially contemporary hillfort groups identified on the grounds of shared architecture

8.4.4.2.2 Articulating the Cors Caron façade scheme

8.4.4.2.1 Articulating the Pen Dinas façade scheme

The theme of regional networks of control and division is continued in Figure 8.15 where we can examine the locations of the hillforts sharing the Cors Caron façade scheme. Here a striking pattern of land division appears to be represented by the siting in the south of Trecoll (site 9) and Castell, Tregaron (site 11), either side of the Teifi river at the southern edge of Cors Caron. To the north, the two hillforts of Penyffrwdllwyd (site 43) and Pen y Bannau (site 46) are sited on commanding ridges on the hillfringe, overlooking the headwaters of the Teifi and its upper catchment. The suggestion here is that a group of four contemporary hillforts controlled the fringes of Cors Caron and the upper Teifi within a regular, almost strict pattern of division.

What of the potential existence of contemporary groups of hillforts sharing similar façade schemes? On the basis of evidence presented here, and when compared to evidence from the neighbouring study of the upper Severn valley (Collens 1988), these respective hillfort groups are likely to represent contemporary, or broadly contemporary, occupation. The mutual divide between the Pen Dinas and the Cors Caron façade schemes, with Penyffrwdllwyd, in a liminal position, having attributes of both façade schemes, further suggests that these hillforts demonstrate at least one phase of contemporary occupation and landscape control in north Ceredigion. A number of hillforts in each group show evidence for occupation and development through more than one phase (including Pen Dinas Aberystwyth, Pen Dinas Elerch, Castell Grogwynion, Penyffrwdllwyd, Castell Tregaron) and so the final picture of how these groups emerged in the landscape may be complex, spanning one or more generations of activity.

Other hillforts do exist bordering Cors Caron, but there is no evidence to suggest that these other settlements were contemporary. The Cwm Gwyddyl group for example (discussed in 3.2.5.4 above) comprises 5 forts and a placename site which occupy a network of minor valleys

146

8: Discussion and conclusions

Figure 8.14 Main hillforts bordering Cors Caron, with those of the Cors Caron façade scheme depicted as concentric circles. Contours at 100m, 200m and 300m

Figure 8.15 Hillforts within the Cors Caron façade scheme, augmented with 8km diameter buffers. This demonstrates the very even location of these hillforts around Cors Caron, with an east and west pair in the south of the region, and an east and west pair commanding the hills in the north of the region. Contours at 100m, 200m and 300m (Crown Copyright RCAHMW. ©

(Crown Copyright RCAHMW. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

draining south-west towards the Aeron. Trecoll is the only fort which shares the characteristics of the Cors Caron façade scheme. Castell Flemish is a large fort with concentric defences, Pen y Gaer a more basic univallate site, and of the two cropmark enclosures at Llwyn Bwch the most complex has a single arc of outwork, similar in style to Banc y Gymryn (site 61) to the north. One could suggest that each of these forts represents a separate phase of occupation within a clearly defined, and varying, set of architectural traditions.

Crown copyright. All rights reserved. RCAHMW. Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100017916, 2012).

structural phases, and such clear phasing is only really indicated at Castell, Tregaron (see 6.3.7). Thus, the pattern of control encircling Cors Caron, if genuine, need not have lasted more than two generations. Within the context of the entire landscape, which may have seen its first enclosed settlements built during the Late Bronze and early Iron Ages, this is a very restricted time span giving only a limited insight into the ways the landscape may have been controlled at one stage in the Middle or Late Iron Age.

The enclosures at Llwyn Bwch could conceivably represent paired enclosures resulting from contemporary traditions of partible inheritance between siblings (see Figure 3.26, sites 59 & 73; Cunliffe 1991, 537), but could equally represent a hillfort and its corral. In a wider landscape context, extending to the south of Cors Caron and beyond the limits of the study area, it is worth noting that the nearest hillforts of any significant size are some distance away, at Castell Goetre near Lampeter 12.5kms south-west of Castell Tregaron, and at Castell Perthmawr, Cilcennin overlooking the Aeron valley (omitting the intervening fort at Bwlch-Llan SN 5758), nearly 12km west-south-west of Trecoll. Along the entire length of the fertile valley of the Teifi, between Castell Tregaron in the study area and Castell Goetre (one of a group of hillforts around Lampeter which includes Caer Cadwgan), no other hillforts are presently known, reinforcing potential patterns of settled and non-settled areas, where ‘new development’ in intervening areas may have been prevented by prevailing patterns of land control.

It is clear that there was a degree of regional cultural or social cohesion prevailing during the period that the hillforts were conceived, built or elaborated on earlier foundations. The ‘region’ where the Pen Dinas façade scheme is prevalent, north of the Ystwyth watershed, is about 20kms x 20kms. The landscape where the Cors Caron façade scheme is prevalent is smaller, about 13 kms x 13kms. If the occurrence of distinctive architectural groups corresponds with sociopolitical entities, what we can begin to see is the potential extent of distinct population groupings within the mid Wales Iron Age, consistent with the smaller tribal groupings discussed in the interrogation of the Roman record of Iron Age tribes in 3.2.2.1.

Excepting Penyffrwdllwyd hillfort, which is a complex monument (see 6.3.8 above), none of the other Cors Caron style hillforts need have developed beyond two main 147

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

8.5 PROBABLE MODES ORGANISATION IN IRON CEREDIGION

OF AGE

SOCIAL NORTH

The model of a ruling leadership appears to underpin at least some of the monumental legacy in the Iron Age of north Ceredigion and mid Wales. J D Hill (2006, 10) does question what role ‘prestige objects’ may have held in Iron Age society, whether gold torcs (his example) or north Ceredigion’s monumental architecture. He notes that such an object;

As we have seen in Chapter 1, the relative certainties of interpreting Iron Age communities during the 1970s and 1980s, where one could apply the ‘Celtic clientship model’ and thus interpret a landscape of paramount hillforts, the residences of ‘kings’, being supported by a ‘producing’ landscape of satellite or vassal farms, became increasingly criticised during the later 1980s and 1990s to the point where generalised models for ‘Celtic’ society can no longer be tacitly applied to given British landscapes of the Iron Age. We are sceptical now, for example, that only one form of ‘British Iron Age society’ existed (Gwilt and Haselgrove 1997, 7), yet even the appropriate models by which we interpret or describe the evidence, whether chiefdoms or other, have been a matter of debate for at least the last thirty years (Fleming 2004). More recently the very existence of any hierarchy or leadership, in preference for a potentially more egalitarian ‘communal power structure’ based on groups of households, has been questioned by Hill (2006).

‘…may not have been an ‘elite’ object in terms if showing off the individual’s wealth and power; rather it may have symbolised the status and power of the larger group that the wearer represented – a symbol of office not a status symbol’. Also uncertain is the extent to which any ruling leadership was able to become a secure, long-lived and institutionalised force in the landscape without continual ‘sociopolitical work’ involving various display mechanisms, including alliance-building and the winning of new territories (or resources), the conspicuous consumption or destruction of valuable goods to retain status (Sharples 2007, 179) or even in the context of this research, investment in monumental architecture, in order to maintain a social position.

The potential for regional identity, and the operation of radically different approaches to social organisation across the different geographic areas of the British Isles is now appreciated and is visible in the archaeological record. Even in 1983 Fowler wrote, of later prehistoric British society ‘Let us start by assuming that it was a complex and changing society’ (ibid., 37). In addition, Morris (1994) raised concerns about the use of homogenous models for later prehistoric production and trade for Britain, largely extrapolated from work on systems in Wessex which appear to have fallen within the control of hillfort-based elites (e.g. Cunliffe 1991, 533-4). Instead she argues for ‘…distinct regional differences in the production and distribution of both pottery vessels and salt… which must be considered in any future models and interpretations of the British Iron Age’ (Morris 1994, 3867). The Research Agenda has drawn attention to new work which has challenged more traditional views of the British Iron Age ‘…laying stress on the complexity and diversity of the record created by its inhabitants.’ (Haselgrove et al. 2001, 1; and see Gwilt 2003, 113-5), and these themes have continued in more recent publications (e.g. Haselgrove and Moore 2007).

8.5.1 The architectural legacy Emulate: ‘to imitate with intent to equal or excel’ (Cassell 1999, 350) Exotic: ‘introduced from a foreign country… unusual and different in an exciting way’ (ibid., 377). The architecture of the majority of hillforts found within the Pen Dinas, Cors Caron and other façade schemes is exclusive and contrasting. In identifying a façade scheme on the basis of field observation, the intention has not been to insist on a classificatory straightjacket into which regional forts must be pushed, or left aside. Rather, the recognition of a façade scheme allows us to establish that different regional population groups, perhaps at different times, approached monumental display in fundamentally different ways. Rather than local or regional ‘independent invention’ of hillfort architecture on a site by site basis, the evidence also suggests that distinctive designs were present and pervasive across central Wales. These offered cultural traditions in the form of specific vocabularies of monumental architecture for aspiring leaders or communities to identify with, by building and living within a form of cultural statement.

Whilst the generalising models of Iron Age society have been largely superseded there has been ‘…little serious exploration of alternative models of social organisation which might be more appropriate to the British material’ (Gwilt and Haselgrove 1997, 7).The exact nature of social organisation in any given area is a more difficult question and there is still a tension in deciding whether stratified, centralised power was wielded by individuals for the purposes of social and territorial control via egalitarian or coercive means, or whether during certain times a communal power structure prevailed linking groups of households (Hill 1995; 2006; Fleming 2004).

Conceivably, where leadership, wealth and workforce permitted, the hillforts were comprehensively executed and completed with full reference to the ‘ideal’ façade scheme. At more peripheral forts, where the stability of these main requirements could not be guaranteed, forts developed along less comprehensive lines, nonetheless incorporating elements of the cultural scheme to lend their hillfort a degree of monumental kudos and regional identity. At most forts, the builders strove to render

148

8: Discussion and conclusions

Figure 8.16 Gilfach y Dwn Fawr (site 88), a well-preserved hillfort on the eastern fringes of Cors Caron discovered during Royal Commission aerial reconnaissance in 1999, and now a scheduled monument. Despite the prominent bastions which flank the south-west gate (left), and the enclosure of a steep outcrop, the site lacks a façade characteristic of other Cors Caron forts. In many respects it resembles the early phases of Penyffrwdllwyd (site 43) to the north, including well-marked house platforms excavated from the rocky interior. The sites may be linked chronologically (compare with Figure 3.10; AP_2010_4163). hillfort defences highly artificial in a natural setting, responding to the landscape yet controlling or dominating the vista. In this way they projected potent cultural messages through the completion of major engineering projects.

‘In the Welsh Marches the construction of semicircular guardhouses (as against rectangular ones) seems cultural and has been explained in terms of specialist ‘architects’ who might be called in by a community to offer advice about how to construct a hill-fort. In other cases it may merely be emulation by someone who had visited another site and taken ideas back to their home community. In both cases it raises questions about the relationship of a group to their neighbours, but also of transmission of ideas over time.’

What were the original purposes, on the part of the powerful person/s who initiated the development of the different façade schemes for replicating/emulating exotic or distant architectural traditions within the study area? The purposes no doubt centred on the clear desire of the powerful person/s, or the ruling authority building and ‘controlling’ a given façade scheme to demonstrate a radical departure from existing cultural traditions with the inception of a new ‘symbolic vocabulary’ of architecture; this would dominate the landscape spatially and conceptually if not always visually, and would emulate the physical appearance of distant, ‘exotic’ hillforts found in cosmopolitan, wealthy or more technologically advanced parts of the Iron Age world. Thus alliances and networks with more complex societies (e.g. Kristiansen 1991, 39) would be established, or at least alluded to.

Referencing these external sources of power, inaccessible to others, would in turn have reinforced and legitimised the chiefly power of the elite in north Ceredigion (Earle 1991a, 7). For the Western Isles of Scotland, Armit noted that Atlantic roundhouses were ‘…adopted as a powerful symbol of the legitimacy of the household within the locality; to demonstrate their control over an area of land and the resources associated with it.’ (Armit 1997, 249). Further, they served as a symbol to outsiders of the control of the household over the surrounding land. (ibid., 249-50) and also had a cosmopolitan symbolic value suggesting wider social links with communities in the Atlantic region of Scotland (ibid.). Earle (1991b, 96) saw

Collis (2010, 29) touched on these ideas in a 2006 paper discussing the history of rampart excavation and investigation; 149

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

the Wessex hillforts as ‘landmarks’ both visually dominating and asserting ownership over the pastoral lands. Thus, architectural symbolism became a powerful component in social control.

At smaller hillforts, where façade schemes were less coherently implemented, the power, status and exotic modernity of the larger hillforts would have been consciously referenced in an attempt to emulate some of their qualities, or at least to demonstrate an alliance with those with greater power. For other hillforts which fall outside the main apparent façade schemes, discussed in sections 6.3.9 and 8.2 above, I believe we have two groups of monuments represented. The first group will be those enclosures developed along utilitarian lines which, as far as present surface evidence suggests, were not rendered architecturally complex by their builders. The second group are those disparate sites which do indeed incorporate elements of architectural complexity or display potential evidence for façade schemes in the nonutilitarian designs of their defences, yet for which there are very few comparable sites in the entire region or beyond (see Figure 8.16). At these sites we may be witnessing the brief emergence of power at single sites, or dispersed groups of sites, which was potentially never expanded from a single settlement base.

We can assume that only certain members of society would have had the opportunity or motive to travel outside the region on a regular basis. Contacts between distant lands and north Ceredigion would have bought luxury goods such as salt and fine ceramics, and above all the kudos which stems from knowledge of other worlds. The vibrant borderlands communities of later prehistory may well have contrasted with the more limited agricultural resources and regional economy of the west coast of mid Wales. At the hillforts where architectural complexity or an ultimate façade scheme were implemented, a utilitarian approach to building was abandoned and positively superseded. The existence of complex architecture, or even a coherent design or plan which did not closely follow the prevailing topography and instead existed despite the terrain, implies that hillfort construction was made more difficult, and more ‘exclusive’ and nonutilitarian through reference to a higher symbolic purpose. An egalitarian independence to design and build one’s own defended farmstead, within the constraints of one’s own workforce or economy and with the help of neighbours, was also clearly threatened by the decision to introduce deliberately difficult constructional elements, to complicate building works, to strive (at some hillforts) for the barely attainable (seen in the partial integration of elements of façade schemes), all apparently towards the aim to integrate with a broader symbolism and thus reflect, or share in, something of its proclaimed authority, reinforcing a considerable sense of group identity.

8.5.2 Evidence for social stratification We cannot completely reject a stratified/status model for north Ceredigion: several strands of evidence indicate to us that at one, or during several, periods of the Iron Age, stratified power existed and control was exerted over populations in the landscape by one or more ‘powerful people’ or a ruling authority (see Bradley 1991; Kristiansen 1991; Fleming 2004, 145). The very existence of complex, monumental architecture in north Ceredigion suggests a level of social stratification or differentiation. Wenke (1990, 287-288) stated that ‘…architectural variability reflects economic, social, and political differentiation within the community…’ and that monumental architecture implies ‘…the ability of some members of the society to control and organise others.’ Earle (1991b, 85) further noted; ‘the labor invested in monumental construction helps determine the extent of central control over people.’ Thus, some form of elite is suggested by the very existence of hillforts. Hillforts and monumental defended enclosures may have first been constructed to serve utilitarian ends, but during particular (later?) periods they were raised or elaborated following a vocabulary of required symbolism. Crucial to the concept of a new hillfort would have been the initial design idea, a strategy or impetus, from the person/s in control.

In their most impressive and extensive manifestations, the hillforts which shared recognisable façade schemes stood as monumental ideological symbols in the landscape, contrived so that the main façades and embellished ramparts commanded particular vistas, even where these were concealed within local landscapes of valleys, passes and lowland basins. The terraces of the south fort, Pen Dinas Aberystwyth, were a radical departure from an earlier, more utilitarian, hillfort on the same linked summits. These terraces still greet visitors descending the mountain pass from Ponterwyd at Bwlch Nant yr Arian and stand as a remarkably confident and striking symbol to those arriving at the west coast from the interior of Wales. The symbolism of Pen Dinas was repeated at other forts passed during mountain descents by travellers from the east. Further to the south, crossing from the Wye valley above Rhayader, the same experience would have been encountered at the Cors Caron forts. Prime landscape positions or even major topographic features such as outcrops were harnessed to enhance the visual presence and artificiality of the forts in the landscape.

In 1975 Hogg wrote that the decision to build a rampart implied a ‘controlling authority’, even if an ad hoc ‘council of elders’ (ibid., 69). The north Ceredigion hillforts preserve in the form of their ramparts and gateways a monumental legacy of crucial decisions, taken at the point of choice of building site (incorporating sufficiently elevated and pronounced terrain for the construction of a monumental façade, not feasible at a level or gradually sloping location), at the initiation of building and during construction or with the elaboration of

150

8: Discussion and conclusions

an earlier settlement.

