Summary
A large Iron Age hillfort and two linear earthworks to the east of it which also probably date from the prehistoric period.
Reasons for Designation
Worlebury Camp, a large multivallate hillfort, and the linear earthworks to the east, are scheduled for the following principal reasons:
Survival:
* an impressive and well-engineered hillfort with massively-proportioned ramparts that are constructed entirely of stone. It makes a strong statement about the nature of social organisation during the Iron Age, and the survival of the linear earthworks of probable prehistoric date enhances the importance;
* although affected by tree planting and localised quarrying, the monument survives in a good state of preservation.
Potential:
* it retains considerable archaeological potential with the preservation of features, buried soils and artefactual and environmental evidence relating to the date, form of construction and use of the hillfort and linear earthworks.
Documentation:
* its history is well known, having been subject to antiquarian investigations and more recently, to an analytical earthwork survey, a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) survey and a condition survey.
History
Multivallate hillforts are fortified enclosures of between 5ha and 85ha in area, located on hilltops, ridges, spurs or promontories, and dating to the Iron Age period; most having been constructed and used between the sixth century BC and the mid-first century AD. They are generally regarded as centres of permanent occupation, defended in response to increasing warfare, a reflection of the power struggle between competing elites. They are defined by a circuit of defensive earthworks which usually consist of ramparts and ditches, although some hillforts only have ramparts. The interior is generally accessed by two entrances, although examples with one and more than two are known. Internal features generally include evidence for intensive occupation, including oval or circular houses which display variations in size and are often clustered, sometimes raised granaries, platforms, paved areas, pits, gullies, hearths and ovens. Additional evidence, in the form of artefacts, suggests that industrial activity such as bronze- and iron-working as well as pottery manufacture occurred on many sites. Large multivallate hillforts occur mostly in two concentrations, in Wessex and the Welsh Marches, although scattered examples occur elsewhere.
Worlebury Camp, an Iron Age hillfort on the north-western side of Weston-super-Mare was known to antiquarians and is mentioned in Collinson’s History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset published in 1791 (Carpenter, 2018). There have been a number of archaeological excavations at the hillfort, including those carried out by the Reverend Warre in 1851 and Charles Dymond and the Reverend Henry Tomkins in the 1880s. The discovery of human bones with signs of serious injury, along with some evidence of burning at the hillfort were interpreted as evidence that the downfall of the hillfort was the result of a massacre. A more recent interpretation (Bowden, 2019), based on the presence of skeletons with evidence of wounds at other hillforts in southern Britain, is that the injuries on the skeletons at Worlebury were not necessarily inflicted at the hillfort but possibly occurred somewhere else and that they may not have been the result of a single conflict.
To the east of the hillfort are two linear earthworks which were noted and mapped by C19 antiquarians, but their date and function have been the subject of much debate over the years. Dymond (1902, see Sources) considers that they either defined a cattle enclosure which was contemporary with the hillfort or represented additional hillfort defences. Moore (2006, see Sources), however, noted the differences in orientation between the hillfort and the linear earthworks and suggests that they may pre-date the hillfort. A small excavation across one of the ditches (Fitzpatrick and Pirie, 1987) demonstrated that it had been backfilled before the late Roman period but did not uncover evidence relating to the purpose of these earthworks.
A number of Iron Age burials, possibly contemporary with the hillfort, have been found along the southern slopes of Worlebury Hill, mainly during the late C19 and C20. Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts have also been found which may represent evidence for pre-Iron Age activities on the hill, while Romano-British finds, including a small coin hoard dating from around AD 450, seem to suggest that the area may have continued to be a focus of activity after the Iron Age. Calamine was extracted from Worlebury Hill intermittently from the C16 to the C19 and during the 1820s it was intensively planted with trees. It is recorded as a plantation on the tithe map of 1837. Many of the trees within the hillfort interior have been cleared in recent years.
The hillfort and its immediate environs have been subject to more recent archaeological investigations, including a condition survey, a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) survey and an analytical earthwork survey in the early C21, which have contributed to our knowledge of the site.
Details
PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS
The monument includes the earthwork and buried remains of Worlebury Camp, a large multivallate hillfort of Iron Age date. It occupies the western end of Worlebury Hill, a steep-sided limestone promontory which is orientated west to east and has commanding views over the Bristol Channel. To the east of the hillfort are two linear earthworks which traverse the hill from north to south and are considered to be of probable prehistoric date.
