Park Law

NT81NW 23 from 8459 1985 to 8450 1975

(NT 84752 19825) Fort (NR)

[Unspecified] OS map.

Fort and Settlement, Park Law: Park Law, an isolated summit, is crowned by an Early Iron Age contour fort consisting of two stony ramparts, the materials for which were obtained in part from irregular external quarry- ditches. The inner rampart (IA on RCAHMS 1956 plan - see fig.440) encloses a D-shaped area on the summit measuring 300' E-W by 160'; the chord runs along a rocky crest and the arc includes a natural terrace within its southward sweep. The rampart IA was actually a stone wall about 10'6" thick, now very much ruined but still showing massive outer facing stones at base level at many points. At its eastern extremity the wall makes a slight salient to enclose a projecting outcrop; the entrance is 55' SW of the end of this salient. The outer rampart (IB) is a stone wall from 7'6" - 8' thick, and it encloses not only the "citadel" but also a large annexe to the E of it which measures 190' along either axis. The entrance to the annexe, which is 7' wide, is in the SE arc. After the construction of the E end of the annexe a horn-work was added to strengthen the defence on the SSE, where approach along the neck is easy. This was a wall about 8'6" thick with an entrance in line with the one in the annexe wall.

Traces of secondary occupation of the site are to be seen in the remains of a settlement which occur within the citadel, mostly in its NE quarter. The enclosure walls and hut foundations are all 3' - 4' thick. A wall (II) runs from about the middle of the citadel to meet and override rampart IA at a point a little W of the centre of the N side, where a modern cairn now stands; it overlies the ruins of the rampart as far as the E end of the citadel, and returns along the S side to the entrance. This wall borders three courts (W, X, Y) each containing hut foundations. There are also two hut circles (Z) a few yards SW of the entrance to the citadel, partly overlying rampart IA; a length of wall of the settlement period which is associated with them likewise overlies this rampart.

There are also some remains of a still later phase of occupation, in the shape of rectangular foundations which lie in the SE part of the annexe, and of an enclosure and other foundations both within and outside of the horn-work. These, however, are probably to be associated with the large enclosure which adjoins the fort on the SE and which, though marked "Earthworks" on the OS map (see NT81NE 2) is only one of a number of field boundaries, probably of quite late date, which are to be seen elsewhere on the hill. A group of indeterminate mounds lies in the NW corner of the annexe, and a pile of stones outside the annexe wall in the same quarter. The latter, at any rate, seems to have little claim to be regarded as an ancient feature.

RCAHMS 1956, visited 1948.

As described above. The 'group of indeterminate mounds in the NW corner of the annexe' appears to represent at least two ring-groove huts and there is a third a little way to the E close to the N wall of the annexe. Other possible hut floors were noted between the rock outcrop and the inner W wall of the fort.

Visited by OS (JLD) 1 September 1960.

Generally as described by the RCAHMS and the previous field report. RCAHMS plan has been revised.

Visited by OS (EGC) 24 June 1968.

No change.

Visited by OS (TRG) 30 August 1976.

The visually impressive fort of Park Law occupies an isolated rocky knoll at the tip of a long spur extending NW from the plateau of Bonnie Laws. The knoll rises to 324m OD and commands extensive views over the Bowmont Water to the SW, the Sourhope Burn to the W and the Kaim Burn to the N and NE. The remains represent a long and complex defensive and occupational sequence. The defences comprise two ramparts encircling the rocky knoll with further two earthworks enclosing a lower plateau on the SE. The relationship between these two components has, in part, been destroyed by subsequent activity and their relationship with the internal occupation sequence cannot be fully appreciated through surface observation alone.

The Defences

The knoll defences

The innermost rampart forms an enclosure measuring up to 90m from E to W by 50m around the summit of the knoll including a projecting outcrop at the E end. The rampart comprises a single stone wall, much denuded, reduced through stone-robbing, and overlain in two places by traces of occupation which are discussed below. Where facing stones are visible, along the outer edge of the rampart on the NW and SSW and again to the S of the entrance at the E end, the rampart averages 4m in width. Elsewhere the outer edge of the rampart merges imperceptibly with tumble and the natural slope amounting to a spread of rubble measuring up to 10m in width on the N side. Set on the crest of the scarp, there is no evidence for an external quarry ditch and it must be assumed that the rampart material was gained from extraction within this inner enceinte, including the S-facing rocky bluff at the E end. Both the location and nature of construction are perhaps an argument for this enclosure being the earliest defensive element on site. The entrance, on the E side, measures 3m in width and is flanked on the S by a bare rock face. A second break, on the opposite side of the enceinte, leading out onto a level spur, has probably been forced through the rampart at a later date. A break in slope outwith this late, forced gap, may be interpreted as tumble rather than a further rampart.