8.5.3 Finding the ‘petty chiefs’: systems of regional power and control

Wealth was present; fragments of two late La Tène brooches of the late first century B.C. or early first century A.D. were recovered from Iron Age burials at Plas Gogerddan (Murphy 1992) located on the peripheries of a pre-existing ritual and burial site (Savory in Murphy 1992, 23-4). However, Savory (ibid.) noted that they were probably ‘…inexpensive and practical necessities…’ from someone of ‘…relatively low social standing.’ Whether this was a conclusion drawn from the study of more common finds in ‘wealthier’ parts of prehistoric Wales or England, and whether therefore these finds would have commanded an elevated regional importance during the mid Wales Iron Age, is unclear. A stone bead (Davies 1994a, 273) similar to those found at Meare, Somerset, was also recovered from an occupation layer in the south fort, Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth (Hogg and Davies 1994, 257).

The façade schemes imply regional organisation, if only for the duration of occupation of those particular preeminent hillforts. The hillforts which became part of these recognisable groups were well-spaced in the landscape, and it is even possible to speculate that hillfort locations were allocated or chosen for the purposes of regional control, or to control topographically distinct areas of the territory; thus within the Pen Dinas façade scheme we see both Caer Lletty Llwyd and Tan y Ffordd sited at the edge of wide lowland areas, below the access points to major upland trackways and responding to the presence of these trackways through the ‘conspicuous construction’ of blind ramparts facing the descending upland traffic, a feature common to both hillforts. Likewise, Gaer Fawr and Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, two very similar forts in terms of layout and elements, are highly conspicuous and command ‘regional vistas’ yet neither can be seen from the other.

Extra-regional, exotic trading or exchange contacts are demonstrated by the single, but important, discovery of an imported Malvernian vessel to Pen Dinas at Aberystwyth (discussed in 4.4.2 above). The transport of this vessel 128 km from the Malvern hills implies that Pen Dinas had a role in long distance trade during the second or first centuries BC (a point also made by Davies and Hogg 1994, 229), and that the physical journey across Wales was secure and unimpeded by thieves or the like (the pottery vessel was not repaired and presumably reached its destination intact). It is highly likely that future area excavations in the region would reveal further evidence for traded salt and ceramics which would place the Pen Dinas find in a more realistic context.

Castell Grogwynion and Pen Dinas Elerch are both built around outcrops sited on promontory edges and are highly conspicuous, but only from particular viewpoints; both these forts share spatially segregated divided interiors and gateways flanked by freestanding bastions. For the Cors Caron façade scheme, it has already been noted above that the four principal hillforts form a strikingly regular settlement pattern with two forts flanking the west and east sides of the lower (southerly) hill fringe bordering Cors Caron, and two flanking the west and east sides of the upper (northerly) headwaters of the Teifi overlooking Cors Caron.

It is difficult to assess the context in which the Malvernian vessel ended up at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth. Davies and Hogg (1994, 229) consider that ‘… the apparent concentration of ‘foreign’ material at Pen Dinas, coupled with its size and ‘developed’ character… suggests that by the second or first century BC it served the needs of longdistance exchange networks, perhaps manipulated by a residential elite.’ However, it is correct to note Woolf’s (1993, 212) caution against the assumption that all imports are prestige goods, or that all trading centres are ports-of-trade designed to contain exchange, rather than to attract it. Morris’ (1994) review of pottery production and trade in later prehistoric Britain also casts doubt on hillforts being the only points in the landscape which may have been trading or exchanging luxury goods, rejecting a centralised Danebury/Wessex model in favour of a strongly regional model for most of Britain and Wales, in which mixed systems of local and extra-regional production and distribution operated. Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth may have held a role as a centre for trade but undoubtedly any such role would have risen and fallen with changing economic and social conditions.

Despite recent debate (reviewed in Fleming 2004) and critical assessment (e.g. Earle, ed., 1991; Kristiansen 1998b; Hill 2006), models of chiefdoms still provide a good framework for interpretation of the settlement evidence in Ceredigion. Technically, within Earle’s (1987; and see Earle 1991a) definition of chiefdoms as ‘regionally organised societies with a centralised decisionmaking hierarchy coordinating activities among several village communities’, there is scope both for regional, hierarchical control of people and their farms/lands coupled with day-to-day local/autonomous management of individual/forts and their requirements. There has been recent tension in debates regarding the social foundations of the Scottish Iron Age, chiefly in Atlantic Scotland (e.g. Armit 1997, 1999; Sharples and Parker Pearson 1997); whilst there is good argument for seeing the Atlantic roundhouse as a symbol of the autonomy of the household, with jurisdiction over its own lands and resources (Armit 1999, 75-76), a subsequent episode (last centuries BC and first centuries AD) saw an agricultural expansion and clearance into south-east Scotland which Armit saw as reflecting ‘… a reassertion of social authority at a level higher than that of the individual household’.

151

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Across the diachronic range of the settlement pattern in north Ceredigion, there is evidence for there having been periods where stratified power existed, and other times when individual households, or smaller hillforts, may have exerted greater autonomy within a more ‘egalitarian’ landscape. An example would be those hillforts with attendant enclosures, which could be interpreted as ancillary stock corrals for autonomous management of flocks, as opposed to the larger, highly conspicuous hillslope gully enclosures, interpreted here as regionallycontrolled stock management sites probably built by communal labour and intended to promote corralling as a highly conspicuous (seasonal/political?) event in the landscape (section 3.2.7).

8.6 CONCLUSIONS In 1991, Cunliffe (180) noted that in the Iron Age of Wales and the north ‘…there is a considerable degree of cultural unity over large stretches of country…’ these parts of Britain being isolated from the ‘…Continental influences…’ and ‘…expanding economies…’ of the south-east. Following this research it is possible to demonstrate more fully that the regions of later prehistoric central Wales had their own cultural identities, which were wholly distinct from existing socio-economic models of Cornish rounds or even the landscapes of small, high status ‘enclosed farmsteads’ (Williams and Mytum 1998) noted throughout south-west Wales, chiefly Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire. Even in as restricted a study area as north Ceredigion, this research has presented field evidence for an enormous range of settlement types and hillfort morphologies and, if anything, striking discontinuity and apparent cultural fragmentation from landscape zone to landscape zone which appears to have been prevalent during the latter part of the Iron Age (Gwilt 2003, 112); this fragmentation was surpassed only intermittently by more coherent, visible threads of cultural architectural traditions, potent ideas transported with traded and exchanged goods along wellestablished overland routes, conceivably evidence of recurrent themes in political, monumental architecture active at different times throughout central Wales, from the west coast to the lowland plains of west and central England.

The hillfort architecture throughout the region is highly variable. One of the few certainties is that any prevailing social systems would have been subject to change through time (see Hill 2006). This diachronic complexity is indicated by the very different appearances of close hillfort neighbours, the proliferation of settlements and evidence of phasing and development at some hillforts. Whilst those with evidence for complex phasing may demonstrate longevity of power, whether continuous or intermittent, in certain prime positions in the landscape, other enclosures apparently exhibit only a single phase of works. Current discussions do not provide answers regarding the significance and role of other major hillforts, no doubt once dominant, which include the very large near-coastal univallate forts at Old Warren Hill and Caer Penrhos, and the major inland visual presence that was (is) Darren hillfort. These appear to represent significant powerful hillforts, perhaps built as single political statements by optimistic new chiefs which may have held transient control over parts of the landscape, before being superseded by different patterns of regional control.

The recognition of shared façade schemes, often linking the principal hillforts in the landscape, appears to provide a reasonable interpretation of the field evidence and some indication of why particular hillforts across a restricted region display unity in architecture and morphology. My interpretation of these regional façade schemes suggests potentially complex levels of regional territorial organisation, which fell under the jurisdiction of a handful of larger, more complex hillforts at a particular time during later prehistory, probably around 100 BC (based on the dating of the final phases of expansion at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, see section 3.1.4.1).

Dodgshon’s (1996, 108) detailed analysis of the historic chiefdoms of the Western Isles of Scotland appears to present a potential, workable framework for the type of social structures which may have generated such a settlement pattern. He describes complex chiefdoms as ‘… fissiparous affairs, continually prone to collapse along the lines of weakness introduced by their segmentary structure…’ This was also a ‘…competitive system…’ with phases where ‘… petty chiefdoms jostled each other in expectation of being at the centre of the next eruption of power.’ (ibid., 108; and see Dodgshon 1998a, 15) This scenario provides a good, but not the only, interpretation of of settlement in this region, and perhaps many others in the British Isles where the settlement evidence is highly variable, and where coherent long-lived architectural schemes are difficult to discern. Clearly, such settlement patterns are likely to result from the various competitions for power in a given region, some challenges having been successful and resulting in the promulgation of a regional architectural style under a long-lived elite, others having failed following the construction of a single hillfort or a small group of similar defended enclosures.

Conceivably during the ‘age’ of the Pen Dinas façade scheme, the regional arteries of north Ceredigion, the Rheidol and the Ystwyth, were strategically controlled by three hillforts, Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, Gaer Fawr and Tan y Ffordd, potentially within a single chiefdom residing at a given hillfort. Such control would have ensured ownership of, and regulation over, a broad and impressive range of resources (land and food) extending from the coast, to the fertile valleys and hillslopes, to the higher woodland and upland moors, reinforcing the regional status of the chiefdom. Remaining hillforts in the region sharing terraces or complex gateways may have fallen under the jurisdiction of this ruling authority, their occupiers keen to display the key components of the prevailing architectural tradition at their own settlements despite limitations of workforce or design expertise. In

152

8: Discussion and conclusions

would have been suggested in the forms of the new buildings, even if never actually established. This research has also demonstrated how endemic practices of architectural complexity and non-utilitarian construction were implemented across all sizes and types of hillforts and defended enclosures in the region, regardless of the existence of façade schemes. In a region where resources (human, agricultural, natural, territorial) may have been under stress during certain periods of later prehistory, the making difficult, or the deliberate complication, of building work by the introduction of practices of architectural complexity signifies what a vital currency this method of monumental display had in the social landscape. The example of Cnwc y Bugail (Plan, Figure 7.64; schematic layout, Figure 5.25), where nearly a third (0.18 ha) of this small fort (0.62 ha total) comprised the gateway and annexe arrangements, these being additionally aggrandised with quartz, shows how an overriding obsession with the correct symbolic approaches to a fort must have dominated the minds of those building hillforts, of whatever size. In a potentially risk-laden environment, perhaps troubled by scarcity, the act of building and creating iconic monumental architecture becomes similar to the chiefly feast as described by Dodgshon (1998a, 15), or the ‘potlatch’ tradition of conspicuous consumption and destruction of wealth at public gatherings to acquire status, discussed by Sharples (2007, 179). In 2005 (Driver 2005) it was suggested that ‘conspicuous consumption’ was replaced, in north Ceredigion, by conspicuous construction, or the ‘consumption’ of labour and the ‘destruction’ of easy access to a hill summit by the creation of complex and ostentatious façades and gateways (and see Bradley 1991, 68). These conclusions were echoed in 2007 by Sharples (ibid., 180) in regard to the communal construction of large enclosures in 1st millennium BC Wessex;

Figure 8.17 Darren hillfort; excavations by the Early Mines Research Group in July 2005, at the south terminal of the main west gateway (Timberlake and Driver 2006). This trench exposed more of the same revetment face uncovered by the author in 1996, in an attempt to clarify the extent of the walled gateway terminal and to recover dating evidence of the type identified in 1996 (pottery and charcoal). Radiocarbon dating suggested that the first phase of bank construction of the main rampart of the south gateway terminal was begun in the Middle Iron Age, 400-190 Cal BC at 95% probability (Timberlake 2007). The dramatic discovery of the large quartz block at the front corner of the terminal (seen here) has similarities to gateway arrangements at Cnwc y Bugail, where quartz blocks lined the entrance passage on one side, and confirms the existence of ostentatious, elaborate display techniques at regional hillfort gateways. Elsewhere on site, the excavations confirmed the extraction of a mineral lode along the line of the rock-cut Iron Age ditch by the hillfort builders, as well as the presence of high-quality stone revetment on all external faces of the main ramparts and outworks (see Figure 6.10; Crown Copyright RCAHMW, DS2005_108_001).

‘If we regard the construction process as related to the gift of labour and resources, then construction of ever larger and more complicated enclosure boundaries is effectively the conspicuous consumption of resources. Communities were in competition to attract larger and larger numbers of people to help in the process of construction’.

certain cases, visiting specialists may have created or inserted gateways and other elements to imbue the local hillforts with cosmopolitan elements, lending greater authority to the leaders concerned while they remained in power. At these quiet and relatively unknown regional hillforts, Iron Age rampart faces frequently stand with steeper rampart faces than the oft-celebrated and far larger hillforts of Wessex, testifying to the levels of skill and aspiration in their construction (see section 6.22 above).

The north Ceredigion work also demonstrates that the majority of hillforts were not primarily intended to be strategically strong, impregnable fortresses in the modern sense. If anything, the military strength of the forts lay not in the security of their gateways or ramparts, but in the perceived threat of strength embodied in the monumentality of the main façade ramparts. This acted as a powerful deterrent. An attack on any single fort incorporating architectural elements of a distinctive regional façade scheme may also have warned of repercussions from a wider network of allies.

Such systems must have been unstable in the longer term, constantly prone to rival challenges, internal collapse and competition. A fear of instability would have been ideally challenged by the strong ‘branding’ of homes and hillforts with highly conspicuous forms of monumental architecture, which emulated more distant, exotic centres of population and their highly influential political systems. Political and dynastic alliances with these external groups

Great land clearances along the central Ystwyth valley in 153

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Figure 8.18. Gridded X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) sampling on the eastern edge of Pen Dinas Elerch hillfort in 2011 to investigate prehistoric metal-working evidence, in a joint RCAHMW/IGES project by Keith Haylock, a doctoral student at Aberystwyth University (Crown Copyright RCAHMW). the late Iron Age and early Roman period (section 2.2.6.2 to 2.2.6.4; Taylor 1973), coupled with the construction of highly conspicuous hillslope gully corrals for the regional co-ordination of livestock collection, may be examples of the major communal activities undertaken by a chiefdom, controlling people and land over a wide area. However, such clearances could have arisen from longer-term, piecemeal patterns of activity by more autonomous farmsteads or population groups. Wider clearance activities may have been mirrored around the headwaters of the Teifi in the hillforts bordering Cors Caron, although not necessarily at the same time, the regional control here perhaps reflected in the occasional evidence for major clearances at the start of the middle Iron Age and during the Roman period. The appearance of atleast one Romano-British villa in the region at Abermagwr on the central Ystwyth valley, certainly in existence by the mid third century, hints at continuing wealth and power amongst a local elite no doubt derived from a combination of agricultural wealth from the land, and mineral wealth from the nearby hills (Driver and Davies 2013).

Figure 8.19. Geophysical survey of the northern terrace and upper interior of Castell Grogwynion was commissioned in spring 2012 to follow up the results of the XRF surface sampling. Survey by ArchaeoPhysica LTD utilised magnetic susceptibility through nongradiometric caesium vapour instrumentation to study areas of potential smelting debris on the northern terrace (top area), together with the denuded remains of house platforms inside the fort (left hand area, dashed circles). Results confirmed potential smelting debris on the terrace, currently undated, with the footings of up to three Iron Age houses associated with pits and dumps of heated material. North to the top. (Crown Copyright RCAHMW). autonomy and perhaps even self-sufficiency is suggested by the appearance of ancillary enclosures, interpreted in this volume as possible stock enclosures, built close to a number of small yet substantial hillforts at Penrhyncoch Camp, Cyncoed or Pen y Castell, Llanilar (section 3.2.7.1 above). These settlements may thus have been autonomous, family run units even though livestock may have been traded within wider regional economic systems through seasonal fairs on a scale witnessed even in recorded history at major market towns. Such closely grouped settlements fit very well Hill’s (2006) communal model of ‘clusters of dispersed households’ intensively occupying ‘…distinct (if fuzzy edged) territory rarely larger than 3-4 km across’, yet with occasional exploitation of more distant resources.

Within the complex and long-lived later prehistoric settlement pattern of north Ceredigion we have evidence for the prevalence of other socio-economic systems. Small, utilitarian enclosures, which cluster in nondefensible positions along valley sides and bottoms, yet which are frequently overlooked by larger hillforts on commanding spurs or governing major passes through between lowland areas, could represent landscapes of ‘producing’ farms in the control of larger ‘consuming’ hillforts (such landscapes can be seen the Llanfihangel y Creuddyn and Trawsgoed lowland basins, and also in the Melindwr basin and the central Rheidol valley).

Enclosures and spaces forming parts of major hillforts and interpreted as annexes, may show regional marketing roles being performed by hillforts like Pen Dinas Aberystwyth, Darren or Castell Grogwynion. Alternatively markets may have been sited at focal points in the lowland landscape marked by successive re-use of pre-existing ritual locations (e.g. Pyllau Isaf (SN 6375) or Plas Gogerddan (SN 6283)), or at valley junctions (Driver 2009).

