More information : (TQ 13950805) Cissbury Ring (TI) Hill Fort (GT)
TQ 14000820) Roman Remains found (TI)(1)
TQ 139080 Cissbury Ring univallate Iron Age A&B hill fort, over
15 acres enclosed.(2)
Cissbury hill fort: excavations by the Worthing Arch Soc 1930,
suggest that it was originally constructed in La Tene I (southern
second B) and continued in use until La Tene II (southern third
A). It was disused, probably 1st cent BC, and cultivated. A field
system with lynchets developed and probably continued until late
in the Roman period (? c 275 AD) when refortification took place.
This included heightening the ramparts by turf.
The present form of the name is probably due to 16th cent attempts
to associate the fort with the Saxon Chief Cissa.
The hill fort overlies lynchets and Neolithic flint mines (qv
TQ 10 NW 4).
'Enclosures' numbered I-X (see illus AO/LP/63/242) within were
surveyed by Toms; some are later than the fields system which pre
and post dated a series of pits.
A bank and ditch extends SW from the Hill Fort for 166 yards
(cf TQ 10 NW 6).
Finds from Cissbury are in Brighton, Worthing Museums and
Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford. Scheduled.(3-6)
Cissbury Ring IA hill fort as described. National Trust property
open to the public. Ploughing within the fort during and after
the last war has largely reduced most of the minor features, but
a few pits, some lynchets and enclosures I,II,III,V and X remain
surveyable. The site is under pasture.
Published 1:2500 survey revised on Field Document Astro-foil.(7)
Cissbury Ring - hillfort of probable Iron Age construction. The main earthworks, (long axis orientated roughly NE-SW) enclose an area of c. 60 acres on a spur attached to the Downs by a ridge to the east. The main rampart and ditch is supplemented for much of the circuit by a less substantial external bank. Features visible on the ground inside Cissbury include the surface remains of Neolithic flint-mining (see TQ 10 NW 4), plus a series of lynchets and a number of small sub-rectangular enclosures. There are 4 breaks in the main rampart, the ones to the east and the south-west probably representing `original' entrances, while those to the north and south appear to be rather more recent. A linear bank and ditch runs SW from the SW corner of the main rampart.
Discussion of Cissbury up until the later 19th century reveal a tendency to be distracted by the presence of the flint-mine remains, their true nature not yet recognised. Turner (8) and Irving (9) described Cissbury and discussed its earthworks and location largely in military/strategic terms. The lack of available dating evidence either from Cissbury or comparable sites led to an Ancient Britons v. Romans debate as far as date of construction was concerned. Irving favoured the latter following his discovery of a few Roman potsherds in the upper fill of one of the `hollows'.
Both Turner and Irving assumed that the hollows were the work of the hillfort's occupants (see TQ 10 NW 4 for speculation as to their purpose), as, initially at least, did Lane-Fox (10-14). His first excavations at Cissbury, which formed part of a general study of Sussex hillforts, again concentrated on these mysterious hollows. Although he recognised their early date and true character (`for the purpose of obtaining flint'), his excavation in the hillfort ditch in 1867-8 led him to conclude that the entire earthwork `belongs to the stone age, or at any rate to the age of flint manufacture' following his discovery of flints but no metal artefacts, although he conceded that it was `just possible, though not probable' that the flint mining was earlier. He also had his workmen dig into 3 small sub-rectangular enclosures he had observed within Cissbury's interior. Despite few finds he regarded them as probably later than the hillfort construction and allowed the possibility of some small scale Roman occupation or use of Cissbury.
Canon Greenwell's work at Grimes' Graves led to renewed interest in Cissbury's flint-mines a few years later. Lane-Fox returned (12-14) and was able to prove to his satisfaction that the hillfort rampart was later than the flint-mining activity. This was achieved by `examining repeatedly' the rampart on the west and south west to see if it overlay infilled shafts, and also by clearing sections of ditch to see if it cut through such shafts. A feature noted by Lane-Fox in all ditch sections was a low chalk ridge running along the bottom of the ditch, roughly in the middle, and approximately parallel to the ditch sides. Excavations were continued until 1878 by J Park Harrison, and although his main interest was the flint mine complex, he also excavated a number of shallower features which he interpreted as being possible graves, although they seem more likely to have been pits of possible Roman date (14).
Attention returned to the hillfort in the 1920s. Toms published a series of articles in Sussex newspapers on Cissbury and other nearby earthworks (see auth. no. 3, p.77 for a list of refs) before undertaking a survey of the surface remains (3). He noted a number of features not previously recognized. He identified the eastern and south-western entrances as probably being original, facing as they do the easiest approaches to the hillfort; the main rampart and ditch were seen to increase in scale on either side of these entrances, while the outer bank is not present in these areas. Toms suggested that a widening of the ditch in these places led to removal of the outer bank, the excavated material being used to heighten and widen the rampart. In addition, further `scoop-like excavations' were noted inside the eastern entrance.
As well as the external bank and ditch running away from the hillfort's SW corner (TQ 10 NW 6) Toms also noted a shallow inner ditch running along most of the northern and north-western sides. Other internal features included 7 more sub-rectangular enclosures, plus a series of lynchets. Toms felt that at least some of the lynchets pre-dated the hillfort, while the presence of a number of pits apparently dug through positive lynchets led him to speculate that the lynchet system `may possibly be as old as, or older than the flint mining industry.' As far as hillfort construction was concerned, Toms favoured a Roman date for Cissbury.