Immediately below the inner enceinte there is a somewhat fragmentary rampart ranging from 3m to 5m in width. Outer facing stones survive, particularly on the S. Whereas the inner rampart appears to have been built from stones gained from internal quarrying, an external quarry ditch, visible intermittently along both the N and S sides, furnished construction. From a damaged terminus on the N side of the rocky boss, this rampart extends W, with two conspicuous gaps, along the scarp face of the knoll to encompass a spur lying below the W end of the inner rampart. After a further break the rampart returns, uninterrupted, along the S side of the knoll to terminate 10m S of the entrance of the inner circuit.

Intermittent traces of very slight banks and breaks in slope along the N side of the fort below the second rampart are difficult to interpret but may represent a counterscarp bank rather than remnants a third rampart concentric with the whole enclosure.

The plateau defences

The nature and sequence of the defences forming the lower enclosure are perhaps even more ambiguous than those on the knoll to the W and especially so when considering the sum of the parts.

The primary defensive element on the lower enclosure appears to be a simple stony bank, measuring up to 3m in width, which springs from the scarp-face on the N side of the knoll. This bank continues N for about 10m before swinging E, following a crest-line in places, before returning S where it terminates in a much-mutilated sequence at the SE entrance to the enclosure. A further short stretch of bank with front facing stones visible and measuring 3m in thickness with tumble spread up to 3m in width beyond, resumes beyond the entrance. This bank extends westwards for about 25m along the break in slope before apparently disappearing beneath the line of a later bank which forms the second stage in the development of the lower enclosure and ties into the outer rampart around the knoll.

After a period of decline when the rampart was reduced to footings, the whole of the lower enclosure was redefined by a second rampart almost wholly within the circuit of the original. The wall averages 3m in thickness along its course, except on its E side where the rampart is spread up to 4m in width. Facing stones are present on both the inner and outer faces of the wall.

On the gentle E approach, there is a further slight bank, measuring about 3m in width, lying between the inner and outer banks. Shallow quarries set into the 'outer face' of this bank argue for it being no more than a residual spine from quarrying behind the earlier rampart.

Latterly, the earthen bank, defining a large enclosure (NT81NE 2) on the level ridge top to the E, rides up over the outer of the two banks on the lower plateau. In turn this is overlain by a massive drystone rubble wall, up to 2m thick. The level ridge to the E of the wall, has been heavily cultivated and it is possible that this 'rampart' represents no more than exhaustive field clearance although the presence of a massive stone wall, late in the sequence, can be paralleled at Craik Moor (NT81NW 6). Sheltering behind the wall, there are three small stone-built huts (30 to 32), as well as evidence for less substantial structures (28 and 29) and the wall may be an attempt at forming an enclosure.

The occupation sequence

Continued and repeated occupation of the site, long after it ceased its role as a fort, has been responsible for much of the damage sustained to the defences. At least five different classes of structure may be observed on the hilltop today. They are presented below following a broad chronological order where such conclusions can be drawn.

Platforms

Within the inner defensive wall of the upper enclosure, there are a number of small platforms cut into the rocky knoll; the original distribution of these stances has been obfuscated by later activity in the NE quadrant of the interior. The best defined platform (1) is situated on the N side of the summit immediately W of this activity. It measures 9m from E to W by 8m transversely with a slight rear scarp. The remaining platforms are situated on a lower terrace to the S of the summit ridge. Platform (2) lies immediately S of the entrance passageway. It is defined by a level area, measuring approximately 8m in diameter, between the rocky scarp and the back of the inner rampart. A level area (3) immediately to the W, may represent at least one further platform. Two more platforms are cut into the base of the scarp below the W end of the summit ridge. Platform (4) measures 9m from E to W by 8m. To the W, platform (5) is less well-defined comprising a level area measuring about 10m in diameter.

Slight, subrectangular and oval structures

The earliest activity within the lower enclosure is represented by three indeterminate structures in its NE angle of which one (6), is clearly overlain by the inner rampart. It thus pre-dates the redefining of the plateau enclosure. All three structures are very slight; structure (6) which is subrectangular, measures about 7m from N to S by 6m overall whilst structure (7) immediately to the S is oval on plan and measures 8m from N to S by 6m overall. The third structure (8) lies to the E; it is also roughly subrectangular on plan and measures 8m from N to S by 7m although its SE angle has been destroyed by the construction of a possible ring-ditch house (9).

Ring-ditch houses

Immediately E and S of the indeterminate structures (6 to 8), there are two possible ring-ditch houses (9 and 10). Ring-ditch house (9) which overlies the SE end of structure (8), and like structure (6), is overlain by the inner rampart of the plateau enclosure, is the less well-defined and lacks a central platform. It measures 13m in diameter overall. Immediately SSW there is a second ring-ditch house (10), it measures 14m from E to W by 12m overall. The ditch, which averages 1.8m in width across the base, surrounds a central platform measuring 6m in diameter.