Possible examples of ‘Celtic’ partible inheritance have been cited in this volume, suggesting the division of territory between siblings and resulting in closely-spaced settlements or landscapes of ‘small enclosures’. However, other scenarios remain entirely possible. A degree of

154

8: Discussion and conclusions

Figure 8.21 Marking the position of one of the denuded house platforms on the upper terrace of Castell Grogwynion, 2012 (Crown Copyright RCAHMW). 8.6.1 Ways forward: unlocking the hillfort heritage of mid Wales

Figure 8.20 Guided walk up Pen Dinas hillfort, Aberystwyth, July 2012, where 147 people scaled the hill as part of The Festival of British Archaeology. Such massive public interest in the Iron Age past should be harnessed and encouraged so that future generations can better appreciate their rich prehistoric heritage (Crown Copyright RCAHMW).

Several areas of new research are now required, in the wake of this investigation into the field archaeology of the regional hillforts of mid Wales, if our understanding of the settlements is to be significantly advanced. The assembly of new artefactual, paleo-environmental and dating evidence is imperative to begin to establish a regional chronology and to test interpretations developed in this research (e.g. Haselgrove et al. 2001, B2; D; Caseldine 2003; Gwilt 2003). Questions remain as to how more prestige activities were organised in the later Iron Age, such as metal winning and working, long-distance trading/exchange of ceramics and (potentially) Cheshire salt, and the importation and redistribution/circulation of more exotic wares within the region. Similarly, the production, prevalence and use of local ceramics is barely understood. Some of these questions will require reappraisal of the related Iron Age archaeology of central Wales, particularly central and southern Powys.

This region of Wales displays varied evidence for a long duration of Iron Age settlement and reuse; between the later Bronze Age until the Roman conquest, and continuing for a time following, north Ceredigion played host to a variety of socio-economic systems, communities and cultural identities, some semi-permanent, others unstable and short-lived. It is no longer possible to use terms such as ‘conformity’, ‘simplicity’ or ‘cultural unity’ to describe the later prehistoric settlements of central Wales, or Wales as a whole, just as it is no longer sufficient to seek and implement overarching, rudimentary classificatory schemes in order to tackle, and attempt interpretation of, unsorted landscapes of Iron Age settlements. In future, hillfort architecture should be reexamined in the field from site to site, and trends identified on the basis of these new results. At the same time hillforts can no longer be seen as ‘monuments’ in a sterile landscape. Their positioning, design and very existence were all products of their regional environment; its populations, prevailing ideologies, social systems and even the nature and directions of overland and maritime trade and communication and the networks and alliances forged through such movement. Thus the forts were integral components of their complex later prehistoric regions.

The nature of metal-working and mining in the Iron Age and Roman periods is an area where recent advances in research have shown how much new information awaits discovery in Ceredigion. Building on the ground-breaking discoveries of Early Bronze Age mining in the region by Simon Timberlake and the Early Mines Research Group (see Timberlake 2003) over the last two decades, a programme of excavation focused on the multi-period timber trackway at Llangynfelin, below Erglodd mine, by the Dyfed Archaeological Trust uncovered evidence for Roman mining and smelting on an industrial scale, possibly overseen by the nearby Erglodd Roman fort (Poucher 2009). In 2005, excavations at Darren hillfort (Timberlake and Driver 2006; Timberlake 2007) confirmed exposure of a mineral vein by the builders of the hillfort during ditch construction, although the start of mining on site could not be closely dated. In addition 155

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

excavations at the Abermagwr Romano-British villa near Trawsgoed in 2011 (Driver and Davies 2013) uncovered a simple piece of perforated lead sheet. Isotope analysis, by Keith Haylock at Aberystwyth University, demonstrated the lead had been mined from the nearby Frongoch lode, confirming mid-late Roman exploitation of local metal resources (Driver and Davies 2013, 46).

Increased access forged by past management agreements under agri-environment schemes such as Tir Gofal allowed access to at least one previously private fort in the region, Pen yr Felin Wynt (site 24; see ‘Sites to Visit’ below). A bold regional scheme focused perhaps on a handful of the more prominent or accessible hillforts, particularly those already on or close to footpaths, could capitalise on the region’s fame amongst visitors for walking and outdoor pursuits. Modest expenditure to initiate a signposted ‘tour’ would allow heritage tourists to direct their energies towards prehistoric sites.

Indirect evidence of Iron Age metal working has been known for some years from finds of iron slag at four hillforts in the study area (Pen Dinas Aberystwyth, Odyn Fach, Pen Dinas Elerch and Hen Gaer). Techniques of high-resolution gradiometry have been developed for the recovery of faint buried structures within prehistoric enclosures in south Ceredigion by Mytum and Murphy (Murphy 2004; Murphy and Mytum 2012), and similar high-resolution survey by gradiometer and caesium magnetometer was used for the recovery and interrogation of buried later prehistoric metal-working evidence by Crew (1998, 32-34).

The great success of the Heather and Hillforts Landscape Partnership Scheme focused on the Clwydian hills of Denbighshire shows how a well-funded and well-managed project can promote Iron Age hillforts as symbols for access, recreation, education and even economic regeneration (Mrowiec (ed.) 2011). The regional interest is there. Community excavations at the Abermagwr Romano-British villa in 2010 and 2011 (Driver and Davies 2013), together with public events focused on regional hillforts (Figure 8.20), demonstrate the high levels of public interest in the emerging story of the region’s later prehistoric and Romano-British archaeology.

In 2011 a new joint doctoral study between the Royal Commission and the Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences (IGES), Aberystwyth University, began to examine questions of metal use within the regional hillforts as part of a new programme of sampling. Keith Haylock of IGES employed a hand-held pXRF scanner to undertake gridded sampling across three major uplandedge hillforts (Darren, Castell Grogwynion and Pen Dinas Elerch (Figure 8.18)), with small squares excavated to subsoil depth with Scheduled Monument Consent (Driver and Haylock 2012). The results yielded high values particularly around a low mound of material on the northern terrace of Castell Grogwynion and this was followed up in 2012 by magnetic susceptibility survey by ArchaeoPhysica, funded by the Royal Commission. Initial results suggest well-preserved house platforms on the inner, upper terrace of Castell Grogwynion possibly associated with iron smelting areas (Figure 8.19; Roseveare 2012). This ground sampling work was coupled with three dimensional topographic survey at the same hillforts by Louise Barker of the Royal Commission, to provide a more complete interpretative record.

Only in these ways can something of the physical, cultural and mental achievement that the later prehistoric hillforts of mid Wales represent on the part of their creators, builders and occupiers, be recognised, documented and further interpreted to promote a stronger understanding of the regional Iron Ages of western Britain.

There should be new, concerted efforts to increase public awareness of, and regional pride in, the north Ceredigion hillforts, which represent a valuable, yet entirely underused, cultural resource. Well-funded tourist initiatives to promote the resources of the Ceredigion countryside to those seeking outdoor activities have long overlooked the accessible prehistoric archaeology on their main leaflets and maps (e.g. Pentir Pumlumon 2003). Whilst a plethora of excellent village-based signs under the ‘Spirit of the Miners’ initiative included a generalised narrative on the local history and archaeology, these were not designed to encourage or facilitate site visits. Certain accessible hillforts have considerable potential for informing the public about the relative sophistication and capabilities of Iron Age, and prehistoric, societies.

156

Sites to Visit

Sites to Visit

By far the easiest and most rewarding site to visit is Pen Dinas at Aberystwyth (site 7; NPRN 92236), lying within Open Access land and a Local Nature Reserve with waymarked footpaths approaching from the west (from near Tanybwlch beach), north (from Trefechan) and south-east (from Parc Dinas housing estate above the Tollgate Inn, Penparcau). In summer the south fort can be overgrown with bracken but the views are extensive. The north fort is inaccessible on private farmland.

(particularly from Pontrhydygroes village). However the hillfort lies on private farmland. Some accessible sites are less impressive but may attract the enthusiast. Old Warren Hill (site 13; NPRN 303572) lies in a woodland nature reserve near Nanteos House and while the scale of the earthworks is impressive the site is overgrown. Three sites lie in managed forestry plantations. Coed Allt Fedw (site 19; NPRN 303575) can be disappointing to visit. Cefn Blewog camp (site 25; NPRN 303576) also lies in managed forestry but is overgrown and can be disappointing. Esgair Nant yr Arian (site 50; NPRN 303690) is more impressive but is a long and difficult hike through forestry west of the popular Bwlch Nant yr Arian Forest Visitor Centre.

Several hillforts lie adjacent to well-used footpaths (see the Ordnance Survey Explorer Maps for the area). These include Cnwc y Bugail (site 22; NPRN 302038); also Castell Bach and Castell Mawr at Llanrhystud (sites 3 & 4; NPRNs 300767 & 300768) all of which display vestiges of walling. Tan y Ffordd fort (site 64; NPRN 303570 ) can be seen in woodland from a footpath. Pen-y-Felin-Wynt (Coed Lluest) promontory fort (site 24; NPRN 303569) can be visited from a waymarked path from the A4120 road. The track passing Pen y Gaer, Deri Odwyn (site 8; NPRN 303562) is a public right of way but the denuded hillfort is difficult to see. Penrhyncoch Camp (site 35; NPRN 303591), Caer Lletty-Llwyd (site 36; NPRN 303580) and even Darren Camp (site 38; NPRN 303592) lie on private land but can be well appreciated from adjacent public roads.

Two sites lie on Open Access moorland and can be freely visited, these being Dinas (site 51; NPRN 303697) and the interesting and remote Castell Rhyfel (site 42; NPRN 303624) which is a rewarding walk. Other key hillforts of the region lie far from public footpaths and farms and it can be difficult to obtain permission to visit. The reader is advised to make their own enquiries for these remaining sites. All sites are visited at your own risk and, unless otherwise stated, should be assumed to lie on private farmland. Readers are advised to follow the Countryside Code. The majority of hillforts are Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the care of Cadw and it is against the law to disturb them in any way. Finally, the archaeological collections of the Ceredigion Museum, Terrace Road, Aberystwyth are contained in the Bowen Gallery and this should be an essential visit for anyone making their first trip to the archaeological sites of the region.

Many of the region’s larger or more impressive hillforts are on private farmland. Pen y Castell (site 40; NPRN 303595), together with a low standing stone to the east of the fort, are passed by well-signposted rights of way but the fort is on private land. It can be seen from the Penrhyncoch to Pendam mountain road which passes to the south. Pen Dinas Elerch (site 39; NPRN 101990) can be viewed from a footpath which crosses the moorland to the west, while Castell Bwa Drain (site 47; NPRN 92312) can be seen from a footpath to the east. Castell Grogwynion (site 48; NPRN 303671) lies on the edge of the Coed Maenarthur woodland which is Open Access land and well served by footpaths

157

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Appendix 1 A list of hillforts and later prehistoric defended enclosures in north Ceredigion

Following the convention of the Cardiganshire County History Vol.1, sites are ordered by National Grid Reference, from south-west to north-east. The site list is divided into seven sections, charting the history of site discovery and noting place name sites separately:

4. CASTELL BACH, Llanrhystud. Hillfort. SN 5390 6880. NPRN 300768 (0.6 ha).

A1.1 Sites originally listed in the Cardiganshire County History Vol. 1. A1.2 Sites recorded prior to 1990 but omitted from the Cardiganshire County History (ibid.). A1.3 Post 1990 discoveries A1.4 Place name sites A1.5 Uncertain sites A1.6 Uncertain place name sites A1.7 Rejected sites A1.8 Post 2005 discoveries, made after the completion of the original thesis including cropmark discoveries from the drought summer of 2006

6. BANC-Y-GAER, BLAENPLWYF, Llanfarian. Defended enclosure. SN 5674 7451. NPRN 303891 (0.29 ha).

5. GILFACH-HAFEL, Llanrhystud. Hillfort. SN5590 7005. NPRN 303890 (0.73ha).

7. PEN DINAS, Aberystwyth. Hillfort. SN 5840 8050. NPRN 92236. (1.6, 2.2, 4.7ha). 8. PEN Y GAER, DERI ODWYN, Llanbadarn Odwyn. Hillfort. SN 6399 6083. NPRN 303562 (0.41ha). 9. TRE-COLL, Llanbadarn Odwyn. Hillfort. SN 6415 6228. NPRN 303565 (1.5 ha). 10. CASTELL FLEMISH, Caron-Is-Clawdd. Hillfort. SN65406320. NPRN 303559 (0.8 ha).

‘NPRN’ refers to the unique National Primary Record Number assigned by the Royal Commission as part of its national database of sites and buildings. At the time of publication this database can be queried online at www.coflein.gov.uk while the NPRN can be used to access wider archive content relating to the site records which may include aerial and ground photographs, plans, reports and other records. This archive content is continually being updated.

11. CASTELL, TREGARON (SUNNYHILL WOOD CAMP), Caron-is-clawdd. Hillfort. SN 6870 6020, NPRN 303561. (0.87). 12. CAER ARGOED, Llangwyryfon. Hillfort. SN 6160 7100. NPRN 302037 (0.45ha (main fort) + 0.14 (annex); 1.3 ha total including palisaded annex).

A1.1 Sites originally listed in the Cardiganshire County History Vol. 1 (Davies and Kirby (eds.) 1994)

13. OLD WARREN HILL, NANTEOS, Llanfarian. Hillfort. SN 6150 7890. NPRN 303572 (2.86 ha).

1. TROED-Y-RHIW, Llansantffraed. enclosure. SN 5227 6763. NPRN 300766.

14. NEW CROSS CAMP/CEFN Y CAER, Llanfarian. Hillfort. SN 6280 7720. NPRN 303573 (0.35, 1.5).

Defended

2. Y FOEL, Llanrhystud. Defended enclosure, SN 5430 6930. NPRN 300769. (0.13 ha). 3. CASTELL MAWR, Llanrhystud. SN53706860. NPRN 300767 (1.6 ha).

15. PENYCASTELL, Llanilar. Hillfort; Castle SN 6300 7450. NPRN 303578 (0.45ha).

Hillfort.

158

Appendix 1

16. PENYCASTELL, Llanilar. Defended enclosure. SN 6299 7468. NPRN 400287 (0.27ha).

35. PENRHYNCOCH CAMP; Y GAER, Trefeurig. Hillfort. SN 6580 8400. NPRN 303591. 0.3ha

17. GAER FAWR; PEN Y CAERAU, Llanilar. Hillfort. SN 6490 7190. NPRN 303579 (1.7 ha).

36. CAER LLETTY-LLWYD, Ceulanamaesmawr. Hillfort. SN 6510 8820. NPRN 303580. (1.2 ha)

18. LLWYN Y BRAIN, Trawsgoed. Defended enclosure. SN 6515 7678. NPRN 400281. (0.16ha).

37. CAER LLETTY-LLWYD ENCLOSURE, Ceulanamaesmawr. Enclosure? SN 6501 8835. NPRN 400296, DAT PRN 13045.

19. COED ALLT FEDW; PEN Y GARDDEN, Trawsgoed. Hillfort. SN 6610 7290. NPRN 303575 (0.61ha).

38. DARREN (DAREN FAWR; PEN Y DAREN), Trefeurig. Hillfort. SN 6789 8301. NPRN 303592. (0.55ha)

20. TRAWSGOED PARK, Trawsgoed. Defended enclosure. SN 6770 7362. NPRN 400269. (0.1 ha).

39. PEN DINAS, ELERCH, Ceulanamaesmawr. SN 6772 8767. NPRN 101990. (3ha)

21. CASTELL DISGWYLFA, Trawsgoed. Defended enclosure. SN 6870 7370. NPRN 303564. (0.15ha).

40. PEN Y CASTELL, Ceulanamaesmawr. Hillfort. SN68908480. NPRN 303595 (0.5ha)

22. CNWC Y BUGAIL, Trawsgoed. Hillfort. SN 6875 7400. NPRN 302038. (0.45ha).

41. BANC Y CASTELL, Melindwr. Hillfort. SN 6940 8180. NPRN 303596. (1.7 ha)

23. CASTELL CARREG-WEN, Trawsgoed. Hillfort. SN 6883 7496. NPRN 303567. 0.34 ha.

42. CASTELL RHYFEL, Caron-is-clawdd. Hillfort. SN 7320 5990. NPRN 303624 (0.9ha)

24. PEN-Y-FELIN WYNT (COED LLUEST CAMP), Melindwr. Hillfort. SN 6815 7827. NPRN 303569. (0.51ha)

43. PENYFFRWDLLWYD, Ystrad Meurig. Hillfort. SN 7092 6878. NPRN 300618. (0.4ha)

25. CEFN BLEWOG, Trawsgoed. Hillfort. 7246, NPRN 303576 (0.7, 1.2ha)

SN 6970

44. GARREG LWYD, Gwnnws Isaf. Defended enclosure. SN 7010 6972. NPRN 300629. (0.12 ha)

26. GOGERDDAN ENCLOSURE, Tirymynach. Enclosure. SN 6240 83980. NPRN 86831. (1.7ha) 27. GAERGYWYDD, Tirymynach. Hillfort. SN 6273 8519. DAT PRN 13052.