Excavations in 1930 by Curwen and Ross Williamson, aimed at clarifying the sequence of the various earthworks at Cissbury, concentrated on the hillfort rather than the flint mines. Various pits, enclosures and lynchets were examined and the main rampart was sectioned. The sequence suggested saw the hillfort constructed in La Tene 1 (dating based on pottery) with Cissbury `going out of use as a fortress' by La Tene 3. The section through the main rampart suggests that the outer face featured some form of timber revetment. The area within the ramparts but not disturbed by flint-mine remains was then ploughed, lynchet formation possibly beginning in the Iron Age and continuing through the Roman period. Survey and excavation both demonstrated that the lynchets post-dated the main rampart, but the inner ditch was partly dug into a positive lynchet. This ditch plus the `refortification' work around the entrances is vaguely ascribed to the late- or post-Roman period. Excavation of two of the smaller internal enclosures produced inconclusive results. (3-5,8-14)
Additional references:
Flint implements from Cissbury in Luton Museum (15).
10 `white flint flakes' from Cissbury sold as part of the Sturrock Collection (16).
Iron Age (La Tene) roulette-decorated pottery from Cissbury in Brighton Museum (17).
Brief note on the observation of a circular ditch and bank in the flint-mining area which appears to post-date the mining activity. Perhaps a barrow or hut-platform (18,24).
Additional discussion of aspects of prehistoric and subsequent use of Cissbury (19-24). See also TQ 10 NW 4 for further bibliography.
Notes on the origin and meaning of the place-name `Cissbury' (25-6).
Emergency mint established at Cissbury during the reign of Aethelraed II (979-1016) (23,27). Refortification of Cissbury associated with this late Saxon use (See TQ10NW155). (23,28).
Toms' survey of Cissbury compared with those of Pitt-Rivers (Lane-Fox) and Curwen (29).
Hawkes defines an Iron Age `Cissbury Culture' based on pottery from the hillfort and neighbouring sites (30).
Cunliffe uses Iron Age pottery from Curwen's excavations to define his Caburn-Cissbury pottery style-zone (31).
A survey of Cissbury Ring hillfort and flint mines was undertaken by the RCHME in the Autumn on 1993 in response to a request from the National Trust. The following is a summary of the full archive report, a version of which has been published. The defensive circuit of the hillfort is as described. Most of the central and eastern portion of the interior is covered by a series of lynchets, up to 155m long, intersected at right angles by transverse lynchets, up to 110m long, which define sub-rectangular plots aligned parallel with the main axis of the camp. The plots vary in size between 0.2 and 0.5 ha and are characteristic of prehistoric fields. Towards the west end of the interior the lynchets are much more irregular in appearance and clearly meander between the shafts of the earlier flint mines (qv TQ 10 NW 4). Shorter, less clearly defined lengths of lynchetting running between plots may be the result of later ploughing and these are, in turn, overlain by vestigial ridge and furrow. A double-lynchetted trackway, up to 9m in width, originates from beneath the E terminal of the S entrance and runs in a NE- SW direction for some 250m before being truncated by a number of circular depressions. The trackway appears integral with the prehistoric field system, as lynchets are present on either side of its line.
The central and SE portion of the hillfort is honeycombed with fairly circular depressions, varying in diameter from 0.8m-10m. Some of the larger ones were examined by Pitt-Rivers in 1867 and 1868 and may well be remnants of Neolithic shafts. A number of the pits clearly overlie the lynchets and are therefore subsequent to cultivation. A distinct grouping of closely-spaced rectangular depressions, averaging 11m by 5m, is aligned on two prominent lynchets running parallel to the SE rampart. A number of smaller sub-circular depressions to the S may be associated storage pits.
Two sub-rectangular enclosures were recorded just below the brow of the hill in the N section. The largest of these at TQ 1398708185, is a double embanked enclosure, 50m by 38m, within which are at least five clearly defined rectangular subdivisions. A possibly causewayed entrance lies on the S side, while the E corner has been mutilated by two large pits. The enclosure clearly overlies a prehistoric field boundary. The second enclosure lies some 50m to the W comprising a sub-rectangular ditch 18m by 28m and 0.1m deep, surrounded by an outer bank, up to 3.5m wide and 0.6m high, which is badly denuded on its SW side. A sub-circular hollow, 8m diameter and 1.1m deep, lies in the centre. Although the enclosure is earlier than the field system as a field bank abuts it, it is unclear whether or not it is neolithic as suggested by Pitt Rivers.
Several other features are present within the hillfort interior, including three possible ponds. A circular feature within the W sector, at TQ 1375007846, 21m in overall diameter, comprises a circular bank up to 3m wide and 0.4m high, surrounding an internal ditch 0.5m deep. The feature clearly overlies a Celtic field boundary, and a pit-like depression on the W side is indicative of an underlying flint mine. A number of sharply defined circular banks clustered just below the crest of the hill in the N sector are almost certainly associated with 1939-45 wartime activity. A similar circular earthwork bank, 10m by 9m and up to 0.3m deep, with a break in the N side, lies 370m to the SE.
Surveyed at 1/1000 by RCHME on behalf of the National Trust. See Archive Report for a detailed account. (32, 33)
The earthworks of Cissbury Ring's ramparts and interior features including the prehistoric field system and Second World War gun emplacements (described by the previous authorities) can be seen on aerial photographs taken in 1945. Cissbury's ramparts also partially enclose the Neolithic flint mines and these are recorded in NMR 395602.(35) |