Field Visit

Date May 2018

Event ID 1087310

Category Recording

Type Field Visit

Permalink http://canmore.org.uk/event/1087310

Traprain Law Archaeological Survey

Traprain Law Fort

Traprain Law rises to a height of 221m OD above the farmland of East Lothian, the highest point in a broad swathe of land between the River Tyne to the N and the Whittinghame Water to the S. Roughly triangular on plan it is bound by steep ground to the NE, NW and SE, the latter forming broken cliffs that prevent ready access. At the SW the ground descends more gently while the interior is divided into a large relatively level summit plateau, and smaller terraces to the W and N. The NE end of the hill has been severely diminished by quarrying that removed about 10% of the surface area of the hill before operations ceased in 1975.

Traprain bears the traces of one of the largest prehistoric forts in Scotland, the internal area measuring over 16ha at its maximum extent. Despite a brief reference in the Statistical Account (ii, 1792, 349-50), the fort received little notice in the 19th century (but see Maclagan 1875) and was first delineated in 1907 (OS Haddingtonshire 1907, sheet 11.1), benefiting from a detailed account by Alexander Curle a few years later (1915). Excavations by the Society of Antiquaries under Curle and James Cree between 1914 and 1923 focussed on the western terrace, with a series of smaller cuttings elsewhere, amounting to about 5% of the internal surface area. Statutory protection followed, and a summary and plan were published a year later (RCAHMS 1924, 94-9, no.148, fig. 137).

The continuation of quarrying caused enough concern for three smaller excavations to be undertaken: by Stewart Cruden in 1939; Gerhard Bersu in 1947; and Peter Strong in 1983 (Cruden 1940; Close-Brooks 1983; HES Archive: WP005495). Widespread fire damage prompted new phases of rescue excavation in 1996-7 and 2003-4, which have bolstered the unpublished results of the Traprain Law Summit Project (2000-1), each suggesting that the relatively smooth surface of the fort’s interior belies the widespread preservation of stratified deposits and structures (Rees and Hunter 2000; Armit, Dunwell, Hunter and Nelis 2005; MS2673).

RCAHMS made the first detailed archaeological survey of Traprain in April 1955 and the published plan and accompanying description by their archaeologist Richard Feachem (1958) has formed the basis of subsequent discussions of the visible remains and the defensive sequence (e.g Hogg 1975, 95-9; Jobey 1976; Close-Brooks 1983, 207-9). Feachem’s tentative division of the site into at least four principal phases relied in part on the excavations by Cruden (1940). To facilitate comparison the nomenclature used by Cruden and Feachem has been included in this description where relevant, while the principal elements of the fort’s defences have been separated into four phases, with shorter descriptions dedicated to the putative outworks and the interior. The description is designed to be read in conjunction with the overall plan of Traprain Law, and with the simplified version thereof. For further information on other elements of the site, including the quarries, field systems and medieval settlements, the reader is directed to the appropriate Canmore entry.

Fort I (10 acre)

The traces of a rampart, reduced to a grass-grown stone bank (I), enclose about 10 acres of the summit plateau (OS Haddingtonshire Sheet XL.1, 1907; Curle 1915, fig. 1; Hogg 1951, fig. 54; Feachem 1958, 286). The rampart is best preserved about 60m NE of the summit where it runs for about 50m from ENE to WSW measuring about 3m in thickness and 2m high with occasional larger boulders perhaps representing a revetment. The line of the rampart is lost further to the ENE but it can be tentatively traced running to the WSW as a fragmentary scarp before turning S to follow a natural crest line. Some 200m to the WSW of the summit there is another well-preserved section some 30m long, spread up to 5m in thickness and about 1m in external height. The original entrance into this fort is not clear, although a natural cleft at its SW corner probably provides the best candidate. Another entrance, some 100m WNW of the summit is lined by earth-fast boulders but both its character and location is unusual for a prehistoric fort and it may relate to the later, medieval, occupation of the hill. The house platforms shown on the RCAHMS plan, one of which was noted by George Jobey (1976, 195), have been discounted but one possible house platform 97m NE of the summit has been identified. Two small trenches (4 and 6 on the plan) were excavated across the rampart of the 10-acre fort in 1999 under the direction of Ian Armit, Andy Dunwell and Fraser Hunter (MS726/177). The excavators have tentatively suggested that it may have been constructed in the Late Bronze Age (Armit el al 2005, 3).

Fort II (20-acre enclosure)

A larger enclosure was formed by carrying a rampart (II) further to the NE where it drops downslope before turning ENE and running along the flank of the hill for a total distance of about 280m. The better preserved sections of this rampart achieve a thickness of some 4m and an outer height of about 1.5m and external facing stones are visible in a few places. In 1939 Cruden excavated three trenches (C2-4 on the plan) across II, which he called Rampart 2 (1940). In 2000 another trench (5 on the plan) was opened across this feature recovering evidence that it was of earlier date than the Roman Iron Age (MS726/177).