45. Y GAER, Caron-uwch-clawdd. Defended enclosure. SN 7220 6660. NPRN 300595. (0.5 ha). . 46. PEN Y BANNAU, Ystrad Fflur. Hillfort. SN 7419 6689. NPRN 300704. (1.1 ha)

28. HEN GAER (BRONCASTELLAN), Tirymynach. Hillfort. SN 6330 8440. NPRN 92249. (1.3 ha).

47. CASTELL BWA DRAIN, Melindwr. Hillfort. SN 7130 7950 NPRN 92312. (0.48)

29. GLAN-FFRWD (GLAN FRED), Geneu’r Glyn. Defended enclosure. SN 6350 8780. NPRN 309953. (0.4ha)

48. CASTELL GROGWYNION, Trawsgoed. Hillfort. SN 7210 7249. NPRN 303671.(1.97 ha) 49. CASTELL, Pontarfynach. Defended enclosure? SN 7270 7761. NPRN 403143.

30. CAER PWLL-GLAS, Geneu’r-Glyn. Hillfort. SN 6334 8665. NPRN 303587. (interior encloses 0.8 ha; overall earthworks enclose 1.5 has)

50. ESGAIR NANT-YR-ARIAN, Melindwr. Hillfort. SN 7100 8170. NPRN 303690 (0.57ha).

31. ODYN FACH, Ceulanamaesmawr. Hillfort. SN 6466 8769. NPRN 301880. (0.6 ha)

51. DINAS, Blaenrheidol. Hillfort. SN 7430 8340 NPRN 303697 (0.46ha)

32. CAER ALLT GOCH, Geneu’r Glyn. Hillfort. SN 6410 8840. NPRN 303588 (0.9 ha)

52. CAER PENRHOS (CASTELL PENRHOS), Llanrhystud. Hillfort. SN 5520 6960. NPRN 300770 (4.2ha)

33. BRYNGWYN-MAWR, Ceulanamaesmawr. Hillfort. SN 6501 8680. NPRN 301881 (2.2 ha) 34. CAERAU; CAPEL BANGOR CAMP, Trefeurig. Hillfort. SN 6580 8080. NPRN 303589 (0.79ha)

159

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

A1.2 Sites recorded prior to 1990 but omitted from the Cardiganshire County History Vol. 1.

71. BOW STREET, Tirymynach. Defended enclosure. SN 6230 8430. NPRN 300451 (0.2ha)

53. PANT WILOG, Llansantffraid. Defended enclosure. SN 5209 6698. NPRN 300765. (1.6ha approx.)

72. NEW CROSS ENCLOSURE, Trawsgoed. Enclosure. SN 6331 7695. NPRN 86836. (0.29ha)

54. TYNBEILI, Llanrhystud. Defended enclosure. SN 5637 6910. NPRN 400268. (0.1 ha)

73. LLWYN-BWCH SW. Llanbadarn Odwyn. Defended enclosure, SN 6377 6302. NPRN 308511 (1.0 ha)

55. RUEL UCHAF, Ceulanamaesmawr. Defended enclosure. SN 6199 8600. NPRN 300567. (0.5 ha)

74. BERTH-LWYD ENCLOSURE, Llanilar. Enclosure. SN 6390 7375. NPRN 86837 (0.55ha)

56. GLASGRUG WEST, Llanfarian. Defended enclosure. SN 6256 8038. NPRN 400292. (0.7 ha)

75. PYLLAU-ISAF SOUTH, Trawsgoed. Enclosure. SN 6367 7541. NPRN 400286.

57. GLASGRUG EAST, Llanfarian. Enclosure. SN 6262 8039. NPRN 400293.

76. PYLLAU-ISAF NORTH, Trawsgoed. Enclosure. SN 6376 7562. NPRN 400285. (0.18 ha)

58. PENYCASTELL, Llanilar. Enclosure. SN 6308 7453. NPRN 400288.

77. AFON PEITHYLL, Trefeurig. Enclosure. SN 6395 8264. NPRN 400279 (0.14ha)

59. LLWYN-BWCH WEST, Caron-is-clawdd. Enclosure. SN 6348 6318. NPRN 308512 (0.86 ha)

78. PENUWCH-FAWR, Trawsgoed. Enclosure. SN 6551 7724. NPRN 400280 (0.25ha)

60. TY’N RHOS ENCLOSURE, Tirymynach. Enclosure. SN 6336 8517. NPRN 86834 (0.27 ha)

79. SARNAU FAWR, Trawsgoed. Defended enclosure. SN 6582 7728. NPRN 301886. (0.1ha)

61. BANC Y GWMRYN, Melindwr. Defended enclosure. SN 6389 8204. NPRN 301883 (0.21 ha)

80. ALLTFADOG SOUTH, Trefeurig. Hillfort. SN 6578 8166. NPRN 301885.

62. PENLAN-ISAF, Trawsgoed. Hillfort. SN 6509 7508. NPRN 86839 (0.6 ha)

81. CYNON-FAWR, Trawsgoed. Enclosure. SN 6614 7578. NPRN 301887. (0.37ha)

63. BANC TROED RHIW SEIRI, Trefeurig. Defended enclosure. SN 6771 8561. NPRN 400267 (0.3 ha). Not visited.

82. PANT DRAIN, Trefeurig. Enclosure. SN 6619 8379. NPRN 301882. 83. BANC Y MOR, Trawsgoed. Defended enclosure. SN 6706 7548. NPRN 301888.

64. TAN Y FFORDD, Cwmrheidol. Hillfort. SN 6925 7980. NPRN 303570 (0.54 ha)

84. PANT DA WOOD, NORTH-EAST HILLFORT Melindwr. Hillfort, SN 6705 7906. NPRN 308517 (2.1ha)

A1.3 Post 1990 discoveries 65. PONT DOL-BOETH, Llanrhystud. enclosure. SN 5494 6925. NPRN 300771

Defended

85. CYNCOED CROPMARKS, Melindwr. Enclosure. SN 6726 8072. NPRN 86830

66. COED Y GRIP, Llangwyryfon. Enclosure. SN 5789 7063. NPRN 400291 (0.8 ha)

86. CYNCOED, Melindwr. Defended enclosure. SN 6742 8102. NPRN 300149. (0.28)

67. DYFFRYN CLARACH, Tirymynach. Enclosure. SN 6060 8420. NPRN 90564

87. CWM RHYDYFELIN, Trawsgoed. Defended enclosure. SN 6789 7252. NPRN 86838 (1.1 ha)

68. BRYNCHWYTH EAST, Llangwyryfon. Hillfort. SN 6157 7166. NPRN 300150. (1.2 ha)

88. GILFACH Y DWN FAWR, Ystrad Fflur. Hillfort. SN 7340 6480 . NPRN 90527 (1.1 ha)

69. TROEDRHIWGWINIAU, Faenor. Enclosure. SN 6176 8211. NPRN 301884 (0.17ha)

A1.4 Place name sites 89. PEN-Y-GAER, Llangwyryfon. Place name. SN 5830 7037. NPRN 403292

70. TYDDYN, Geneu’r Glyn. Defended enclosure. SN 6219 8704. NPRN 300452. (0.1 ha)

160

Appendix 1

90. CAERLLUGEST, Llangeitho. Place name. SN 6150 6176. DAT PRN 6145.

GAER FAWR II, Llanilar. Enclosure. SN 654 719. PRN 11828.

91. HEN GAER, Llanfarian. Place name. SN 6380 7930. DAT PRN 1991.

MOEL Y GAER; MOEL Y GARN, Ceulanamaesmawr. Hillfort? SN 692 911. PRN 6099.

92. CAE-CASTELL, Llanilar. Place name. SN 650 735. DAT PRN 12279

A1.8 Post 2005 discoveries, made after the completion of the original thesis including cropmark discoveries from the drought summer of 2006

93. BWN BRYNCASTELL, Ceulanamaesmawr. Place name. SN 694 857. DAT PRN 26581

105. COED TY’N Y CWM, Trawsgoed. Hillfort. SN 6909 7375. NPRN 403238.

94. PEN-RHIW-GAER, Blaenrheidol. Place name. SN 7250 7903. DAT PRN 10009.

106. YNYSCAPEL DEFENDED ENCLOSURE, Ceulanamaesmawr. SN6438090550. NPRN 86833

95. CASTELL-BANC-Y-MOR, Trawsgoed. Place name. SN 6683 7512. DAT PRN 6163

107. GOGERDDAN PARK ENCLOSURE, Trefeurig. Enclosure. SN 62648378. NPRN 404548.

96. CASTELL, Ystrad Fflur. Place name. SN 7544 7007. DAT PRN 12875

108. GLAN-Y-MOR ENCLOSURE, Enclosure. SN 59118404. NPRN 404549.

97. TAN-Y-CASTELL, Llangwyryfon. Place name. SN 6045 6795. DAT PRN 6132.

Tirymynach.

109. BRYNLLYS ENCLOSURE, Geneu’r Glyn. Defended enclosure. SN 62018863. NPRN 404551.

A1.5 Uncertain sites 110. CWRT ENCLOSURE, Trefeurig. enclosure. SN 6434 8503. NPRN 404645

98. ALLT MAI, Llanfarian. Enclosure? SN 5937 7667. NPRN 400290.

Defended

99. TY’N-Y-LLECHWEDD, Geneu’r Glyn. Enclosure? SN 62368738. NPRN 401086

111. CYNNULL-MAWR ENCLOSURE, Ceulanamaesmawr. Defended enclosure. SN 6532 8752. NPRN 404646

100. PENUWCH-FAWR WEST, Enclosure? SN 6477 7726. NPRN 400283.

Trawsgoed.

112. TAN-YR-ALLT, ABERMAGWR, Trawsgoed. Defended enclosure. SN 66527417. NPRN 405316

101. ABERMAGWR ROMAN VILLA; FORMERLY RECORDED AS NANT MAGWR (WEIR), Trawsgoed. SN 6687 7419. NPRN 400289

113. LOVESGROVE ENCLOSURE, Melindwr. Defended enclosure. SN 6316 8089. NPRN 408573 114. PENGARREG DEFENDED ENCLOSURE, Llanrhystud. Defended enclosure. SN 5333 6971. NPRN 408819.

102. BROGININ ENCLOSURE, Trefeurig. Enclosure. SN 6583 8460. NPRN 402338. 103. DISGWYLFA FACH HILLFORT, Blaenrheidol. Hillfort. SN 7411 8414. PRN 37173 & PRN 37174

115. PANT DA WOOD, SOUTH-WEST HILLFORT, Melindwr. Hillfort. SN 6699 7894. NPRN 418197. (0.4 ha).

104. BRENAN ENCLOSURE, Trawsgoed. Enclosure. SN 6452 7662. NPRN 86835.

116. COED TROEDRHIWLWBA DEFENDED ENCLOSURE, Melindwr. Defended enclosure. SN6677 7969. NPRN 418198. (0.5 ha)

A1.6 UNCERTAIN PLACE-NAME SITES (NOT FORMALLY RECORDED IN RCAHMW DATABASE) CLODDIAU, Ystrad Meurig. SN 721 689. BRYN Y CASTELL, Tirymynach. SN 618847. A17 Rejected sites CASTELL, PANT MAWR, Llanfarian. Motte and Bailey. SN61107560. NPRN 303571

161

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Tailpiece: Caer Lletty Llwyd, in the foreground, with its curving terraces picked out by a light dusting of snow. Aerial view looking east along the line of the mountain pass which climbs the slopes behind the hillfort to the plateau beyond, home to Pen Dinas, Elerch, in the distance. See section 7.5.2 above (Crown Copyright RCAHMW, AP_2010_4286).

162

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Bevan, B. ed., 1999. Northern Exposure: interpretative devolution and the Iron Ages in Britain. Leicester Archaeology Monographs, No 4.

Bibliography Armit, I., 1997. Cultural landscapes and identities: a case study in the Scottish Iron Age. In: Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 248-253.

Bewley, R. H., 1994. Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement on the Solway Plain, Cumbria. Oxbow Monograph 36.

- 1999. Life After Hownam: the Iron Age in south-east Scotland. In: Bevan, ed., 65-80. -

Bick, D. E., 1976. The Old Metal Mines of Mid-Wales, Part 3 Cardiganshire – North of Goginan. The Pound House, Newent.

2007. Hillforts at War: From Maiden Castle to Taniwaha Pa. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73, 25-37.

Bick, D. and Wyn Davies, P. 1994. Lewis Morris and the Cardiganshire Mines. The National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth.

Arnold, B. and Blair Gibson, D. eds., 1996. Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State. Cambridge University Press. 2nd Edition.

Bird, A. J., 1972. The Menhir in Cardiganshire. Ceredigion, Vol. VIII, 40-49.

Austin, D. Bell, M. Burnham, B. and Young, R., 1984-86. The Caer Cadwgan Project Interim Reports. Archaeology Unit, St. David’s University College, Lampeter. Unpublished.

Blair-Gibson, D., 1996. Chiefdoms, confederacies and statehood in early Ireland. In: Arnold and Blair-Gibson, eds., 116-128.

Avery, M., 1976. Hillforts of the British Isles: A Student’s Introduction. In: Harding, ed., 1-58.

Boon, G. C. and Lewis, J. M., 1976. Welsh Antiquity. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.

- 1993a. Pen Dinas. In: Avery, Volume II, Appendix A, The Evidence of Individual Sites, 255-263.

Bowden, M. and McOmish, D. 1987. The required barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review, 4, 76-84.

- 1993b. Hillfort Defences of Southern Britain, BAR British Series 231, (three volumes).

- 1989. Little boxes; more on hillforts. Scottish Archaeological Review, 6, 76-84. Bowen, D. Q., 1994. The Land of Cardiganshire. In: Davies and Kirby, eds., 3-20.

Barker, G., 1989. Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge University Press: 2nd Edition.

Bowen, E.G., 1957. Race and Culture, In: Bowen, ed., 131-140.

Barker, L., 2009. Gaer Fawr Hillfort: An analysis of the earthworks. RCAHMW Research Report. Unpublished.

- 1970. Britain and the British Seas. In: Moore, D., ed., 13-28.

Barker, L. and Driver, T., 2011. Close to the Edge: New Perspectives on the Architecture, Function and Regional Geographies of the Coastal Promontory Forts of the Castlemartin Peninsula, South Pembrokeshire, Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 77, 65-87.

Bowen, E. G. ed., 1957. Wales, A Physical, Historical and Regional Geography. Methuen and Co Ltd, London. Bradley, R., 1984. The social foundations of prehistoric Britain, themes and variations in the archaeology of power. Longman: London.

Bell, M., 1998. [Review of] Cardiganshire County History, Vol. 1: From the Earliest Times to the Coming of the Normans. Ed. By J.L. Davies and D. P. Kirby. Archaeologia Cambrensis, CXLV (1996), 176-177. Bersu, Dr. G. and Griffiths, W. E., 1949. Concentric Circles at Llwyn-Du Bach, Penygroes, Caernarvonshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis, 100 (2), 173206. Bevan, B., 1997. Bounding the landscape: place and identity during the Yorkshire Wolds Iron Age. In: in Gwilt and Haslegrove, eds., 181-191.

163

-

1990. The Passage of Arms: an archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and other votive deposits. Cambridge.

-

1993. Altering the Earth, the origins of monuments in Britain and continental Europe. The Rhind Lectures 1991-92. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Monograph Series Number 8: Edinburgh.

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Cambrian News and Welsh Farmers Gazette, August 25th, 1933. National Library of Wales microfiche, C16 14/4/89. Unpublished.

Briggs, C. S. 1994., The Bronze Age. In: Davies and Kirby, eds., 124-218. Briggs, C. S. ed., 1997. A Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement and Burial Complex at Llanilar, Ceredigion. Archaeologia Cambrensis, Vol. CXLVI, 1359.

Cardiganshire Antiquarian Society (The), 1967. Annual Report for 1967: The Archaeological Section. Ceredigion, Volume V, Number 4, 443.

- 2003. Towards a Research Agenda for Welsh Archaeology: Proceedings of the IFA Wales/Cymru Conference, Aberystwyth 2001. BAR British Series, 343.

Carter, Professor. H. ed., 1989. National Atlas of Wales. University of Wales Press for the Social Science Committee, Board of Celtic Studies, University of Wales.

Britnell, W., 1989. The Collfryn Hillslope Enclosure, Llansantffraid Deuddwr, Powys: Excavations 1980-2. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 55, 89-134.

Caseldine, A. E., 2003. Environmental archaeology in Wales: potential and priorities. In: Briggs, ed., 7178.

Britnell, W. J. and Musson, C. R., 1984. Rescue Excavation of a Romano-British Double-Ditched Enclosure at Arddleen, Llandrinio, Northern Powys. Archaeologia Cambrensis, Vol. CXXXIII, 91-99.

Caseldine, A. E. and Murphy, K., 1989. A Bronze Age Burnt Mound on Troedrhiwgwinau Farm, near Aberystwyth, Dyfed. Archaeology in Wales, 29, 1-5. Cassell, 1999. The Cassell Dictionary and Thesaurus. Cassell.

Broadbent, G., 1980. The deep structures of architecture. In: Broadbent, Bunt and Jencks, eds., Signs, Symbols and Architecture. Wiley, Chichester. Brown, I. 2009. Beacons in the Landscape: the hillforts of England and Wales. Oxford: Windgather.

