| More information : [NT 96662829] Camp [OE] Hut Circles [OE] (Three) (1)
The 'camp' at Humbleton Heugh has irregular ramparts of stone which appear to have been thrown down. At one point in the NE where the wall is 10 feet thick it is 'coursed'. The area within the walls is about 3 acres. The southern point of the 'camp' is a precipice. There are one or two 'cairns' within the area but they appear to be of fairly recent date and may have been beacons. (2)
The stone fort on Homildon Hill has an outer wall of stone girdling the hill with one end resting on the brink of the ravine known as
Homilheugh. The inner wall rests one of its ends on the outer wall at the E side and from here runs up the hill in a spiral course to the summit making rather more than one complete turn round. The line of main entrance to the centre of the fort was round this spiral curve. (3)
A stone fort in a strongly defended position on the crest of Humbleton Hill. It has an outer annexe to the SE, and an additional larger annexe to the N and W.
The wall of the main fort is collapsed and widely spread but the remains indicate that the wall must originally have been high and strong. There are seven hut circles visible within the interior.
The SE annexe wall also indicates its original strength, but again it is now collapsed and spread.
The larger outer annexe wall is slight compared to the fort wall, and follows the contours. It was probably not defensive, and was merely a stock enclosure. This annexe contains 3 hut circles. The entrance to the camp on the S side is of simple form. There is no entrance visible around the spiral as alleged by Lynn.
Modern enclosures have been built to the N of the main work and within it. Average width of fort wall 9.5m; of SE annexe wall 8m; Stock annex, wall fragmentary. Average diameter of hut circles 8m. (4)
Superficially, Humbleton Heugh resembles a 'citadel' type of fort, which features a thick-walled citadel-like enclosure with outer systems of stone walls, and for which a tentative post-Roman context has been suggested. It consists of a stoutly built rampart originally some 12ft thick. But whereas the eastern annexe approaches the same massive scale, that to the west appears to have been of much slighter proportions. Eleven hut platforms are visible within the main perimeter, while further traces exist in the eastern annexe. At least ten circular floors, one bearing a 'ring-groove' for a timber building survive in the large outer enclosure. It is conceivable in this instance that the fort started as a univallate site, and that the annexes represent two successive extensions. There would seem to be no compelling reason to regard it as a post-Roman structure. (5)
Listed as pre-Roman IA univallate fort. (6)
Published survey (25") revised. Jobey's estimate of the hut sites contained within the work is probably correct, but most are no more than superficial 'scoops' too nebulous for survey. (7)
The E wall of the inner enclosure shows both inner and outer facing stones giving an original width for this wall of approximately 4.0m increasing to about 4.5m on the N side of the entrance. On the N side of the entrance at the SW corner of the inner enclosure is a sub-rectangular platform, about 16.0m by 5.0m, formed
on its W side by a consolidated turf covered stony bank spread to 2.5m wide by 0.6m high. The remains of stony banks now badly mutilated suggest this entrance was possibly flanked by a stone wall on its S side and the platform may be part of the defence arrangements.
The wall of the outer larger enclosure is generally well preserved measuring 2.0m in width between facing stones, and 0.3m high average, with a rubble infilling. Although the upper courses appear to have been robbed and there is little loose stone evident, this wall gives the impression of originally having been quite substantial and probably an integral part of the defences as well as forming stock annexe.
Surveyed at 1:10 000. (8)
NT 967 283. Humbleton Hill. Listed in gazetteer as a univallate hillfort covering 3.6ha. (9)
Additional reference (not consulted). (10)
NT 967 283. Humbleton Hill camp. Scheduled No ND/217. (11)
In April 1997, RCHME carried out an analytical survey of Humbleton Hill, as part of the national project to record industry and enclosure in the Neolithic, following a suggestion by the National Park Archaeologist that the site might be of Neolithic origin (12). A survey carried out shortly prior to RCHME's by Clive Waddington of Newcastle University concluded that the site was Iron Age in origin and perhaps underwent Dark Age and Medieval re-modelling.
The site is generally as described by source (8). It remains uncertain whether the hillfort and outer enclosure are separate entities of different date. The hut circles described by previous sources are concentrated within the hillfort and may well be contemporary with it.
The hillfort
The plan of the hillfort differs from Jobey's in one important respect: the relationship between the inner and outer ramparts would suggest that the inner rather than the outer is the later addition, as Waddington has pointed out. As MacLaughlin noted, the inner rampart appears to have been deliberately slighted, so that its original outer face now lies towards the rear of the broad rubble spread, and the continuous line of orthostats which represents the original inner face is isolated, some 3m behind the rampart. The eastern entrance through the inner rampart, which was discounted by Waddington, is in fact probably genuine, although disturbed by the present path. An alignment of stones appears to represent the lowest course of a wall defining two sides of a 'guard chamber' c.2m square within the thickness of the northern terminal.
The outer rampart, described by previous sources as a single broad dump of stone rubble, seems to represent the remains of two closely-spaced walls; the outer faces of both can be traced intermittently, and where absent their line is usually visible as a steeper scarp in the rubble spread. Each seems to be c.3m wide. The 'platform' interpreted by Source 8 (and subsequently Waddington) as a possible outwork protecting a south-western entrance is very different in appearance from the rest of the ramparts, and much sharper in profile, suggesting that it may be a more recent modification (of unknown function).
The outer enclosure
In addition to the predominantly earth and stone bank recorded by previous sources, the RCHME survey identified a possible continuation of the earthwork, also running along the contour, around the eastern side of the hill and up to the edge of the Homilheugh ravine (similar to the northern end). The section which leads obliquely across the contours to join the hillfort, which is indeed similar in construction technique to the fort, may therefore be a later modification. Thus, there is no direct stratigraphic relationship between them, and the term 'annexe' is perhaps inappropiate; it remains possible that the outer enclosure is not contemporary. It is possibly Bronze Age, given its unusual plan and the eroded, rounded boulders (presumably from surface clearance) used in its construction.
Three or four possible excavation trenches were noted sectioning the northern perimeter; these appear to be of 20th century date, but there is no record of any such investigation.
The bank on either side of the broad entrance at the south-western corner of the outer enclosure has certainly been enlarged at some point, involving the enlargement of the quarry hollow behind the rampart and the removal of part of the rear of the bank itself. It is tempting to link this modification with the documented Battle of Humbleton Hill in 1402, which is thought to have taken place on the western flanks of the hill.
The 'modern' enclosures and sheilings mentioned by Source 4 may be Medieval, or earlier Post-Medieval; the cairn on the summit semms unlikely to have been a beacon. These are described as NT 92 NE 98 and 99 respectively.
For further details, see plan at 1:1000 scale and full Level 3 report, held in the Archive. (12)
Details of Waddington's survey have been published in Northern Archaeology vol. 15/16. In the same journal can also be found an account of the battle of Homildon. (14-15)
The site is visible on a number of aerial photographs. (16-18)
The site has been mapped from the air as part of the Milfield Geoarchaeoloy Project. (See archive object MD000292)
The site is visible as earthworks in lidar and was mapped as part of the Northern Cheviot Hills Aerial Investigation and Mapping Project. (19)
|