The surveyors in 1955 identified two further stretches of rampart which are recognised here as additional phases. The first (IIA), which takes in a slightly smaller area than (II), has been reduced to a grass-grown stony bank on the NW flank of the hill measuring about 3.5m in thickness and 1.5m in external height. At its NE end it is obscured by a large mound of quarry spoil near the modern quarry edge but at a point 95m WSW of the mound it turns to the SW reappearing after about 20m for a stretch of 35m. Beyond this point the line of the rampart can be traced for a further 125m as an irregular scarp marked by the occasional boulder until it meets the line of II. The character of this rampart was examined by an excavation at the break of slope in 1999 (7 on the plan) when the excavators discovered a ‘substantial, perhaps monumental terrace wall’ (MS726/177, 53).

The second stretch (IIB) recorded in 1955 seems to spring from II before running in a broken and irregular line for some 160m to the W. It too survives as a grass-grown stony bank, some 3.2m in thickness and up to 2m in external height, though in places it is formed of large boulders, and in others has been reduced to a barely visible scarp. Cruden’s excavation (C2 on the plan)exposed IIB, which he called Rampart 2a (1940, 56), and it was subsequently identified as part of a 30-acre enclosure by Feachem who argued that it dropped downhill to follow a course ‘similar to that taken by the later defences’ (1958, 287). In practice the line of this rampart peters out on the western flank just to the N of a boulder enclosure (79 on the plan), and it cannot be taken as evidence of a major phase of enclosure.

Fort III (40-acre enclosure)

The most substantial defence at Traprain, massive in a Scottish context, is the grass-grown terrace-rampart (III) that runs at a lower level than the ramparts described above and encloses much of the steep N flank of the hill and most of the W flank before terminating at the SW corner, a total distance of some 900m. Along the N flank, where it is not obscured by later features, the rampart measures some 4.5m in thickness and about 3m in height, and outer facing-stones are visible in many places. Although rampart III can be followed as a consistent feature to the W and then S, its route to the E has been cut by the modern quarry. However, early plans (e.g. Curle 1915, fig.1) can be combined with a historic photographic (SC1552197) to suggest that it continued to the SE and then turned to the S, following broadly the route indicated on Feachem’s plan and possibly linking with the vestiges of a wall at the E end of the summit plateau. There is as yet little evidence to support the interpretation put forward by Strong in 1983 who argued that the terrace-rampart re-appears on the other side of the quarry at a lower level (WP005495; site NT57SE 175). The features that he identified following the foot of the hill to the S and then W appear to be natural gravel terraces, modified by both positive and negative lyncheting.

At least three entrances pierce the route of rampart III. The most prominent (E2 on the plan) faces directly W and occupies a unique location in the circuit where the entry point is overlooked by steep ground. A track leads up to this entrance from the flatter ground below, crossing the steep and rocky ground to the W for about 70m. It may have turned S along the inside of the rampart before heading uphill. Excavations in 1922 recovered evidence that E2 was a complex construction of at least two phases (Curle and Cree 1923, 222-226, Y on plan). About 40m to the S there is a second smaller entrance (E1) that is approached by a similar trackway from the W that continues into the interior, climbing the slope towards the summit plateau, flanked by occasional edge-set stones. A second track diverges to the NE approaching the site of Curle and Cree’s excavations before re-appearing further NE: a composite plan of the excavations suggests that the track may be contemporary with the settlement they discovered (Hogg 1951, fig. 53). A third entrance is situated on the N side of the hill, just to the W of the quarry edge (E5) where a gap some 3m wide at a base and about 1.5m in depth provides access to the steep N flank of the hill. This route has clearly been used in recent years, providing access to smaller quarries nearby and to the magazines, while a low brick dam has been constructed across it, perhaps to create a fire pond.

Rampart III has been explored by excavation on three different occasions in more than six locations. In 1915 Curle and Cree excavated on four occasions: Trench U, a rectangular trench near entrance E5; an oval trench near the magazines; ‘several short exploratory trenches at other parts of the terrace’; and at a point near the SW of the circuit (1916, 64-9, 69-71, 71, 85). In 1922, they opened Trench Y over entrance E2 (1923, 222-6), while Bersu in 1947 opened two trenches across the rampart in its western arc (Close-Brooks 1983, B1 and B2 on the plan). On two of these occasions the excavation focussed on material behind the leading edge of the rampart, while the most recent did not penetrate to a significant depth, and there are unresolved questions as to the original structure and the number of phases that the terrace-rampart represents. The evidence for the date of the rampart is therefore problematic (Jobey 1976, 199; Close-Brooks 1983, 213) and all that can be said with any confidence is that finds of 1st or 2nd century AD date were recovered by Curle and Cree from the area behind the rampart, or possible on top it – they provide a terminus ante quem for its construction (contra Feachem 1958, 288) and, as Close-Brooks (1983, 215) has noted, ‘it would be dangerous at present to suggest a date for the rampart any more definite than ‘probably pre-Roman’’.

