Pricing Change
New pricing for orders of material from this site will come into place shortly. Charges for supply of digital images, digitisation on demand, prints and licensing will be altered.
Scheduled Maintenance Notice
Please be advised that this website will undergo scheduled maintenance starting on Thursday, 30th January at 11:00 AM and will last until Friday, 31st January at 10:00 AM.
During this time, the site and certain functions may be partially or fully unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Field Visit
Date 11 September 1956
Event ID 920036
Category Recording
Type Field Visit
Permalink http://canmore.org.uk/event/920036
FORT, BROWN CATERTHUN. (cf. Christian 1900, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. xxxiv, 105).
(a) The inner ring shown on the plan in Proceedings (Fig. 52) is not a wasted earthwork, but a ruined wall which was clearly intended for defences. Although it is now reduced practically to ground level the wall is still traceable by a scattering of boulders which once formed part of the core. The original dimensions of the wall cannot be ascertained now without excavation, but were probably in the order of 10-12 ft. Within the enclosure formed by this wall there is a pond. Some of the gaps in the wall shown on the plan are no doubt secondary but from a superficial view it is not possible to say which.
(b) The second ring is also a wall much better preserved than the first, and originally about 15 f t. thick. Outer facing stones as well as core can be seen in a number of places, and again a number of the apparent gaps in the wall are presumably secondary.
(c) The third element, shown as a ditch in Fig. 52, is actually a space between the banks 21-30 ft. apart. These banks are very slight and exhibit no sign of stone work, so that it is possible that they have been
built of upcast from a medial ditch., This hypothesis requires to be tested by excavation.
(d) The two outer ramparts are apparently earthworks. The inner one, which is the more substantial of the two, is built of material derived from internal quarry pits. The outer one has similar quarry pits on the inside, but is surrounded by a ditch with a very slight counterscarp bank.
Conclusion. The general impression is that (a) goes with (c) to form an original work which was later replaced by (b) and (d), but this may be entirely erroneous. Failing excavation a careful plan and study of the entrances might yield useful information.
Visited by RCAHMS 11 September 1956.