Site type FORT
Canmore ID 55668
Site Number NT53SE 57
NGR NT 55450 32800
Council SCOTTISH BORDERS, THE
Parish MELROSE
Former Region BORDERS
Former District ETTRICK AND LAUDERDALE
Former County ROXBURGHSHIRE

Canmore Mapping
View this site on a map


C14 Radiocarbon Dating
C14 radiocarbon dating

---

Archaeological Notes

NT53SE 57 5545 3280.

(NT 5545 3280) Hill Fort (NR)
OS 6" map (1967)

This hill-fort, the largest in Scotland, being 39 acres in extent, occupies the summit of Eildon Hill North, a height of 1385 ft OD. Three phases of development have been distinguished, although the first two are somewhat difficult to trace on the ground.
In the first phase the fort included a small elliptical area, with axes of 600 ft and 170 ft, on the highest part of the hill
(C on RCAHMS 1956 plan) faint traces of the northern rampart may be seen, but it is much mutilated by later hut floors and on the southern side it is now represented only by a natural scarp. However, the course of this rampart is plainly visible on air photographs (CPE.Scot.315:3184-5).
In the second phase (B on plan) the whole of the summit plateau was enclosed; here again the defences are much wasted and are cut in two places by hut floors, but their line may be followed as a terrace on the N, W, and S, and as a slight rampart at the E end of the S side.
In the third phase (A on plan) the whole of the hill was enclosed by three ramparts and ditches. These survive mainly as terraces, but enough remains to reveal the plan, especially on the W side, where an internal quarry ditch is also visible. Four original entrances can be seen (at E1, E2, E3 and E4; E5 appears to be a later mutilation).
No less than 296 hut floors have been identified within the fort and since most of these owe their survival to the fact that they are scooped out on slopes, the number should perhaps be doubled to allow for the more level areas.
This was clearly an oppidum in the full sense of the word, and on the evidence of Ptolemy, this was the chief centre of the Selgovae. Excavations by Curle (D Christison 1894) in three of the hut floors produced evidence of occupation, including a fragment of native pottery, now lost, but did not throw any light on the structure of the huts.
Very few chance finds have been reported from this hill, and none of these can now be traced. They include a denarius of Hadrian, a whetstone, a fragment of native pottery, and several other pieces of pottery "including one of a very fine red clay, glazed on inside, and resembling Samian ware".
A L F Rivet 1965; RCAHMS 1956, visited 1951; G Macdonald 1918; J Hardy 1892

This large hill fort is generally as described above, except that many of the hut floors were difficult to recognise as such owing to denudation and snow on the ground at the time of visit. No definite traces of the first phase fortifications were noted except for a short stretch of wall or rampart at NT 5543 3285.
Visited by OS (JLD) 11 January 1961

Surface finds from this fort, comprising a whetstone, a broken facetted stone, a shale disc, a stone disc, five sherds of Roman coarse ware. four sherds native ware, an oval bronze ring, and part of a bone pin were donated to the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland (NMAS) in 1966-7. The Roman material is listed by Robertson either as of unknown date or dating to between the 2nd and 4th centuries AD.
Proc Soc Antiq Scot 1968; A S Robertson 1970

Hill-fort photographed by the RCAHMS in 1976 and 1980.
(See also NT53SE 22.)