Fort IV (30-acre enclosure)

The most recent defensive circuit at Traprain, Feachem’s final enclosure and Cruden’s Rampart 3, comprises a stone and turf wall (IV) about 3m in thickness and 1m in height which has been constructed over the terrace-rampart (III) for much of its length, beginning slightly beyond its S terminus and following the route for some 500m before striking uphill at a point on the NW shoulder of the hill for 90m and then continuing along its flank for 350m to be truncated by the modern quarry, running over the route of earlier ramparts II, IIA and IIB. It reappears at the E edge of the summit plateau, curving around the end of the hill before terminating as the SE flank increases in steepness. In places, this wall is difficult to trace having been reduced by stone robbing to low grass-covered footings, but inner and outer faces survive periodically and, at the NE end, it survives up to 2m in height.

The footings of wall IV cross the southernmost entrance (E1) while it appears that the main entrance (E2) continued in use. Two further entrances (E3 and E4) are more slight affairs, and difficult to date in their current guise. The first (E3) is only a narrow break, but the footings of IV appeared to run across this when they were exposed by fire damage (F Hunter pers. comm.), suggesting it is of an early date. The second (E4) is that most commonly used by modern walkers. It too is a rough and uneven affair, and a heavily worn trackway to the NW of the fort that runs to it for some 200m probably exploits natural terraces in the bedrock and scree. It may be a rather slighter feature than it initially appears, and it may have been accentuated by later use (Maclagan 1875, 49). Another entrance (E6) at the E end of the summit has been disturbed by recent test-pitting, and affected by re-cutting. It opens onto steep and uneven ground, and may be a modern feature.

Wall IV was excavated at three locations in 1939 (Cruden 1940, C1-3), and subsequently examined by Bersu (1947, B1-2). The dating evidence is limited to a sherd of samian ware of the 2nd century AD (Cruden 1940, 54), and Roman sherds of the 3rd or 4th century AD recovered by Bersu (Close-Brooks 1983, 216). These were found underneath the wall and indicate that it was constructed in the 4th century AD or later. A silver handpin, also found by Cruden (1940, 57), has been dated to the 4th or 5th century AD, although it does not come from a secure context (Close-Brooks 1983, 216-7).

Outworks

Little has been made in previous descriptions of the potential outworks which occupy natural terraces on the W flank of Traprain, below the level of rampart III. They were recorded in 1955 as narrow stony banks but received no mention in the accompanying analysis (Feachem 1958). Surface evidence is limited to the remains of a massive grass-grown rampart (V) that is located on the NW flank of the hill, measuring about 3m in thickness and 2m in external height. The rampart certainly extends for about 50m from NE to SW, but it may have continued along a natural terrace to the SW, and followed the hill round to the S. In 1955 a second rampart was identified on a higher terrace (VI). In practice these features are impossible to trace confidently in present conditions but two small trenches opened in 2004 (MS2673, 50-51) encountered evidence for walls. Another short section of rampart (VII), similar in character to (VI), survives on the SW side of the hill where it runs for some 60m in total (NT57SE 199).

Interior

While Curle and Cree’s excavations on the western terrace between 1914 and 1923 identified numerous hearths and the vestiges of circular and rectangular buildings, only an indicative plan of the uppermost levels can now be recovered (Hogg 1951, fig. 53; cf. Smith 1990, figs. 5.1-5.5). That said, test-pitting in more recent years has demonstrated that settlement extended to the summit plateau (MS2673). Further evidence for an extensive distribution of prehistoric structures comes from the scoops and terraces which are scattered over the NW, W and SW flank of the hill between the western terrace and the rampart III. Two of these were excavated in 1914 (Curle 1915, 152-4, Area C), revealing indications of structures and a hearth, and the remains of the excavation trenches and an adjacent spoil heap are still visible. Another area on the NW flank, measuring some 13m by 7m was excavated in 1920 (Curle and Cree 1921, 202-206, Area X) revealing another hearth and evidence for a structure.

The RCAHMS survey of 1955 expanded the number of visible platforms to more than 50, and identified fragmentary remains of walling on about 10 (Feachem 1958). In practice at least some of the smaller scoops they surveyed are probably a product of natural slippage, while the rocky terraces at the S of the western terrace are natural origin. But at least 17 terraces provide evidence for buildings in the form of banks, scarps or edge-set stones. Most of these appear to be sub-rectangular on plan, most are set up and down the slope and the best preserved lie to the N of the area, on the hill above entrances E2 and E3: some 30m SE of E3 a rectangular building set into and along the slope. It measures about 21m from NNE to SSW by 6m transversely within a grass-grown bank only 0.2m in height. Just 3m to the SE there is another sub-rectangular building, aligned up and down the slope and measuring about 13m by 7m overall, while a third building, similar to the second, stands a further 30m to the SE. In practice these structures may be medieval or post-medieval in date, although it is likely that they are earlier in date than the better preserved farmstead that stands on the northern terrace (NT57SE 181), and later than those exposed by Curle and Cree’s excavations.

Visited by HES Survey and Recording (GFG, JRS, AM) May 2018.