Chadwick, A., 1999. Digging Ditches, but Missing Riches? Ways into the Iron Age and RomanoBritish cropmark landscapes of the north midlands. In: Bevan, ed., 149-171.

Browne, D. and Driver, T., 2001. Bryngaer Pen Dinas Hill-fort, A Prehistoric Fortress at Aberystwyth. RCAHMW.

Champion, T., 1987. The European Iron Age: Assessing the State of the Art. Scottish Archaeological Review, Vol. 4. Part 2, 98-107.

Browne, D. and Hughes, S., 2003. The Archaeology of the Welsh Uplands. RCAHMW.

Champion, T. and Collis, J. eds., 1996. The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends. University of Sheffield.

Brun, P., 1993. East-west relations in the Paris Basin during the Late Bronze Age. In: Scarre and Healy, eds., 171-182.

Cherry, J., Scarre, C. and Shennan, S. eds. 2004. Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew. MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Buckland, P. C. Parker Pearson, M. Wigley, A. and Girling, M., 2001. Is there anybody out there? A reconsideration of the environmental evidence from the Breiddin hillfort, Powys, Wales. The Antiquaries Journal, Volume 81, 51-76.

Children, G. and Nash, G., 1994. Monuments in the Landscape Volume 1: A Guide to Prehistoric Sites in Herefordshire. Logaston Press.

Burnham, B., and Davies, J. (eds.) 2010. Roman Frontiers in Wales and the Marches. RCAHMW, Aberystwyth

Coles, B. J., 1994. Trisantona Rivers: A Landscape Approach to the Interpretation of River Names. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 13 (3), 196-212.

Burnham, H., 1995. A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales: Clwyd and Powys. Cadw, London HMSO.

Collens, J., 1988. Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in the Upper Severn Valley. PhD thesis (two volumes), Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Birmingham. Unpublished.

Burrow, I., 1981. Hillfort and Hill-top Settlement in Somerset in the First to Eight Centuries AD. BAR British Series, 91. Cadw, 1988. Scheduled Ancient Monument Record; SAM Visit Description Text for CD012 [Castell Grogwynion]. Unpublished.

Collis, J. R. ed., 1977. The Iron Age in Britain: a review. Sheffield: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology.

164

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Collis, J., 1977. An approach to the Iron Age. In: Collis, ed., The Iron Age in Britain: a review. Sheffield: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology. 1-7.

- 2001. Facing the Ocean, The Atlantic and its Peoples, 8000BC – AD 1500. Oxford University Press.

- 1994. The Iron Age. In: Vyner, ed., 123-148.

2005. Iron age communities in Britain: an account of England, Scotland and Wales from the seventh century BC until the Roman conquest. 4th Edition. Routledge: Abingdon

- 1996. Hill-forts, enclosures and boundaries. In: Champion and Collis, eds., 87-94. - 2010. Why do we still dig Iron Age ramparts? In: FICHTL (St.) dir. - Murus Celticus. Architecture et Fonctions des Remparts de l’âge du Fer. Actes du colloque organisé par l’UMR 7044 de Strasbourg, l’UMR 6173-CITERES de Tours et Bibracte, à Glux-en-Glenne les 11 et 12 Octobre 2006, Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte, 2010, p. 27-35 (Bibracte; 19).

Cunliffe, B. and Miles, D., 1984. Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain. University of Oxford: Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 2.

Crane, P., 2000. Porth y Rhaw, Coastal Promontory Fort, Solva, Pembrokeshire: Archaeological Excavations 1995-1998, Draft Report, Project Record No. 30942, SAM Pemb 273, March 2000. Archaeoleg Cambria Archaeology, Llandeilo. Unpublished.

Dark, K., 1991. 1990 Interim Report on the Excavation at Brawdy Hill-fort, Dyfed, Wales. Unpublished.

Cunliffe, B. And Koch, J. T., eds. 2010. Celtic from the West. Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Davies, J. L., 1976. Erglodd, nr. Talybont (SN 653 903) & Pen Llwyn, Capel Bangor (SN 650 806). Archaeology in Wales, 16, 31.

Creighton, J., 2001. The Iron Age-Roman Transition. In: James and Millett, eds., 4-11.

- 1994a. Appendix II: Iron Age Finds. In: Davies and Kirby, eds., 271-274.

Crew, P., 1998. Excavations at Crawcwellt West, Merioneth, 1990-1998. A late prehistoric upland iron-working settlement. Archaeology in Wales, 38, 2235.

- 1994b. The Roman period. In: Davies and Kirby, eds., 275-317. - 2000. Roman Wales: An Introduction. In: Arnold, C. J. and Davies, J. L., Roman and Early Medieval Wales. Sutton Publishing, 1-140.

Cunliffe, B., 1971. Some aspects of Hill-forts and their cultural environments. In: Hill and Jesson, eds., 53-69. - 1974. Iron age communities in Britain: an account of England, Scotland and Wales from the seventh century BC until the Roman conquest. Book Club Associates: London (1975 edition).

Davies, J. L. and Hogg, A. H. A., 1994. The Iron Age. In: Davies and Kirby, eds., 219-233.

- 1978. Iron Age Communities in Britain. 2nd Edition, London.

Davies, J. L. and Kirby, D. P. eds., 1994. Cardiganshire County History. Volume 1, From the earliest times to the coming of the Normans. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

- 1984a. Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 1, The excavations, 19691978: the site. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52.

Davies, J. L. and Lynch, F., 2000. The Late Bronze and Iron Age. In: Lynch, F. Aldhouse-Green, S. and Davies, J.L., Prehistoric Wales. Sutton Publishing, 139219.

- 1984b., Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 2, The excavations 19691978: The finds. CBA Research Report, No. 52. Council for British Archaeology.

Davies, J. L. and Jones, R. H. 2006. Roman Camps in Wales and the Marches. University of Wales Press: Cardiff. Davies, J. L., and Driver, T. G., 2011. Abermagwr (SN 6688 7416), Britannia, Vol. 42, 320-21.

- 1991. Iron age communities in Britain: an account of England, Scotland and Wales from the seventh century BC until the Roman conquest. 3rd Edition. Routledge: Abingdon

Davies, J. L., and Driver, T. G., 2012. The First Roman Villa in Ceredigion: A summary report on the discovery and excavation of a late Romano-British villa at

- 1993. Danebury. Batsford/English Heritage.

165

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Abermagwr, near Aberystwyth, 2010-11, Ceredigion Vol. XVI, Number 3 (2011), 1-15.

- 2004d. Cnwc y Bugail, Coed Ty’n-y-cwm, Trawsgoed, Ceredigion. A new sketch survey of a complex small hillfort in north Ceredigion. Unpublished.

Dixon, P., 1994. Crickley Hill, volume 1: The Hillfort Defences. Crickley Hill Trust and the Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham.

- 2004e. A previously unrecorded hillfort at Pen’r-allt, Llanidloes, Montgomeryshire. Archaeology in Wales, 44 (2004). 81-3

Dodgshon, R. A., 1994. Early Society and Economy. In: Davies and Kirby, eds., 343-364.

- 2005. The hillforts of north Ceredigion: Architecture, Landscape Setting and Cultural

- 1996. Modelling chiefdoms in the Scottish Highlands and islands prior to the ’45. In: Arnold and Blair Gibson, eds., 99-109.

Contexts, PhD thesis, University of Wales, Lampeter. Unpublished.

- 1998a. From Chiefs to Landlords, Social and Economic Change in the Western Highlands and Island, c. 1493-1820. Edinburgh University Press. - 1998b. Society in Time and Space, A Geographical Perspective on Change. Cambridge University Press. Dresser, Q., 1987. Radiocarbon dating at Caer Cadwgan. In: Lampeter., 1987, 11- 12.

-

2006. New surveys of two Iron Age hillforts in north Ceredigion. Archaeology in Wales 45 (2005), 94-98.

-

2007a. Pembrokeshire: Historic Landscapes from the Air. RCAHMW, Aberystwyth.

-

2007b. RCAHMW Aerial Reconnaissance 2006, Archaeology in Wales 46. 143-152.

-

2008. Hillforts and Human Movement: Unlocking the Iron Age Landscapes of Mid Wales. In Fleming, A. & Hingley, R. (eds). Prehistoric and Roman Landscapes, Landscape History after Hoskins, Volume I. Bollington: Windgather Press, 83-100.

-

2009. Barrows, Cropmarks and Lewis Morris: An Early Bronze Age ritual complex discovered at Dollwen, Goginan, Ceredigion. Ceredigion, Volume XVI, Number 1, 1-21.

-

Driver, T. G. 2011. The Hillforts. In: Mrowiec, H. (ed.), 18-23.

-

Driver, T., In preparation. New perspectives on the architecture and function of Welsh hillforts and defended settlements. In: Murphy, K. (ed.) Iron Age settlement in Wales. Publisher TBC.

Driver, T. G., 1996a. Darren Hillfort, Trefeurig (SN 678 830), Ceredigion. Archaeology in Wales, 36, 61. - 1996b. Darren Hillfort, Ceredigion. Draft report on cleaning and recording of erosion feature at west entrance. Unpublished. - 1998a. Llandre, Geneu’r Glyn (SN 626 862). Archaeology in Wales, 38, 94-95. - 1998b. Pen Dinas, Ceulanamaesmawr. Archaeology in Wales, 38, 94. - 2002. Castell Grogwynion: a complex Iron Age stronghold in mid Wales. New survey results 2002. Unpublished. - 2003. Archaeological aerial reconnaissance – a strategy for the future. In: Briggs, ed., 187-192. - 2004a. Long Hot Summer Reveals Cropmarks Along Western Coasts. Council for British Archaeology, Wales/Cymru, Newsletter 27, Spring 2004, 8-10.

Driver, T. and Charnock, R., 2001. Prehistoric flint finds from Plas Gogerddan, near Aberystwyth, Ceredigion. Studia Celtica, XXXV, 341-350. Driver, T. And Davies, J.L. 2013. Abermagwr RomanoBritish villa, Ceredigion, mid Wales: Interim report on its discovery and excavation. Archaeologia Cambrensis 160 (2011), 39-49.

- 2004b. Extending the Iron Age in Western Montgomeryshire. Council for British Archaeology, Wales/Cymru, Newsletter 28, Autumn 2004, 2-3.

Driver, T. G. and Davis, O. P. 2012. Historic Wales from the Air, Images from the National Monuments Record of Wales. RCAHMW, Aberystwyth.

- 2004c. RCAHMW aerial reconnaissance: List of major discoveries. Archaeology in Wales, 43, 70-73.

166

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Driver, T. And Haylock, K. 2012. X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) scanning of three iron age hillforts in Ceredigion 2011-12, Interim report of fieldwork for Cadw, May 2012. Unpublished.

Forde, C. D., Griffiths, W. E., Hogg, A. H. A. and Houlder, C. H., 1963. Excavations at Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth, Archaeologia Cambrensis, Vol. CXII, 125153.

Driver, T. G. and Knisely-Marpole, R., 2000. Ruel Uchaf, Ceulan-a-Maesmor, Aberystwyth (SN 649 867). Archaeology in Wales, 40, 72-73.

Fowler, P. J., 1983. The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. Cambridge University Press. 2nd edition. Fox, A. F., 1960. Southwestern hill-forts. In: Frere, ed., 35-60.

Dunham, S. B., 1996. Caesar’s perception of Gallic social structures. In: Arnold and Blair Gibson, eds., 110115.

Frere, S. S. ed., 1960. Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain. London, Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Papers 11. Reprinted 1977.

Dyfed Archaeological Trust., 1986. Talybont-Llanbadarn Fawr Gas Pipe-line. Archaeology in Wales, 26, 32.

Frodsham, P., Hedley, I., and Young, R. 2007. Putting the neighbours in their place? Displays of position and possession in northern Cheviot ‘hillfort’ design. In: Haselgrove, C. and Moore, T., eds., 250-265.

Earle, T. K., 1987. Chiefdoms in Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 279-308. -

1991a. The evolution of chiefdoms. In: Earle, ed., 1-15.

-

1991b. Property rights and the evolution of chiefdoms. In: Earle, ed., 71-99.

Gale, F., 1991. The Iron Age. In: Manley, J. Grenter, S. and Gale, F. The Archaeology of Clwyd. Clwyd Archaeology Service: Clwyd County Council.

Earle, T. K. ed., 1991. Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, W. 1926. Presidential Address. The Native Hillforts in North Wales and Their Defences. Archaeologia Cambrensis, Vol. LXXXI, Part II, Seventh Series, Vol. VI, 221-282.

Edis, J. Macleod, D. and Bewley, R. H., 1989. An Archaeologist’s Guide to the Classification of Crop Marks and Soil Marks. Antiquity, 63, 112-26.

Gelling, P. S. and Stanford, S. C., 1965. Dark Age Pottery or Iron Age Ovens?, Transactions of the Birmingham Archaeological Society, 82, 77-91.

Eurfyl, J. and Jones, J., 1930. Fairs in Cardiganshire. Transactions of the Cardiganshire Antiquarian Society, VII, 94-111.

Gibson, A. and Wood, A., 1990. Prehistoric pottery for the archaeologist. Leicester University Press. Giles, M. and Parker Pearson, M., 1999. Learning to Live in the Iron Age: dwelling and praxis. In: Bevan, ed., 217-231.

Evans, J. Wyn, undated [submitted 1967/8]. A description of the hillforts and enclosures in north Cardiganshire. University of Wales, Cardiff, Arts and Social Sciences Library. Unpublished undergraduate thesis.

Grant, I., 2004. The Excavation of a Double-ditched Enclosure at Arddleen, Powys, 2002-03. Montgomeryshire Collections, 92, 1-31.

Ferrell, J. 1997. Space and society in the Iron Age of north-east England. In: Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 228238.

Green, M. and Howell, R., 2000. A Pocket Guide to Celtic Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press/The Western Mail.

Fitzpatrick, A.P., 1997. Everyday Life in Iron Age Wessex. In: Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 73-86.

Grooms, C. 1993. The Giants of Wales: Cewri Cymru. Welsh Studies Volume 10. Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Fleming, A., 2004. Hail to the Chiefdom? The Quest for Social Archaeology. In: Cherry, J., Scarre, C. and Shennan, S. eds., 141-147.

Guilbert, G., 1975a. Moel y Gaer, 1973: an area excavation on the defences. Antiquity, Vol. XLIX, 109117.

Fleure, H. J., 1915. Archaeological Problems of the West Coast of Britain. Archaeologia Cambrensis, Vol. XV, 6th Series, 405-420.

- 1975b. Planned hillfort interiors. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 41, 203-21.

- 1922. An outline story of our neighbourhood. Aberystwyth Studies, Vol. IV, 111-123.

167

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

- 1979. The Guard-chamber Gateways at Dinorben and Moel Hiraddug Hill-forts, and the problem of Dating the Type in North Wales. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, Vol. XXVIII, Part 1, 516-520.

Haselgrove, C. Armit, I. Champion, T. Creighton, J. Gwilt, A. Hill, J.D. Hunter, F. and Woodward, A., 2001. Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action. A report for the Iron Age Research Seminar and the Council of the Prehistoric Society.

- 1981. Hill-fort functions and populations: a sceptical viewpoint. In: Guilbert, G. ed., HillFort Studies, Essays for A.H.A. Hogg. Leicester University Press, 104-121.

Haselgrove, C. and Moore, T. 2007. New narratives of the Later Iron Age’. In: Haselgrove, C. and Moore, eds., 1-15. Haselgrove, C. and Moore, T., (eds.), 2007. The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Guilbert, G. and Morris, E., 1979. Montgomeryshire, Cefn Carnedd. Archaeology in Wales, 19, 19.

Haselgrove, C. and Pope, R. (eds.), 2007. The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near Continent. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Gwilt, A., 1997. Popular practices from material culture: a case study of the Iron Age settlement at Wakerley, Northamptonshire. In: Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 167-173.

Hawkes, C. F. C., 1931. Hill-forts. Antiquity, 5, 60-97. - 1959. The ABC of the British iron age. Antiquity, 33, 170-82.

- 2003. Understanding the Iron Age: towards agenda for Wales. In: Briggs, ed., 105-122. -

Henderson, J.C. 2007. The Atlantic Iron Age, settlement and identity in the first millennium BC. Routledge, Abingdon.

2007. Silent Silures? Locating people and places in the Iron Age of south Wales. In: Haselgrove, C. and Moore, T., eds., 297-328.

Herity, M., 1970. The Early Prehistoric Period Around the Irish Sea. In: Moore, D. ed., 29-37.

Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. eds., 1997. Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, New approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxbow Monograph 71.

Hill, D. and Jesson, M., 1971. The Iron Age and its Hillforts. Southampton University Archaeology Society for the Department of Archaeology, Universityof Southampton.

Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C., 1997. Approaching the Iron Age. In: Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 1-8.

Hill, J. D., 1989. Re-thinking the Iron Age. Scottish Archaeological Review, Vol. 6, 16-24.

Hamilton, S. and Manley, J., 1997. Points of View, Prominent Enclosures in 1st Millennium BC Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 135, 93-122.

- 1995. How Should We Understand Iron Age Societies and Hillforts? A Contextual Study from Southern Britain. In: Hill and Cumberpatch, eds., 45-60.