The arguments applied to the relationship of the indeterminate structures (6 to 8) in the occupation sequence of the lower enclosure hold true for the two ring-ditch houses. The remaining occupation evidence within the plateau enclosure, representing a farmstead and shieling-huts, are of medieval or later date. That the interior of the plateau enclosure is largely devoid of structures, particularly after its redefinition as an enclosure, argues for its possible use as a pound for livestock with the main settlement concentrated on the knoll above.

Compounds with cellular structures

Returning to the knoll, there are a number of closely-packed stone-built circular and sub-circular structures contained within two conjoined compounds partly overlying the already ruinous inner rampart on the N side of the knoll. These compounds mask any earlier activity in this, the most sheltered, side of the summit knoll although fragmentary traces do survive between and within structures in the compounds.

The E compound measures 39m from E to W by 18m internally. It is defined on the N and E by the remnant wall of the initial fort, and on the S and W by a curving wall. A large gap on the S may represent an entrance but this is not formally defined. Within, there are at least six structures (11 to 16). Occupying the E end of the projecting outcrop there area a pair of conjoined cells. Structure (11) measures 3m in diameter within a rubble wall spread up to 1.5m in thickness. The second cell, immediately to the W, measures 4m from E to W by 2m. It is possibly overlain by structure (12) and by structure (13) on the S. This structure measures 6m in diameter within a stony bank spread up to 1.8m in thickness. On the SE, an internal wall lying behind the entrance may represent a baffle or the remnant of an earlier hut. A yard area, measuring 16m from N to S by 13m separates this group of structures, (11 to 13), from three more (14 to 16) to the W. Internally, these measure 5m, 4m and 4m in diameter respectively. There is no obvious stratigraphic sequence between them although structure (16) overlies the S side of the compound wall. Another small yard area to the W is created by the return of the compound wall. This, together with the apparent relationship observed at structure (16) suggests that some of these three structures post-date the abandonment of the original compound.

The W compound is again defined by a wall constructed over the remnant of the original inner rampart on the N, and by further slighter wall on the S and W. A gap on the SE side of the compound, next to the E compound, may represent an entrance into a small yard area. There are four clearly defined structures within. Structure (17) lies to the W of the possible entrance. Oval in shape, it measures 6m from N to S by 5m. There is no entrance apparent. An arc of bank (18) on the SW side may represent an earlier stance. On the NW structure (19) is cut into the N side of the central ridge; it measures 4.5m in diameter with an opening on the N side. A similar stance, 4m in diameter, lies immediately to the N. Finally, towards the centre of the compound there is a complex circular structure (20) which measures 6m in diameter and has a possible entrance on the E. In the S arc of the hut, an internal terrace may be structural or, again, represent an earlier phase. Further arcs of bank within the compound may represent the last vestiges of earlier structures.

Post-rampart cellular structures (21 to 23) overlie the inner rampart on the S side of the knoll. The E cell (21) is oval measuring 7m from E to W by 5m within 1.8m thick rubble walls. On the W, an entrance opens into a small court (22) measuring 4m from N to S by 3m internally. This court, in turn, is linked to the third cell (23) which is subrectangular measuring 6m from E to W by 4.5m within rubble walls averaging about 1m in thickness.

Medieval and later settlement

Subsequent reuse of the fort is primarily represented by six rectangular buildings in the lower enclosure. At least three periods of activity may be recognised on the basis of the character of the buildings and their spatial distribution within the enclosure.

Farmstead

Inside the entrance to the lower enclosure, there are two parallel buildings (24 and 25). The E building, (24), comprises two chambers, that on the S measures 6.5m from N to S by 3.8m within 1.3m thick turf walls whilst the N chamber measures 3.2m from N to S by 2.5m internally. There is an entrance in the E side of the S chamber. The second building (25) lies 8m to the W. It measures 7m from N to S by 3m within turf walls spread to 1m in thickness. Again, there is an entrance on the E. A short stretch of bank between the two buildings may represent an attempt to enclose a yard. Four more rectangular buildings lie between the inner and outer ramparts of the lower enclosure on either side of the entrance. Building (26) situated on the S of and clipped by the track through the entrance, measures 6m from NE to SW by 3m within much reduced walls less than 1m thick. The remaining buildings all lie to the N of the entrance. One, building (27), lies immediately outwith the, heavily reinforced outer bank in the shadow of the massive stone wall. It comprises two chambers; the S chamber measures 5.5m from N to S by 3m and the N chamber 4m from N to S by 3m within walls spread up to 1.5m in thickness. Two further buildings, represented by shallow rectangular depressions, lie on the other side of the massive stone wall crowning the outer rampart. Building (28), to the S, measures 5.5m from NW to SE by 4.5m whilst that to the N, building (29), measures 8m from NNW to SSE by 4.5m.