DESCRIPTION
The hillfort defences utilise the steep natural slopes to the south-west and west; a cliff with associated terracing to the north and to the south, where the natural slopes are less steep, there is a stone-built rampart which survives up to 8m wide and approximately 0.8m high; the western rampart is more eroded and visible as a mass of bare stone. Dymond’s late-C19 investigations also referred to slight traces of a bank on the north side. At the foot of the cliff which forms the northern edge of the hillfort is a narrow, regular strip of land described by Dymond as a ‘passage-way for the defenders’ since he considered it had been created by the deliberate clearance of stone. It is included in the scheduling. Dymond also excavated sections through this stone debris, which he called a talus, but, despite some possible evidence of adaptation in places, he considered it to be of natural origin and it is therefore not included in the scheduling. To the east, the topography is almost level with the hillfort and here the defences comprise a multiple system of ditches, banks and two very substantial ramparts. These become progressively larger from east to west, and the ramparts and two westernmost ditches continuing further than the outer earthworks to curve around the north-east and south-east flanks of the hillfort. The ditches vary in size; most are between 4m and 6m wide and up to 1.6m deep, while the largest ditch situated between the two ramparts is 15m wide and averages 1.2m-1.5m deep. Dymond’s excavations revealed that the inner rampart, which is 10m wide and up to 2.5m high, originally comprised a core of stone rubble with battered drystone faces and revetted on both sides by continual buttresses of rubble that were also faced in drystone. The second rampart was found to be of similar construction. Several possible platforms of embanked stone on the outer faces of the ramparts have been interpreted as possible stations for slingers defending the hillfort (Warre, 1852), however it has been suggested (Bowden, 2019) that these are not original structures since they appear to be situated within the collapsed sections of ramparts.
A number of breaks in the defences provide access to the hillfort interior, although not all of them are original. The main south-eastern entrance occupies a re-entrant angle in the ramparts and is original, but its configuration is masked by a scree of fallen and dumped stone. The ramparts on either side appear to have been enhanced, and Dymond (see Sources) found evidence for a semi-circular wing or shoulder on the north side of the entrance. There may have previously been an entrance through the western defences (Bowden, 2019), but there is no visible evidence to confirm this. The north-east entrance has previously been interpreted as an original feature, but Bowden considers this unlikely since the gap is narrow and the approach follows a slightly wavering course. The opening through the eastern defences was created in the 1930s.
The hillfort defences enclose an area of approximately 4ha which is relatively level but slopes slightly to the south. The interior is bisected by a rock-cut ditch some 8m wide and up to 1.4m deep which has slight traces of a bank on its west side. The relationship between the bank and the defences is difficult to ascertain, but the former appears to join the main inner rampart to the north and may represent an earlier phase at the site. The first edition Ordnance Survey map of 1885 depicts a series of hut circles within the interior. None appear to have been identified during the C19 excavations, although several large, shallow, semi-circular hollows may possibly be round house stances (Bowden, 2019). The interior also contains a large number of rock-cut pits, with a dense concentration in the eastern half. Some 93 pits were excavated in the C19 and contained various artefacts such as animal bones, shells, fragments of bronze, glass and lead, pottery and plant remains. Human remains were found in four pits and some of the bones had evidence of serious injury. One pit contained three skeletons with wounds to the skulls, legs and collar bones. In addition to the pits, other features have been identified, including linear scarps which may be geological, and several stone-built structures interpreted as C20 features (Bowden, 2019).
To the east of the hillfort are two roughly-parallel linear earthworks, each comprising a rock-cut ditch and a bank, which run north to south across the ridge, though their course is interrupted in places. They are spaced approximately 75m apart at their north end, diverging further to the south, where the eastern earthworks curve away in a south-easterly direction. The ditches appear to have previously extended southwards but have been cut by a boundary wall and encroached upon by gardens where they are not well-defined. A small excavation in 1987 revealed that the ditches, which have become partially infilled, are approximately 4m wide and around 1.5m deep and have a vertical outer (western) face. No stratified finds were recovered from the primary fill of either ditch and there was a lack of silt which seems to indicate that they were deliberately backfilled, probably by the late Roman period based on the 3rd and 4th century AD pottery recovered from the adjacent bank (Fitzpatrick and Pirie, 1987). The banks are visible as low earthworks up to 0.5m high, and there is an intermittent counterscarp associated with the westernmost bank. Running west-east between the two ditches is a low bank which has been interpreted as a later lynchet (Bowden, 2019).
The discovery of Neolithic artefacts such as flint arrowheads and axes, and also a fragment of a cast bronze collar from the Middle Bronze Age are evidence for pre-Iron Age activities at Worlebury Hill, while Roman material including pottery, glass beads and fragments of bronze, and also a small hoard of coins dating from AD 450 indicate that it remained a focus after the hillfort was abandoned.
EXTENT OF SCHEDULING
The monument boundary has been drawn to include the earthworks and buried remains of the hillfort and the linear earthworks to the east of it. At the present time, there is no evidence for significant archaeological remains to the north of the hillfort, beyond the narrow, stone-cleared strip at the foot of the cliff, to justify the inclusion of this area in the scheduled monument. Should further evidence of archaeological survival and potential come to light, the extent of the scheduling may be reconsidered. The north monument boundary has been drawn, therefore, to include the stone-free strip which provides a margin for the support and protection of the monument. Based on the information available at the present time there is no evidence to demonstrate there is nationally important archaeology in the area between the two linear earthworks to the east of the hillfort and it is not, therefore, included in the scheduling. These earthworks appear to have extended further to the south, and beyond the hillfort’s southern ramparts there were possible outworks (depicted on a mid-C19 plan), but this southern area has been encroached upon by later gardens and boundary walls and been disturbed by gardening activities. Since it is not possible to establish the character, extent or survival of the archaeology in this area it is not included in the scheduling. The southern monument boundary, therefore, follows a later C19 boundary wall which runs east-west.
EXCLUSIONS
All fence posts, benches, steps and the information board are excluded from the scheduling, although the ground beneath these features is included.