Small scale excavations were undertaken in advance of consolidation work on the western approaches to the fort. The classification of defensive systems and entrances below is consistant with that used by RCAHMS, Inventory for Roxburghshire, No. 597. Seven areas were opened as follows:-
(1) Entrance 2, through inner circuit of defensive system A. THe ramparts on either side of the entrance were much degraded. They were built wherever possible along the top edge of natural rock scarps. Their construction was variable in character but generally, deep, rock-cut postholes defined their limits while their core comprised soil and rubble, roughly faced in places with larger stones at foundation level. Rock-cut slots marked the position of probably double gates. The surface of the track through the entrance was bedrock, and unmetalled. No traces were found either of structures or activities immediately within the entrance. A quarry pit was located immediately inside rampart A.
(2) A two-phase, rock-cut platform within rampart A. In both cases the rock was cut at the back of the platform and the quarried material was used to level up the front of the platform. In the early phase, two occupation levels containing much pot including one complete cooking pot were found, but no hearth. In the later phase, on the surface of the stone-packed trampled floor, there was evidence of bronze-working. there were no structural remains associated with either phase, apart from the cut platforms themselves.
(3) A trench across rampart A and into the interior of a hut platform backed against it. The rampart construction resembled that at entrance 2, but was relatively insubstancial. The hut platform postdated the rampart. One relatively thick occupation level was discerned.
(4) Long trial trench to establish existence of defensive system C. Only one rock-cut posthole was found, and this may have been associated with an adjacent hut platform.
(5) Trench across site of defensive system C. A discontinuous shallow slot of rectangular section provided inconclusive evidence of a palisade trench.
(6) Trench across site of defensive system B. No construction was found. A steep scarp formed a natural line of defence, made more pronounced, by the presence of a sheep track along the top edge. A fragment of a wasted rampart occurs where the scarp was less steep, SE of area 6.
(7) Hut platform within defensive system C. The platform was levelled up at the front with gravel, backed against gently sloping bedrock. Traces of a curvilinear slot were found round the back of the platform. No occupation level survived, but finds of pot, industrial waste and flint flakes were made, and there were scanty traces of a hearth.
A small assemblage of Roman artefacts was retrieved during the work, but in every case, Roman material overlay Native occupation.
Sponsor: SDD-HBM-CEU, University of Durham.
O Owen 1986b

Notes and Activities

1986	EXCAVATION

Notes Small scale excavations were undertaken in advance of consolidation work on the western approaches to the fort. The classification of defensive systems and entrances below is consistant with that used by RCAHMS, Inventory for Roxburghshire, No. 597. Seven areas were opened as follows:-
(1) Entrance 2, through inner circuit of defensive system A. THe ramparts on either side of the entrance were much degraded. They were built wherever possible along the top edge of natural rock scarps. Their construction was variable in character but generally, deep, rock-cut postholes defined their limits while their core comprised soil and rubble, roughly faced in places with larger stones at foundation level. Rock-cut slots marked the position of probably double gates. The surface of the track through the entrance was bedrock, and unmetalled. No traces were found either of structures or activities immediately within the entrance. A quarry pit was located immediately inside rampart A.
(2) A two-phase, rock-cut platform within rampart A. In both cases the rock was cut at the back of the platform and the quarried material was used to level up the front of the platform. In the early phase, two occupation levels containing much pot including one complete cooking pot were found, but no hearth. In the later phase, on the surface of the stone-packed trampled floor, there was evidence of bronze-working. there were no structural remains associated with either phase, apart from the cut platforms themselves.
(3) A trench across rampart A and into the interior of a hut platform backed against it. The rampart construction resembled that at entrance 2, but was relatively insubstancial. The hut platform postdated the rampart. One relatively thick occupation level was discerned.
(4) Long trial trench to establish existence of defensive system C. Only one rock-cut posthole was found, and this may have been associated with an adjacent hut platform.
(5) Trench across site of defensive system C. A discontinuous shallow slot of rectangular section provided inconclusive evidence of a palisade trench.
(6) Trench across site of defensive system B. No construction was found. A steep scarp formed a natural line of defence, made more pronounced, by the presence of a sheep track along the top edge. A fragment of a wasted rampart occurs where the scarp was less steep, SE of area 6.
(7) Hut platform within defensive system C. The platform was levelled up at the front with gravel, backed against gently sloping bedrock. Traces of a curvilinear slot were found round the back of the platform. No occupation level survived, but finds of pot, industrial waste and flint flakes were made, and there were scanty traces of a hearth.
A small assemblage of Roman artefacts was retrieved during the work, but in every case, Roman material overlay Native occupation.
Sponsor: SDD-HBM-CEU, University of Durham.
O Owen 1986b

Further details

Books and References

Armit and Ralston, I and I B M (2003) 'The Iron Age', in Edwards, K J and Ralston, I B M Scotland after the Ice Age: environment, archaeology and history 8000BC - AD 1000 Edinburgh
Page(s): 179, 192

Armit, I (1998i) Scotland's hidden history, Stroud, Gloucestershire
Page(s): 73-6 Fig 43, 46 Held at RCAHMS E.2.1.ARM

Armit, I (1999b) 'Life after Hownam: the Iron Age in south-east Scotland', in Bevan, B Northern exposure: interpretive devolution and the Iron Ages in Britain, Leicester archaeology monographs No. 4 Leicester
Page(s): 74 Held at RCAHMS E.9.BEV

Showing 3 from 25 ...show more