Hamilton, S. and Manley, J. 2001. Hillforts, Monumentality and Place: A Chronological and Topographic Review of First Millennium BC Hillforts of South-East England. European Journal of Archaeology, Vol.4 (1). 7-42. Hancox, N., 1999. Recent finds Ceredigion, Vol. XIII, No.3, 5-17.

in

- 1996a. Weaving the strands of a new Iron Age. British Archaeology, 17, September 1996, 8-9.

Ceredigion.

- 1996b. Hillforts and the Iron Age of Wessex. In: Champion and Collis, eds., 95-116.

Harding, D. W. ed., 1976. Hillforts: Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and Ireland. Academic Press.

-

Haselgrove, C., 1986. An Iron Age Community and its Hillfort: The excavations of Danebury, Hampshire, 1969-79. A Review. Archaeological Journal, 143, 363369.

2006. Are we any closer to understanding how later Iron Age societies worked (or did not work)? In: Haselgrove (ed.), Celtes et Gaulois. L’Archeologie face a l’Histoire. Les mutations de la fin de l’age du Fer, 16979, Glux-en-Glenne: Collection Bibracte 12/4

- 1999. Iron Age Societies in Central Britain: retrospect and prospect. In: Bevan, ed., 253-278.

Hill, J. D. and Cumberpatch, C. G. eds., 1995. Different Iron Ages, Studies on the Iron Age in Temperate Europe. BAR International Series 602, BAR Publishing.

168

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Hillfort Study Group, 2002. Visit to Northumberland National Park, 26th-28th April 2002, Discovering our hillfort heritage. Northumberland National Park. Unpublished.

- 1933. Some Observations on Hill-top Camps. Transactions of the Cardiganshire Antiquarian Society, Vol. IX, 12-25. Hughes, P. D. M. Morriss, S. H. Schulz, J. and Barber, K. E., 2001. Mire Development and Human Impact in the Teifi Valley: Evidence from the Tregaron (Cors Caron) Peatlands. In: Walker and McCarroll, eds., 76-92.

Hingley, R., 1984. Towards Social Analysis in Archaeology: Celtic Society in the Iron Age of the Upper Thames Valley (400-0BC). In: Cunliffe and Miles, eds., 72-88.

Jackson, D., 1999. Variation in the Size Distribution of Hillforts in the Welsh Marches and its Implication for Social Organisation. In: Bevan, ed., 197-216.

Hingley, R., 1997. Iron, ironworking and regeneration: a study of the symbolic meaning of metalworking in Iron Age Britain. In: Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 9-18.

James, H., 1987. Excavations at Caer, Bayvil, 1979. Archaeologia Cambrensis 136, 51-76.

Hodson, F. R., 1960. Reflections on the “ABC of the British Iron Age”. Antiquity, 34, 318-19.

James, S. and Millett, M., 2001. Britons and Romans: adavancing an archaeological agenda. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 125.

- 1964. Cultural grouping within the British preRoman iron age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 30, 99-110.

James, T., 1984. Aerial Reconnaissance in Dyfed, 1984. Archaeology in Wales, 24, 12-24.

Hogg, A. H. A., 1962. List of Hill-forts in Cardiganshire. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, Vol. XIX, Part IV, 354-366.

- 1990. Concentric antenna enclosures – a new defended enclosure type in west Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 56, 295298.

- 1971a. A Promontory Fort at Tre-Coll, Llanbadarn Odwyn. Ceredigion, 6.4, 436-7. - 1971b. Some applications of surface fieldwork. In: Hill and Jesson, eds., 105-125.

Jenkins, D. Jones, E. Hughes, T. and Owen, T. M., 1962. Welsh Rural Communities. University of Wales Press, Cardiff.

- 1972. The Size-Distribution of Hill-Forts in Wales and the Marches. In: Lynch and Burgess, eds., 293-306. - 1975. Hill-forts of MacGibbon, London.

Britain.

Johnston, R. and Roberts, J. G., 2003. Inhabiting the landscapes of later prehistory. In: Briggs, ed., 99-103.

Hart-Davis,

Jones, E., 1962. Tregaron, The Sociology of a Market Town in Central Cardiganshire. In: Jenkins et. al., 67117.

- 1979. British Hill-forts, An Index. Occasional Papers of the Hill-fort Study Group No. 1. BAR British Series, 62.

Jones, J. A. A. and Taylor, J. A., 1989. Climate. In: Carter, ed., 1.4.

- 1994. The hillforts and later prehistoric settlements. In: Davies and Kirby, eds., 234-238.

Karl, R. 2010. The Celts from Everwhere and Nowhere. A Re-Evaluation of the Origins of the Celts and the Emergence of Celtic Cultures. In: Cunliffe and Koch, eds. 39-64.

Hogg, A. H. A. and Davies, J. L., 1994. Appendix I: Gazetteer of Hillforts and Enclosures. In: Davies and Kirby, eds., 239-271.

Kristiansen, K., 1991. Chiefdoms, states, and systems of social evolution. In: Earle, ed., 16-43.

Hopewell, D., 1993. Tre’r Ceiri Conservation Project. Archaeology in Wales, 33, 49-50. Houlder, C., 1976. Wales: An Archaeological Guide, the prehistoric, Roman and early medieval field monuments. Faber and Faber Limited: London. Hughes, I.T. 1926. A Regional Survey of North Cardiganshire Prehistoric Earthworks, Transactions of the Cardiganshire Antiquarian Society, IV, 22-56.

169

-

1998a. Europe before History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-

1998b. Chiefdoms, States and Systems of Social Evolution. In: Kristiansen and Rowlands, 243-267.

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Kristiansen, K. and Rowlands, M., 1998. Social Transformations in Archaeology, Global and Local Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Moore, P. D., 1994. The History of Vegetation in Cardiganshire. In: Davies and Kirby, eds., 26-42. Morgan, G., 1997. A Welsh House and its Family, The Vaughans of Trawsgoed. Gomer.

Lampeter, University of Wales., 1987. The Caer Cadwgan Project, Interim Report 1986. Unpublished.

Manning, W. H., 1999. The Use of Timber in Iron Age Defences. Studia Celtica, Vol. XXXIII, 21-32.

Morris, E. L., 1981. Ceramic Exchange in Western Britain: A preliminary review. In: Howard and Morris, eds. Production and Distribution: a Ceramic Viewpoint, BAR. International Series 120: Oxford, 67-81. - 1985. Prehistoric salt distributions: two case studies from western Britain. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 32, 336-379. - 1994. Production and Distribution of Pottery and Salt in Iron Age Britain: a Review. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 60, 371-393. Morriss, S., 2001. Recent human impact and land use Ireland: a pollen analytical change in Britain and and geochemical study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton.

- 2001. A Pocket Guide to Roman Wales, Cardiff. University of Wales Press/The Western Mail.

Mrowiec, H. (ed.), 2011. Heather and Hillforts of the Clwydian Range and Llantysilio Mountains. Denbighshire County Council.

Lias, A., 1994. A Guide to Welsh Place-Names. Welsh Heritage Series No. 3: Gwasg Carreg Gwalch. Lock, G. 2011. Hillforts, Emotional Metaphors, and the Good Life: a Response to Armit. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 77, 355-362. Lynch, F. Aldhouse-Green, S. and Davies, J. L., 2000. Prehistoric Wales. Sutton Publishing. Lynch, F. and Burgess, C. eds., 1972. Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West, essays in honour of Lily f Chitty. Adams and Dart, Bath.

Matthews, K. J., 1999. The Iron Age of North-west England and Irish Sea Trade. In: Bevan, ed., 173-195. McGrail, S., 1993. Prehistoric seafaring in the channel. In: Scarre and Healy, eds., 199-210. Megaw, J. V. S. and Simpson, D. D. A., 1992. Introduction to British prehistory; from the arrival of homo sapiens to the Claudian invasion. Leicester University Press, Fifth impression. Melvyn Howe, G., 1957. Weather and Climate. In: Bowen, ed., 53-94.

Murphy, K., 1985. Excavations at Penycoed, Llangynog, Dyfed 1983. The Carmarthenshire Antiquary, Vol. XXI, 75-111. Odyn-Fach Enclosure, 1989. Ceulanymaesmawr (SN 648 877) DAT PRN 7463. Archaeology in Wales, 29, 43-44. 1992. Plas Gogerddan, Dyfed: A MultiPeriod Burial and Ritual Site. Archaeological Journal, 149, 1-38. 2001. A Prehistoric Field System and Related Monuments on St. David’s Head and Carn Llidi, Pembrokeshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 67, 85-99.

Meyrick, S. R., 1808. The History and Antiquities of the County of Cardigan,. London Mighall, T.M., Timberlake, S., and Grattan, J.P. 2012. A Paleoecological assessment of the blanket peat surrounding the source of the Severn, Plynlimon. Unpublished report for the Metal Links Project, RCAHMW. Millett, M., 1992. The Romanization of Britain; An essay in archaeological interpretation. First paperback edition. Cambridge University Press. Moore, D. ed., 1970. The Irish Sea Province in Archaeology and History. Cambrian Archaeological Association: Cardiff.

170

2003. Excavations at Cwm Meudwy, Llandysul. Council for British Archaeology Wales/Cymru, Newsletter 27, Spring 2004, 5 2004a. Cwm Meudy, Llandysul (SN 405419). Archaeology in Wales 43, 2003, 92-94. 2007. Prehistoric Defended Enclosures in Ceredigion, Archaeology in Wales 46 (2006), 163-167. -

(ed.). In preparation. Iron Age settlement in Wales.

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Murphy, K. and Manwaring, M., 2004. Prehistoric Defended Enclosures in southwest Wales 2004-5, Report number 2004/100, Project Record Number 52108. Archaeoleg Cambria Archaeology. Unpublished report.

- 1997. Castell Henllys: Iron Age Fort and Native Settlement of the Roman Period. Summary Report, University of York website. - 1999. Castell Henllys. Current Archaeology, No. 161, 164-172.

Murphy, K. Mytum, H. Carver, R. and Wilson, H., 2004. Rectangular crop-marked enclosures in south Ceredigion 2004, Report number 2004/97, Project Record No. 52317. Archaeoleg Cambria Archaeology. Unpublished.

National Assembly for Wales, 2003a. Digest of Welsh local area statistics. Unpublished. National Assembly for Wales, 2003b. Welsh Agricultural Statistics 2003. Unpublished.

Murphy, K., and Mytum, H. 2006. Excavations at Troedyrhiw Defended Enclosure, Archaeology in Wales 45 (2005), 92-94.

National Monuments Record of Wales, 2004. C Hen Gaer H Houlder Collection, SSB1.1-1.2, Ceredigion, NA/GEN/2004/040e., Archive.

Murphy, K., and Mytum, H. 2007. Excavations at Ffynnonwen Defended Enclosure, near Cardigan, 2006. Interim Report. Archaeology in Wales 46 (2006), 114118).

Olding, F., 2000. The Prehistoric Landscapes of the Eastern Black Mountains, BAR British Series, 297.

Murphy, K., and Mytum, H., 2012. Iron Age Enclosed Settlements in West Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 78 (2011). 263-313.

Oswald, A., 1997. A doorway on the past: practical and mystic concerns in the orientation of roundhouse doorways. In: Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 8795.

Murphy, K., Wilson, H., Mytum, H., and Bosworth, L. 2007. Cropmarked Defended Enclosures in South Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire, 2006. Archaeology in Wales 46 (2006), 163-167.

Oswald, A. Jecock, M. and Ainsworth, S., 2000. An on West Hill, Iron Age hillfort and its environs Northumberland. English Heritage Survey Report; cited in Hillfort Study Group, 2002.

Musson, C. 1991. The Breiddin Hillfort, A later prehistoric settlement in the Welsh Marches. CBA Research Report, No. 76.

Oswald, A. Pearson, T. and Ainsworth, S., 2002. Ring Chesters, Northumberland: an Iron Age hillfort and its environs, English Heritage Survey Report AI/3/2002; cited in Hillfort Study Group, 2002.

- 1994, Wales from the Air, Patterns of Past and Present. RCAHMW/HMSO. -

-

Palmer, R., 1984. Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire: an aerial photographic interpretation of its environs. RCHME: supplementary series 6.

2011. Montgomeryshire: Past and present from the air. The Powysland Club and the Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust. Welshpool.

Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, C. eds., 1999. Architecture and Order, Approaches to Social Space. Routledge. 2nd Edition.

2012. Montgomeryshire hillforts and enclosures from the air. In: Britnell, W. J. And Silvester, R. J., eds., Reflections on the Past, Essays in honour of Frances Lynch. Cambrian Archaeological Association. 351368.

Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, C., 1999. Architecture and order: spatial representation and archaeology. In: Parker Pearson and Richards, eds., 3872. Parkinson, A. J., 1985. Peat, wheat and lead: Settlement patterns in west Wales, 1500-1800. Ceredigion, Vol. X (2), 111-130.

Musson, C. R. Britnell, W. J. Northover, J. P. and Salter, C. J., 1992. Excavations and metal working at Llwyn Bryn-dinas hillfort, Llangedwyn, Clwyd. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 58, 265-84. Mytum, H., 1989. Excavation at Castell Henllys, 1981-89: The Iron Age Fort. Archaeology in Wales 29, 6-10.

Peacock, D. P. S., 1968. A Petrological Study of Certain Iron Age Pottery from Western England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, New Series, Vol. XXXIV, February 1969, 414-426. Pearson, T., 1998. Yeavering Bell Hillfort, Northumberland. English Heritage Survey Report; cited in Hillfort Study Group, 2002.

- 1996. Hillfort siting and monumentality: Castell Henllys and geographical information systems. Archaeology in Wales, 36, 3-10.

171

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Pearson, T. and Lax, A., 2001. An Iron Age hillfort on Great Hetha, Northumberland, English Heritage Survey Report; cited in Hillfort Study Group, 2002.

Savory, H. N., 1976. Welsh Hillforts: A Reappraisal of Recent Research. In: Harding, ed., 237-292. - 1980. The Early Iron Age in Wales. In: Taylor, ed., 287-310.

Pentir Pumlumon., 2003. Pumlumon – Five Peaks, Ceredigion’s Land of Enchantment, Touring Map and Area Guide. Unpublished, tourist leaflet.

Scarre, C. and Healy, F. eds., 1993. Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Oxbow Monograph 33, Oxbow Books / The Prehistoric Society and the Société Préhistorique Francaise.

Poucher, P., 2009. Wetland Margins Survey: Cors Fochno. Dyfed Archaeological Trust report number 2008/114. Unpublished.

Scott, N. and Murphy, K., 1992. Excavations at Pendinas Lochtyn, Llangrannog, Dyfed, 1990-91. Archaeology in Wales, 32, 9-10.

Powlesland, D., with Haughton, C. and Hanson, J., 1986. Excavations at Heslerton, North Yorkshire, 1978-82. Archaeological Journal 143, 53-173.

Sellwood, L., 1984. Tribal Boundaries Viewed from the Perspective of Numismatic Evidence. In: Cunliffe and Miles, eds., 191-204.

Pyper, A., 2003. Tir Gofal – archaeology on the farm: the work of an archaeological trust. Council for British Archaeology Wales/Cymru, Newsletter 25, Spring 2003, 9-12.

Sharples, N. M. 1991. English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle. Batsford/English Heritage, London.

Quinnell, H., 2004. Trethurgy, Excavations at Trethurgy Round, St Austell: Community and Status in Roman and Post-Roman Cornwall. Cornwall County Council.

-

2007. Building communities and creating identities in the first millennium BC. In: Haselgrove, C. and Pope, R. (eds.), 174-184.

Ralston, I. 2006. Celtic Fortifications. Tempus, Stroud. RCAHMW., 1976. An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan, Volume I: Pre-Norman, Part II, The Iron Age and Roman Occupation. HMSO. RCAHMW., 1986. An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Brecknock (Brycheiniog), The Prehistoric and Roman Monuments, Part ii: Hill-forts and Roman Remains. HMSO. Rees, W., 1951. An Historical Atlas of Wales, From Early to Modern Times. Cardiff. Rees, S., 1992. A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales: Dyfed. Cadw/HMSO: London.

Sharples, N. and Parker Pearson, M., 1997. Why were brochs built? Recent studies in the Iron Age of Atlantic Scotland. In: Gwilt and Haselgrove, eds., 254-265. Sherratt, A., 1996. Why Wessex? The Avon route and river transport in later British prehistory. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 15 (2), 211-234. Silvester, R. J. and Britnell, W. J., 1993. Montgomeryshire Small Enclosures Project, Summary Report 1993. CPAT Report 80, unpublished. Smith, G., 2001. Survey of Prehistoric and RomanoBritish Settlement in North-West Wales. Archaeologia Cambrensis, Vol. CXLVIII (1999), 22-53.

Roseveare, M. J., 2012. Castell Grogwynion, Ceredigion. Geophysical Survey Report. Produced for RCAHMW. CGW121. ArchaeoPhysica Ltd. Unpublished report.

- 2003. Prehistoric Defended Enclosures: Scoping for Pan-Wales Assessment. Gwynedd Archaeological Trust: report No. 497. Unpublished.