Stone-built huts

Between the inner and outer ramparts of the plateau enclosure and immediately S of the two rectangular depressions (buildings 28 and 29) just described, there is a small D-shaped enclosure within which are three stone-built hut foundations. The principal hut (30) measures 4m from N to S by 2m within heavily robbed walls which are up to 0.5m thick. There is an entrance on the E. Further huts (31 and 32), rest against the massive stone wall. Hut (31), on the S angle of the D-shaped enclosure, measures 3m from N to S by up to 1.5m within residual traces of a stone wall. To the N, there is a trapezoidal hut (32) with an entrance on the W opposing that of building (30). It measures 4m from N to S by 3.5m. Within the summit enclosure, there is one rectangular stone-built hut (33) It measures 4.2m from NE to SW by 1.9 within a stone wall 0.7m in thickness and reduced to its basal course. The entrance is on the NW.

Shieling-huts

Inside the NW angle of the plateau enclosure, there are two free-standing shieling-huts. Shieling-hut (34) measures 4.2m from N to S by 2m transversely within a stony bank spread up to 1.8m in thickness. The hut lies forms the SE angle of a small oval enclosure, or pen measuring 10m in diameter within a 1.6m thick earth bank. There are breaks on either side of the shieling-hut. The second shieling-hut (35) measures lies outside the enclosure on the NW. It measures 4m from N to S by 2m within a low, 1.2m thick, earth bank. A further shieling-hut (36) has been inserted into the rubble debris of the inner rampart of the plateau enclosure. It measures 5m from N to S by about 4m internally.

As with the defences, there is a very complex occupation sequence over the knoll and lower plateau. Much of the visible evidence relates to occupation of the site at a stage when the defences had already been reduced and also to the reuse of the site by a medieval farmstead. That said, there are tentative traces of platforms on the knoll that may be broadly contemporary with the construction and occupation of the earliest fort. On the plateau below, the sequence of three indeterminate structures (6 to 8) overlain by the two ring-ditch houses (9 and 10) pre-date the redefinition of the plateau enclosure and possibly relate to the initial enclosure of the plateau or to a period when that rampart had fallen into decline.

Summary

The RCAHMS (1956) interprets the remains on Park Law as representing a single period. They identified the bivallate defences of the knoll as a single unit and interpreted the outer (their IB) of these two ramparts as extending around the lower plateau and viewed the duplication of ramparts at the E end of the plateau as a hornwork protecting the entrance at the most vulnerable point.

Even a simple sequence of expansion from a kernel crowning the knoll has its attractions, explaining the continuation eastwards of the outer rampart around the knoll to form part of the lower plateau enclosure defence rather than returning to close the circuit and protect the entrance to the knoll. Yet on the NW side of the knoll, which has admittedly been disturbed by a shieling-hut (36) inserted into the inner plateau rampart, both the inner and outer circuits of the lower enclosure, in turning towards the crown of the knoll, cut across the projected line of the outer rampart around the knoll.

In summary, the remains on the summit of Park Law represent a long and complex history. The earliest defensive element is identified as a simple stone rampart, following the crest of the knoll, constructed from stone gained from internal quarrying. On the plateau below, the enclosure is first defined by the outer of two ramparts. The relationship between the initial fort on the summit and the enclosure on the plateau below is not clear nor is the precise character of any settlement within. Tentatively the simple platforms (1 to 5), levelled into the summit knoll, are associated with the first phase rampart, whilst the early sequence of structures (6 to10), including the pair of ring-ditch houses, on the plateau below certainly pre-date the redefinition of the lower enclosure. They may represent a period of unenclosed settlement on the plateau or relate to the initial enclosure, or some other non-surviving medium like a palisade. The bivallation of the knoll appears closely associated with the redefinition of the lower enclosure although it was not necessarily executed in a single operation. Whether the two small compounds of cellular structures (11 to 16) and (17 to 20), crowning the knoll, or the three cells on the S side (21 to 23), all overlying the reduced remains of the initial rampart, are associated with this phase of fortification, or relate to a further period of activity when the ramparts were once again in abeyance is unclear.

Long after the abandonment of the site as a fort, the lower plateau saw the establishment of a small farmstead comprising at least two, if not up to six, buildings. Later again, shieling-huts were established in the corner of the plateau enclosure in the lee of the knoll whilst three stone-built huts were constructed at the edge of the cultivated ground between the inner and outer ramparts. A fourth stone-built hut was also built on the knoll. Again, late in the sequence, and perhaps associated with the stone hut foundations, the massive stone wall at the W end of the cultivated ground was constructed over both the initial rampart of the plateau enclosure and the slight banks defining an enclosure (NT81NE 2) occupying the level ridge top.

Information from RJ Mercer (University of Edinburgh) 16 and 17 March 1986

RCAHMS MS 2598, No. 27/382