Accessibility

Font Size

100% 150% 200%

Background Colour

Default Contrast
Close Reset

Scheduled Maintenance


Please be advised that this website will undergo scheduled maintenance on the following dates: •

Tuesday 3rd December 11:00-15:00

During these times, some services may be temporarily unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

 

Note

Date 30 April 2015 - 13 October 2016

Event ID 1044505

Category Descriptive Accounts

Type Note

Permalink http://canmore.org.uk/event/1044505

A complex fort occupies the summit of Castle Law above Forgandenny, commanding wide views across the lower reaches of Strath Earn. The sequence of construction is not fully understood, and the remains on the ground are confused by the wall-chasing excavation trenches left open following the excavations by Edwin Weston Bell in 1892 (Bell 1893). Indeed, the more recent excavations of Tessa Poller 2013-14, have shown that the sequence proposed by a RCAHMS survey in 2010 cannot be sustained, and with hindsight the remains were over-interpreted in an attempt to make sense of the various complete and partial circuits of walls and ramparts that are visible. Four principal elements can be distinguished: an elongated, sub-rectangular enclosure with a massive timber-laced wall on the summit; a surrounding oval enclosure with a substantial wall, principally visible on the E, S and W, but apparently largely obliterated on the N; a larger enclosure formed by a rampart that also takes in a lower terrace on the NW of the summit, and was possibly accompanied by an outer rampart around most of the circuit; and finally at least three lines of ramparts and ditches at the foot of the slope facing into the saddle connecting the hill to the main mass of Culteuchar Hill, none of which can be demonstrated as either annexes or outworks to the other circuits. In addition a thick bank drops down to the edge of the Deich Burn on the E, while another on the W terminates just above the outflow from the boggy sump that occupies the bottom of the saddle on the SW. The sub-rectangular enclosure on the summit measure 59m from ESE to WNW by 24m transversely (0.12ha) within a wall that Poller's excavations have shown to be some 5.5m in thickness and in some places still standing 1.4m in height; taking into account the quantities of fallen masonry, this wall was probably once well in excess of 3m high. The oval enclosure outside it measures 102m from ESE to WNW by 50m transversely (0.39ha) within what was probably another timber-laced wall up to 4.9m in thickness; whereas no gap has been located in the innermost enclosure, Bell uncovered an entrance into the oval enclosure on the ESE, where the S terminal of the wall turns sharply back into the interior and has been shown by Poller to butt onto the wall of the innermost enclosure. At face value this relationship suggests the oval enclosure is secondary, but its wall on the N seems to have been virtually obliterated before the collapse of the innermost wall in this sector, perhaps suggesting a more complex sequence of robbing and replacement, and a subsequent reconstruction of the earlier line on the E to enhance the approach to the inner enclosure; in character the wall linking the two circuits has more in common with the wing-walls on Knock Farril in Easter Ross (Atlas No.2888) than any known entrance architecture. The survey of 2010 suggested that the oval enclosure was also overlain in the S sector by the rampart of a much larger fort measuring 142m from NW to SE by a maximum of 82m transversely (0.93ha), though the junction was confused by Bell's trenches and the apparent relationship in which some of the numerous house-platforms within its interior overlay the wall of the oval enclosure does not appear so secure in the light of Poller's excavations. These tested one of the platforms on the N, which was found to be no more than an irregularity in the deep deposits of collapsed rubble from the innermost wall. A more likely sequence might put this fort earlier than the two enclosures on the summit, though where tested on the SW its rampart also appeared to have been burnt and was accompanied by an external ditch. Possibly accompanied by a second rampart out side it, there were entrances on the ESE and WNW, and at the latter the terminals of the outer rampart are overlain by circular platforms. The relationships between any of these circuits and the outerworks on the more easily accessible slope facing onto the saddle on the S remain unknown, though the W end of the inner of them, with a broad ditch and an external rampart appears to overlie scoops to the rear of the rampart outside it; this latter may have been conceived as some form of annexe bringing access to the water in the boggy sump in the saddle within the compass of the defences. On the SE this outer line is overlain by what is probably a hut-circle, the interior of which is occupied by rectangular building; several other hut-circles lie on the slope below the defences on the NNE.

Information from An Atlas of Hillforts of Great Britain and Ireland – 13 October 2016. Atlas of Hillforts SC2994

People and Organisations

References