Rudeforth, C. C., 1989. Soils. In: Carter , ed., 1.5. - 1994. Soils and Land Use. In: Kirby, eds., 21-25.

Spurgeon, C. J., 1972. Enclosures of Iron Age type in the Upper Severn Basin. In: Lynch and Burgess, eds., 321344.

Davies and

Sambrook, P., 2003. Mynydd y Ffynnon: Cwmystwyth and Eisteddfa Gurig. In: Browne and Hughes, eds., 68-74.

St. Joseph, J. K. S., 1975. Glanfraid (SN 634 878) & Llandre and Aberceiro. Archaeology in Wales, 15, 69. Stanford, S. C., 1972. The Function and Population of Hill-forts in the Central Marches. In: Lynch and Burgess, eds., 307-319.

Savory, H. N., 1970. The Later Prehistoric Migrations Across the Irish Sea. In: Moore, ed. 38-49.

172

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

- 1980. The Archaeology of The Welsh Marches. Collins Archaeology, Collins.

Radiocarbon Dates. Archaeology in Wales 46 (2006), 182-3.

- 1991. The Archaeology of the Welsh Marches; Second, revised, edition. published by S C Stanford, The Old Farm House, Leinthall Starkes, Shropshire.

Timberlake, S., Gwilt, A., and Davis, M. 2004. A Copper Age/ Early Bronze Age gold disc from Banc Tynddol (Penguelan, Cwmystwyth Mines, Ceredigion). Antiquity Vol. 78, No. 302. http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/timberlake/index.html

Stoertz, C.,1997. Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds. RCHME. Stopford, J., 1987. Danebury: An Alternative View. Scottish Archaeological Review, Vol. 4, Part 2, 70-75.

Timberlake, S. and Driver, T., 2006. Excavations at Darren Camp and Darren Mines (opencuts), Banc-ydarren, Trefeurig, Ceredigion. Archaeology in Wales 45 (2005), 98-102.

Sutton, J., 1992. Round houses and hillforts in Eastern Africa. Current Archaeology, 128, Vol. XI, No.8, 352357.

Topping, P. 2008. Landscape Narratives: the South-East Cheviots Project. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74, 323-364.

Taylor, J. A., 1973. Chronometers and chronicles: a study of the Paleoenvironments of west central Wales. Progress in Geography, 5, 248-334.

Turner, J., 1970. Post-Neolithic Disturbance of British Vegetation. In: Walker and West, eds., 81-96.

- 1980. Man-Environment Relationships. In: Taylor, ed., 311-336.

Vyner, B. E., 1986. Woodbarn, Wiston: A Pembrokeshire Rath. Archaeologia Cambrensis, Vol. CXXXV, 121-133.

Taylor, J. A. ed., 1980. Culture and Environment in Prehistoric Wales. BAR British Series 76.

Vyner, B. ed., 1994. Building on the Past, Papers celebrating 150 years of the Royal Archaeological Institute. The Royal Archaeological Institute.

Taylor, J., 1997. Space and place: some thoughts on Iron Age and Romano-British landscapes. In: Gwilt and Haslegrove, eds., 192-204.

Wainwright, G. J., 1967. Coygan Camp. A Prehistoric, Romano-British and Dark Age Settlement in Carmarthenshire. Cardiff: Cambrian Archaeological Association.

Thorburn, J., 1987. Capel Bangor Camp, Parcel Canol (SN 658 807); Penrhynoch, Trefeirig (SN 658 840); Pen y Daren, Trefeirig (SN 679 830); Pen y Castell, Trefeirig (SN 689 858). Archaeology in Wales, 27, 33-35.

-

- 1988. Archaeology in the Capel BangorTrefeurig Area. Ceredigion Archaeological Survey, Saint David’s University College, University of Wales. Unpublished.

Wakelin, P. and Griffiths, R. ed. 2008. Hidden Histories, Discovering the Heritage of Wales. RCAHMW Walker, D. and West, R. G. eds., 1970. Studies in the Vegetational History of the British Isles (Essays to Godwin). Cambridge.

Tilley, C., 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford, Berg.

Walker, M. J. C. and McCarroll, D. eds., 2001. The Quaternary of West Wales: Field Guide. Quaternary Research Association, London

Timberlake, S., 2001. Mining and prospection for metals in Early Bronze Age Britain – making claims within the archaeological landscape. In: Bruck, ed., Bronze Age Landscapes – Tradition and Transformation. Oxbow, 179-192. -

-

1971. The excavation of a fortified settlement at Walesland Rath, Pembrokeshire. Britannia 2, 48-108.

Ward, M. and Smith, G., 2001. The Llǔn Crop Marks Project. Studia Celtica, Vol. XXXV, 1-87.

2003. Excavations on Copa Hill, Cwmystwyth (1986-1999); An Early Bronze Age copper mine within the uplands of Central Wales. BAR British Series 348, BAR Publishing: Oxford. 2007. Darren Camp and Darren Mine, Banc y Darren, Trefeurig (SN 679 830). The

173

Watson, E., 1957. The West Coast Region. In: Bowen, ed., 282-305. Webley, D. P., 1976. How the west was won: prehistoric land-use in the Southern Marches. In: Boon and Lewis, eds., 19-36. Webster, G., 1981. Rome Against Caractacus. Batsford.

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Wenke, R. J., 1990. The Evolution of Socially Complex Cultures. In: Wenke, R. J. Patterns in Prehistory, Humankind’s First Three Million Years. (Third Edition), Oxford University Press. 277-317 Wheeler, M. 1943 Maiden Castle, Dorset. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 12. London: Oxford University Press Whimster, R., 1989. The Emerging Past: air photography and the buried landscape. RCHME, London. Whittle, E., 1992. A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales, Glamorgan and Gwent. Cadw/HMSO. Wigley, A., 2007. Rooted to the spot: the ‘smaller enclosures’ of the later first millennium BC in the central Welsh Marches. In: Haselgrove, C. and Moore, T., eds., 173-189. Williams, G. H., 1988. Recent work on rural settlement in later prehistoric and early historic Dyfed. Antiquaries Journal, LXVIII, 30-54. Williams, G. and Caseldine, A. E., 2001. Excavations at Bryn Maen Caerau, Cellan, Ceredigion. Archaeology in Wales, 41, 10-20. Williams, G. H. and Mytum, H., 1998. Llawhaden, Dyfed, Excavations on a group of small defended enclosures, 1980-4. BAR British Series 275. Williams, J. G., 1867. Ancient Encampments Near Aberystwyth. Archaeologia Cambrensis, Vol. XIII, Third Series, 284-291. Willis, S., 1999. Without and Within: aspects of culture and community in the Iron Age of north-eastern England. In: Bevan, ed., 81-110. -

2007. Sea, coast, estuary, land, and culture in Iron Age Britain. In: Haselgrove, C. and Moore, T., eds., 107-129.

Woolf, G., 1993. The social significance of trade in Late Iron Age Europe. In: Scarre and Healy, eds., 211218. Wright, F. S., 1912. Norman Earthworks near Aberystwyth. Aberystwyth Studies, Vol. 1, 115-125. - 1914. Some Ancient Defensive Earthworks near Aberystwyth, with Notes on Early Communications. Aberystwyth Studies by members of the University College of Wales, Vol. 2, 43-79.

174

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

Bronze Age 17, 19, 49, 112, 118, 136-37; barrow cemetery 51; cairns 53, 121; mining 67; ritual site 51 Bryn Maen Caerau 22, 29, 32 Brynchwyth 79, 160 Bryngwyn-mawr 30, 33, 51, 119, 52, 159 Brynllys 161 Builth Wells 42, 62 burials 6 Burnswark, Dumfriesshire 40 Bwch a’r Llo standing stones 118 Bwlch Nant yr Arian 51, 66, 113, 150 Bwlch y Dderwen 121 Bwlch-Llan 147 Bwlch-y-ddwyallt 120 Bwlch-y-geuffordd 49, 50-51 Bwn Bryncastell 161

Index Note: Page numbers in italic refer to illustrations and captions. Abergwesyn 12, 68, 116, 118 Abermagwr ii, 40, 44, 49-50, 51, 57, 58, 154, 155-56, 161 Aberporth 107 Aberystwyth 3, 7, 13, 14, 16, 22, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 44, 47, 65, 66, 112, 157 aerial photography 22-7 Aeron, river 16, 47, 53, 147; valley 100, 123, 133, 147 Afon Peithyll 160 agriculture 16-19, 43-7, 58 Allt Mai 161 Alltfadog South 160 annexes 33, 34, 38, 45, 69, 70, 77-81, 100, 126, 154 antenna entrance 71 arable farming 44 architecture 1, 8, 129; complexity 9, 83-93, 153; symbolism 129, 133-39 Arddleen 62, 63 Ardudwy 62 assimilation 3 Atlantic roundhouses 7, 149, 151

Cae Gaer 12, 39, 40, 65, 66 Cae-castell 161 Caer Allt Goch 52, 103, 119, 131, 133, 159 Caer Argoed 25, 34-5, 37, 45, 80, 82, 118, 158 Caer Cadwgan 21-2, 29, 32-3, 34, 44, 61, 147 Caer Drewyn, Corwen 135 Caer Lletty Llwyd 12, 27, 52, 91, 99-100, 118-20, 130, 134, 135, 140, 142, 145, 151, 157, 159, 162 Caer Penrhos 32, 33, 35, 46, 47, 70, 73, 106, 135, 152, 159 Caer Pwll Glas 20, 33, 53, 107, 119, 142, 145, 159 Caerau 159 Caerllugest 53, 161 Caersws 39, 62, 63, 66 cairns 53, 66, 121 Cambrian Mountains iii, 11, 14, 59-61, 65, 66-8, 120 Capel Bangor 14, 22, 39, 40, 51, 66, 143; camp 159 Capel Dewi 22, 56 Caratacus 39, 42 Cardigan 16; Bay iii, 11, 14, 145 Carn Goch 121 Carn Owen 88 Cartimandua 42 Castell 159, 161 Castell Bach 46, 47, 81-2, 90, 93, 157, 158 Castell Bwa Drain 66, 91, 109, 111, 114, 124, 143, 157, 159 Castell Carreg-wen 159 Castell Cilcennin 100 Castell Collen 66 Castell Disgwylfa 77, 159 Castell Flemish 37, 53, 88, 91, 110, 115, 122-23, 133, 147, 158 Castell Goetre 133, 147 Castell Grogwynion i, v, 18, 21, 35, 37, 38, 40, 45, 49, 723, 74-6, 77, 86, 88, 91, 92, 95, 99, 100, 101-2, 109, 12325, 128, 130-31, 132-33, 137, 142, 145, 146, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159 Castell Henllys 34, 40, 72, 75, 77-8, 82, 86, 95, 135, 138 Castell Mawr 34, 46, 47, 157, 158 Castell Maylor 20 Castell Moeddyn 133 Castell Nadolig 107

Banc Mynyddgorddu 142 Banc Troed Rhiw Seiri 27, 142, 143, 160 Banc Tyn’ddol sun disc 67 Banc y Castell 18, 52, 113, 114, 159 Banc y Gwmryn 142, 143, 147, 160 Banc y Mor 160 Banc-y-Gaer 25, 34-5, 45, 53, 107, 158 barrows 49, 51, 66 bastions 70, 71-7, 83, 87, 95, 96, 98, 126, 127, 130 bead 32, 151 Beaker site 68 Berry Hill 32, 88 Berth 64 Berth-lwyd 24, 35, 160 Berwyn valley 68, 116, 118 Black Darren 31 Black Mountains 60, 134-35 bog trackway 12 Bolanus 40 Bontgoch 27, 37, 82 Borth 12, 13, 14, 53, 145, 146; bog 12 Bow Street 20, 24, 27, 33, 107; basin 49, 53-7, 119; enclosures 53, 57, 160 braided trackways 110 Brecon 42 Bredon Hill 63, 64-5 Breiddin 29, 30, 31, 42, 62, 63, 141 Bremia 40 Brenan 39, 161 bridges 70, 71-2, 73 Broginin enclosure 161 Broncastellan 22, 159 Bronnant 14

175

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion Castell Perth-mawr 133, 147 Castell Rhyfel 11, 35, 43, 68, 116-18, 157, 159 Castell, afon 66, 67, 113 Castell, Tregaron 38, 68, 86, 87, 103-4, 110, 115, 116, 118, 128, 131, 133, 135, 137, 138, 141, 146, 147, 158 Castell-banc-y-mor 161 Castlemartin 62 cattle 19, 44, 45-6, 47, 53, 55; raiding 136 Caynham Camp 30, 34 Cefn Blewog 47, 79, 123, 157, 159 Cefn y Caer 34, 158 Cefncarnedd 62, 63, 67, 99, 100, 133 Cefncarnedd, 141 Cefnrhuddlan Uchaf 26 Cellan 21-2, 29, 32, 61, 103 Celtic, analogies 1, 2; clientship 3, 5-6, 148; society 6, 8, 154 Celtic inheritance see partible inheritance central place 3, 6, 36 ceramics 36, 59, 63-5, 71, 94, 141, 148, 150, 151, 155 Cerealis 40 cereals 44 ceremonial centres 8, 141, 143-44 chieftains 5, 143-44, 148, 151-52 Chiefly feast 143-4, chronological frameworks 3, 29-40, 155 Cilcennin 147 Cincoed enclosure 52 Clarach 47, 51, 53; valley 145, 146 classification 3, 4 Cletwr valley 43 clientship 3, 5, 57, 148 climate 16, 29 Cloddiau 161 Clyro 39 Clywedog, afon 67; group 42, 61-2, 113, 114-15 Cnwc y Bugail 74, 77, 80, 81, 83, 88, 93, 123, 126-27, 128, 135, 137, 153, 157, 159 coarse-ware 62, 63, 94 coastal forts 46 Coed Allt Fedw 40, 157, 159 Coed Bryngwyn-mawr 52, 142 Coed Lluest 157, 159 Coed Maenarthur 157 Coed Ty’n-y-cwm 127, 161 Coed y Grip 160 Collfryn 42, 62, 63, 78 command posts 69, 127, 130, 135 Commins Coch 18 communication 11-12, 13 communities 5-6, 7 comprehensive hillforts 96, 138 concentric antenna enclosure 43 concentric forts 130 conspicuous construction 91, 92-3, 98, 130-31, 136 Copa Hill 67 Corn y Fan, Brecknock 104, 106, 124, 133 Cornovii 42 corralling 53-7, 78-9, 145, 146, 152, 154 corridor entrances 36, 71, 72

Cors Caron 12, 13, 14, 16, 18-19, 24, 26, 33, 44, 49, 68, 100, 105-6, 121-22, 132; façade scheme 103-6, 130-31, 133, 138, 146-47, 151; fort 38, 53, 77, 116; group 115-16, 149, 150, 154 Cors Fochno 12 cosmology 8, 137 Crickley Hill 77 Croft Ambrey 31, 34, 36, 62, 63, 64, 71, 72 cropmarks 22-7, 45 crossing bridges 70-72, 73, 130 Crowther’s Camp 31 cultural, identity 1, 3; traditions 5 Cumbria 25 Cwm Gwyddyl 23, 26, 39; group 49, 52-3, 115, 123, 146 Cwm Meudwy 32 Cwm Rhydyfelin 24, 30, 33, 50, 160 Cwm Wyre 12, 13, 49 Cwmsymlog 156 Cwmystwyth 12, 14, 16, 67 Cwrt 55, 56, 161 cyfran 38 Cyncoed 24, 56, 57, 143, 154, 160 Cynnull-Mawr 55, 56, 161 Cynon-fawr 160 Dale fort 29, 32, 34 Danebury 5, 6, 2, 69, 129, 138, 140, 141 Daren Ddu see Black Darren Darren ii, 18, 22, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 45, 50, 51, 79, 80, 86, 88, 91, 92, 109, 110, 120-22, 135, 137, 141, 142-43, 144, 145, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159; façade scheme 102-3, 131; revetment walling 90 Deceangli 42 defences 7; complexity 5 deforestation 18, 36 Deheubarth 60 Demetae 41 Deri Odwyn 82, 157 design 8 Devil’s Bridge 13, 14 Diffwys 116 Dinas Dinlle 91 Dinas, Clywedog 67 Dinas, Ponterwyd 11, 35, 43, 66, 114, 141, 157, 159 Dinorben 30, 31, 42, 71, 73, 76, 95 Disgwylfa 66; Fach 161 Dobunni 42 Dollwen barrow 23 Drim camp 71 Droitwich 63 duality 137-38 duck-stamped coarse-ware 36, 63-5, 94, 141, 151 dump ramparts 36, 86 Dyfed iii; model 1, 60-2 Dyffryn Ardudwy 43 Dyffryn Castell 66 Dyffryn Clarach 160 Dyfi estuary 12, 14, 33, 40, 66 Eisteddfa Gurig 65, 67

176

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion Elan valley 12, 13, 16, 67-8, 115 elites 5-6, 150-51 enclosure 4, 5, 141 entrances 36, 38, 39, 69-82, 98; antenna 71; corridor 71; orientation 113-18; passages 70-72, 106, 126; see also gateways Erglodd 12, 39, 155 Esgair Nant-yr-Arian 37, 51-2, 113, 114, 157, 159 (see also Nant-yr-arian) Esgair Perfedd 12, 40, 141 exchange 59

grain storage 6, 45 grazing land 7 Great Hetha 109 Greenala 146 Groes Fawr 68, 116, 118 Groes, afon 116, 118 guard chamber 72, 76, 96, 149 Guilsfield 31, 99, 100 Hafod Ithel 43, 53 Harlech 65 Hen Gaer 20-21, 22, 31, 33, 35, 53, 70, 73, 77, 78, 90, 110, 111, 134, 135, 142, 143, 144, 156, 159, 161 Herefordshire Beacon 34, 138 Hiraddug 71 Hirnant 66 horizon, levelling against 91 houses 6, 7; orientation 8; platforms 36, 38, 45, 89, 154155 hut groups 42

façades i, iii, 1, 52, 59, 113-18; orientation 139; schemes 9, 83-107, 129-31, 136, 138, 146-50, 152 fairs 154 farming 16-19, 43-7, 142, 145, 146 farmsteads 5-6, 38-9 fault lines 12, 13, 67 feuds 136 feuds 136 Ffair Rhos 115 Ffridd Faldwyn 30, 133, 141 Ffynnonwen 32, 43 field systems 26, 42-4, 44 Foel Drygarn 121 Foel Fenlli 133, 135, 138 Foel, Y 158 Four Crosses 26 four-post structures 45 Frontinus 40 Furnace 12

immigrant cultures 3 inheritance 38, 154 interiors 3 intervisibility 109 invasion 3 Ireland 5, 6 iron smelting 156 Kidwelly 60 kings 5, 6 kinship 5

Gaer Fawr, Brecknock 100 Gaer Fawr, Guilsfield 99, 100, 133, 141 Gaer Fawr, Lledrod 23, 25, 40, 47, 49, 73, 74, 84, 95, 968, 101, 103, 109, 110, 130, 132-33, 134, 145, 146, 151, 152, 159 Gaer, Y 159 Gaergwydd 27, 53, 159 Gallus 39 Gangani 41, 42 Garreg Fawr, Y 112 Garreg Lwyd gateways iii, v, 1, 3, 32-3, 36, 38, 59, 69-82, 83. 87, 94-5, 96-7, 102-4, 106, 120, 130, 135; orientation 8, 113-18; passages 70-71, 95, 126; towers 71; see also entrances gavelkind 38, 154 Geoffrey of Monmouth 20 geology 13-14 Geulan-las 55 Gilfach y Dwn fawr 38, 45, 77, 104, 109, 149, 160 Gilfach-hafel 47, 53, 158 glacis defence 36-7, 57, 138 Glan Ffrwd 24-5, 43, 44, 51, 52, 159 Glan-y-Mor 161 Glas Crug enclosures 24, 56, 160 glass bead 32 goats 44 Gogerddan 22, 49, 51, 53, 120, 121, 151, 154, 159, 161 Goginan 23

La Tène brooch 34, 151 labour 5 Lampeter 42, 44, 61, 103, 133, 147 land ownership 1, 129, 139, 141-42, 144 landscape 3, 129 lead 156 leadership 136, 148 Leri basin 49, 51, 52, 119, 143, 144, 146; river 33, 47 LiDAR 24 livestock 44-5, 53-7, 78-9, 145, 146, 152, 154 Llanafan 14, 16 Llanarth 133 Llanbadarn Fawr 112 Llanbadarn Odwyn 44, 90 Llandrindod Wells 66 Llandysul 32, 107 Llanelli 60 Llanfairfechan 43 Llanfarian 13, 16 Llanfihangel y Creuddyn 24, 39, 48, 103; basin 49, 50-51, 142, 154 Llangeitho 53 Llangrannog 22 Llangurig 66, 68 Llangynfelin 12, 155 Llanidloes 66, 67 Llanilar 14, 35, 40, 49, 50, 53, 56, 57, 73, 154

177

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion Llanio 39, 40, 53, 66 Llanon 12, 14, 39, 43, 47, 79 Llanrhystud 13, 14, 19, 32, 33, 39, 46-7, 49, 53, 81, 90, 93, 106, 157 Llanybydder 26, 107 Llawhaden group 4, 5-6, 38, 39, 62, 71, 140, 141 Lledrod 13, 23, 96 Llety-Ifan-Hen 81, 85, 89, 110 Llwyn Bryn Dinas 29, 30, 34, 62, 63, 62, 63 Llwyn-bwch farm 24, 26, 53, 146, (Llwyn-bwch west + south-west) 160 Llwyn-y-Brain 39, 50, 159 Llǔn peninsula 26, 42, 62, 145 Llywernog, afon 66, 113 location 109-13 loom weights 44 Lovesgrove 161

Newtown 39 notches 93, 121 Octapitai 41, 42 Odyn Fach 22, 24-5, 37, 45, 51, 52, 156, 159 Old Goginan 51 Old Hall 67 Old Oswestry 30, 62, 105, 138 Old Warren Hill 31, 33, 35, 45, 106, 152, 157, 158 open settlements 42-3 Ordovices 39, 41 ostentation 135, 153 outworks 38, 82, 83, 86, 102, 103, 104, 106, 120, 123, 126 overland, routes 113-18; trade 7, 59-68 Paith, river 47, 49, 112 palaeo-environmental evidence 17 palisades 25, 30, 32, 34-5, 54-5, 57, 92; Poundbury 34 Pant da wood 24, 26, 143, 160 Pant Drain 24, 56, 160 Pant Wilog 43, 47, 79, 160 paramount hillfort 6, 148 parchmarks 23 partible inheritance 38, 154 pastoral enclosures 53-7, 142, 145, 146 pastoralism 45-6, 47 Pen Dinas, Aberystwyth 3, 7, 13, 20, 21, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 56, 61-4, 67, 70-72, 76, 78-9, 80, 83, 84, 89, 91, 92, 93, 109, 121, 137, 141, 143,150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158; façade scheme 94-104, 106 130-31, 138, 141, 145-47, 151, 152-53; location 11113. Castell Maylor 20 Pen Dinas, Elerch v, 20, 35, 38, 45, 74, 76, 88, 91, 97, 99, 109, 110, 118-20, 130-31, 133, 135, 137, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145,147, 151, 154, 156, 157, 159 Pen y Bannau 12, 33, 35, 37, 45, 53, 68, 70, 73, 86, 91,103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 115-16, 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 146, 159 Pen y Caerau 159 Pen y Castell 18, 20, 22, 35, 36, 37, 40, 43, 45, 49, 50, 53, 56, 57, 73, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87-8, 89, 110, 113-14, 135, 142, 143, 145, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160 Pen y Castell, Montgomeryshire 107 Pen y Crug, Brecon 62, 105, 138 Pen- y-Gaer 26, 44, 82, 107, 115, 147, 157, 158, 160 Pen y Gardden 159 Pen’r allt, Llanidloes 132, 133 Penbont 17 Penbryn 107 Pencnwch 14 Pen-coed Foel 107 Pendam 113-14 Pendinas Lochtyn 22, 32, 40, 45 Penlan-isaf 24, 38, 47, 49, 50, 103, 131, 160 Penllwyn, Capel Bangor 39, 40 (Pen Llwyn 66) Pennal fort 40, 66 Pen-rhiw-gaer 161 Penrhiwnewydd 122 Penrhyncoch 17, 27, 51, 65, 73, 77, 110; camp 35, 56, 57, 82, 113, 142, 144, 154, 157, 159 Penuwch-fawr 160, 161

Maiden Castle 2, 86-7, 129, 135, 138 Malvern Hills 64-5 Malvernian coarse-ware 36, 63, 71, 94, 141, 151 maritime trade 7, 46, 59-68 markets 80, 154 Marxist social theory 5 Maylor 20 Melindwr basin 49, 51-2, 113, 114, 143, 144, 154 Mesolithic 112 metal working 153, 154, 155-56 Mid Hill 138-39 Midsummer Hill 36, 71 Milford Haven 62 military assumption 7 mining 65-6, 67-8, 80, 155-56 Moel Arthur 104, 133 Moel Hiraddug 42, 73, 76, 95, 133 Moel y Gaer 30, 34, 87 Moel y Gaer, Llanbedr 133 Monk’s Trod 12 Montgomery 30 monumentality 8, 120, 122, 124, 126-27, 129-33, 135, 138-39, 148, 150, 152-53 morphology 4, 25 mountain fortress 38 multivallation 33, 36, 37, 57, 138; false 85, 92-3 Mynydd Bach 11, 16, 53, 123 Mynydd Margam 43, 55 Nant Cwm-newydion 126 Nant Groes Fawr 43 Nant Magwr 40 Nant Paith 145 Nant y Maen 118 Nant y Moch 66 Nanteos 31, 45, 106, 157, 158 Nantmel 40 Nant-yr-arian 37, 51 (see also Esgair Nant-yr-Arian) Nantyreira 66 Neolithic, barrows 49; mortuary enclosure 51 New Cross 34, 37, 49, 50, 51, 79, 158, 160 Newport 32

178

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion Penycloddiau 42 Penycoed enclosure 55 Pen-y-Felin Wynt 157, 159 Penyffrwdllwyd 12, 35, 38, 53, 68, 98, 100, 104, 105-6, 109, 115-16, 130, 131, 145, 146, 147, 149, 159 Peris, river 47, 56 pigs 44 pits 6, 45 place names 66 Plas Gogerddan 22, 49, 51, 53, 120, 121, 151, 154,159 Plynlimon iii, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 40, 59-61, 65, 66-7, 113, 114 pollen evidence 18-19 Pont Dol-boeth 47, 160 Ponterwyd 11, 12, 14, 35, 66, 67, 118; ‘Ponterwyd Junction’ , 113-15 Pontrhydfendigaid 14, 16, 115 Pontrhydygroes 102, 157 potlatch tradition 153 pottery 36, 63, 71, 94, 141, 148, 151, 155 Poundbury 34; rampart 37 power 5, 36, 81, 83, 148, 150, 151-52 Powys 4 Preseli mountains 43, 62 prestige objects 148 prime locations 109, 110-13 processual approach 3, 5 producer sites 6 promontory forts 34, 45, 46-7, 124 Ptolemy 41, 42 public spaces 77, 81-2 Pyllau-isaf 51, 154, 160

Rowen 43 Ruel Uchaf 24, 53-4, 55-7, 145, 146, 160 salt 59, 62-4, 67, 148, 150, 151, 155 Sarn Helen 39, 44, 52, 53 Sarnau Fawr 160 Scapula’s campaigns 39-40 Scratchbury 135 sea trade 7, 46, 59-68 settlement 2, 3, 4-5, 8, 22-7, 40-57; expansion 35-6 Severn, river iii, 11, 39, 65; valley 40, 42, 59-61, 62, 63, 66-7, 100, 114, 141 sheep 44 Silures 39, 41 Sion Dafydd Rhys 20 Sirikwa Holes 55 slinging platforms 69, 71, 95, 127, 135 smelting 155 social structure 3, 4, 5, 129, 138-39, 148, 150-51 soils 16-17 Solway plain 25 spindle whorls 27, 44 St David’s Head 42 St Harmon 40 stamped and linear-tooled ware 64 standing stones 118 status 5-6, 45-6, 124, 129, 150 stock management 53-7, 78-9 stone walling 87-91 storage structures 6, 45 Strata Florida 16 Strumble Head 62 sun disc 67 Sutton Walls 31, 65 symbolism 129, 133-39, 150

quarry scoops 34-5, 38 quartz iii, 76, 77, 85, 88, 91, 121, 126, 127, 153

Tacitus 42 Talsarn 133 Talybont 12, 14 Tan y Bwlch 112 Tan y Ffordd 40, 83, 91, 93, 97, 98, 100, 101, 110, 112, 114, 115, 130-31, 143, 145, 146, 151, 152, 157, 160 Tanat valley 30, 62, 64, 65 Tan-y-castell 161 Tan-yr-allt 50, 161 taxation 5 Teifi, anticline 13; pools 12, 115; river 11, 13, 16, 40, 678, 141, 146, 151, 154; valley 14, 16, 19, 32, 33, 39, 42, 61, 62, 103, 107, 116, 147 temple structures 6 terraces 96-100, 102-3, 118, 130, 150 Thiessen polygons 1, 3 timber 87, 138; trackway 155 Tirymynach 31 topographic incorporation 91-2, 120, 121, 123-25, 131-33 topography 14, 130-31, 141-42 trackways 12, 110, 113-18, 120, 151, 155 trade 1, 7, 59-68, 151, 155; routes 7 transhumance 44-5, 57

ramparts 5, 33-8, 57, 69-70, 80, 82, 83, 85-92, 104, 127, 134, 153; blind 98; dump 36, 86; terminal 71, 106, redistribution 45 regional identity 148 regionality 3, 36 religion 6 revetment walling 85, 86, 87-91 Rhayader 12 Rheidol, river 11, 13, 14-16, 17, 33, 40, 45, 47, 65, 66, 113, 145, 152; valley 14, 24, 39, 40, 51, 52, 98, 112, 140, 142-43, 144, 146, 154 ridge and furrow 27, 36 ridgeways 144 Ring Chesters 102 ring ditches 49 ring forts 39 rivers 14-16 , 65-8, 141 Roman, camps 12, 141; conquest 39-40, 140; forts 12, 39, 65, 66, 155; mining 155-56; period 19, 140-41; roads 39, 44, 52, 53, 66 Romano-British, enclosure 51; villa ii, 40, 49, 51, 57, 58, 154, 155-56 round houses 6, 7 routeways 113-18, 120, 144-45

179

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion Trawsgoed 13, 16, 17, 19, 30, 33, 40, 46, 126-27, 155, 159; basin 47, 49-50, 66, 93, 96, 106, 154; Roman fort 38, 39, 40, 50, 53, 66; vicus 18 Tre Taliesin 12 Tre’r Ceiri 71-2 Trecoll 44, 53, 86, 88, 90, 103, 104, 106, 110, 115, 116, 131, 135, 146, 147,158 Trefenter 53 Trefeurig 22, 92 Tregaron 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 27, 38, 66, 68, 86, 87, 90, 116, 118, 131; bog see Cors Caron tribes 5, 8, 41-2 tribute 5 Troed y Rhiw 47, 56, 88, 158 Troedrhiwgwinau 18, 53, 160 turnpike roads 66 Ty’n Rhos 54-5, 57, 145, 160 Ty’n-y-cwm camps 126, 127 Ty’n-y-llechwedd 161 Tyddyn 160 Tynbeili 160 Tywi valley 19

zones of influence 143, 144, 145

univallate enclosures 33, 35, 81 Usk, river 42; valley 61, 64 vallation 4, 33 valley junctions 66, 141-42, 154 vassal hillforts 5 Very Coarse Pottery containers 62, 63 Vespasian 40 visibility 109 Vyrnwy, river 141 Walesland rath 72-3 walkways 71 walling iii, 85-6; quartz 88, 91 ; revetment 85, 86, 87-90; stone 87-91 waymarker stone 118 Welshpool 63 Wiston 35 Woodbarn Rath 35 Woodside camp 71 wool processing 44 Wrekin 31 Wye valley iii, 11, 12, 39, 40, 46, 59-60, 61, 62, 65, 66-8, 114-15 Wyre, river 17, 46, 47, 49; valley 80 Yeavering Bell 34 Ynysycapel 12, 43, 161 Yorkshire Wolds 25 Ysbyty Ystwyth 22 Ystrad Einion 156 Ystumtuen 66, 114 Ystwyth, fault 12, 13, 49, 67, 105; river 14-16, 17, 40, 45, 46, 65, 99, 112, 123, 124, 132, 145, 152; valley 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 26, 36, 39, 40, 47, 48, 49-50, 67-8, 96, 102-3, 106, 141, 144, 145, 146, 153-54

180

The Hillforts of North Ceredigion

About the Author Toby Gareth Driver BA, PhD, FSA is Team Leader for the Reconnaissance Team of the Royal Commission in Wales and manages the aerial reconnaissance programme. A graduate of the University of Southampton he joined the Royal Commission in 1995, assuming responsibility for the aerial reconnaissance programme in 1997. He was awarded his doctorate in 2006 from the University of Wales, Lampeter, following a study of the Iron Age hillforts of north Ceredigion, mid Wales. He is currently co-director, with Dr Jeffrey L. Davies, of the Abermagwr Project investigating the most north-westerly RomanoBritish villa in Wales, and is part of a small team undertaking new survey and recording of the prehistoric settlements and field systems of Skomer Island, Pembrokeshire. He is a former chairman of the international Aerial Archaeology Research Group, and is presently a member of the Executive Committees of the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust and the Ceredigion Historical Society. He has published numerous articles and is author of three books: Bryngaer Pen Dinas Hillfort with David Browne (RCAHMW 2001), Pembrokeshire: Historic Landscapes from the Air (RCAHMW 2007) and Historic Wales from the Air: Images from the National Monuments Record of Wales, with Dr Oliver Davis (RCAHMW 2012).

181