1. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort
Flintshire, North Wales
INTERIM REPORT 2012
Richard Mason and Rachel Pope
Rachel Pop with contributions by Ben Edwards
2. Contents page
List of Figures 1
Introduction 2
Summary 2
Background 3
Site location 3
Archaeological context 3
History of investigation 5
Recent survey work 7
(topographic survey, geophysics, digital terrain modelling, electrical resistance tomography)
Current Project 11
Aims and objectives 11
Area of investigation 11
Methodology 12
2012 excavation results 13
20th/21st century
Modern damage and erosion 13
Post-Medieval-e. 19th
century
Track construction 15
Medieval/Post-Medieval period
Stone bank on rampart crest 17
Middle/Late Iron Age
Post-abandonment phase 18
Iron Age
Primary structural collapse 20
Late rampart construction 20
Pre-rampart land surfaces 24
Discussion 25
2012 Post-excavation 29
Post-excavation schedule 29
Proposal for 2013 29
Appendix
Finds 30
DTM results 31
References 32
3. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
1 | P a g e
List of plates
Fig. 1: Location map for Penycloddiau Hillfort 3
Fig. 2: Map of hillforts in the northern Welsh Marches 4
Fig. 3: Canon Ellis Davies’ 1929 survey of the Hillfort 6
Fig. 4: Forde-Johnston’s 1964 survey work 6
Fig. 5: Forde-Johnston’s 1976 entrance surveys 6
Fig. 6: CPAT topographic survey showing potential hut circles 8
Fig. 7: Location map of all previous geophysical survey work 9
Fig. 8: Results and interpretation of the University of Liverpool 2009 resistivity survey 10
Fig. 9: 2012 trench locations 12
Fig. 10: Area of investigation prior to excavation 12
Fig. 11: Pre-excavation photograph of Area 1 13
Fig. 12: Pre-excavation photograph of Area 2 13
Fig. 13: Track re-cut [F25] filled by deposit (22) 14
Fig. 14: Area 1, extent of eroded material (2), exposed on removal of turf 15
Fig. 15: Triangular track construction cut [F20] through inner rampart 16
Fig. 16: Extract from 1874 Ordnance Survey map showing north-east area of the hillfort 17
Fig. 17: Stone brash deposit (13), fragmented remains of rampart superstructure [F12] 18
Fig. 18: Rampart collapse deposit (27) on eastern gradient 19
Fig. 19: Possible inner ditch terminal, ditch fill/packing material (47) 20
Fig. 20: Potential timber upright feature (37), and intercutting features (38), (39) and (40) 21
Fig. 21: Potential timber upright feature (32) with packing stones and post pipe (33) 21
Fig. 22: Plan of potential timber features 22
Fig. 23: 2012 Closing area shot 23
Fig. 24: Rampart material (43) and (44) upslope, collapse deposit (45) downslope 23
Fig. 25: Line of stone facing [F50] on rampart exterior 24
Fig. 26: Possible timber revetment features (49) (left), and (49) (right) 24
4. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
2 | P a g e
Introduction
The first of a projected four year programme of targeted excavations at Penycloddiau hillfort, Flintshire,
North Wales between 2012 to 2015. The first season took place between23rd July-17th
August 2012 under
the auspices of the Liverpool Archaeology Field School, directed by Dr Rachel Pope (Lecturer in European
Prehistory, University of Liverpool) and Richard Mason (Consultant Archaeologist to English Heritage).
The investigations are part of a working partnership with Cadw (Welsh Assembly Government) – who
granted consent to excavate – and Denbighshire County Council, under the auspices of the HLF-funded
Heather and Hillforts Project. The Liverpool investigations aim to characterise the chronology and function
of the Clwydian contour forts, via targeted excavation at previously uninvestigated Penycloddiau. A wider
research aim is to update our current understanding of the nature and chronology of later prehistoric
settlement in northern Wales, in line with current research framework for Wales (IFAW 2008).
During the 2012 season, two areas were opened over the inner rampart on the eastern side of the hillfort: a
damaged section of rampart truncated by a presumed modern track; the second over a presumed area of
intact rampart immediately to the north. Trench locations and dimensions were directed by the regional
Inspector of Ancient Monuments Will Davies. After the four week season, both areas were fully reinstated.
Summary
Area 1
The Cadw-agreed aims for Area 1 were: 1) to record recent damage to the monument to help inform future
management of the monument; 2) to gain an understanding of inner rampart structure through excavation
and investigate any pre-rampart features, providing samples for environmental analysis and scientific
dating. The inner rampart in Area 1 is significantly less intact than in Area 2. Three active forms of erosion
were recorded, as well as two substantial interventions into the rampart itself – both assigned to the
modern period. The removal of earlier widespread collapse deposits which appear to cease during the late
Victorian period, revealed primary collapse deposits, intact rampart material and potential prehistoric
features. Whilst no intact rampart deposits were excavated in 2012, those exposed in plan lead us to
believe the inner rampart consists of a stone bank, with exterior facing, revetting an earth and turf core;
modified post-abandonment with the addition of a linear stone structure along the rampart crest.
Area 2
The Cadw-agreed aim for Area 2 was to assess the archaeological potential of the inner rampart crest in
plan, record recent damage to the monument and identify any cut features, but not to excavate intact
prehistoric deposits/structure – as defined by the Scheduled Monument Consent agreement. Excavation
revealed the fragmented remains of a heavily eroded linear stone structure along the rampart crest
(previously understood to be intact prehistoric rampart). Final collapse deposits were identified for the
latter, with excavation retrieving fragments of a late 19th
century vessel – suggesting final collapse during
the Victorian period. Since then, remains of the stone structure have deteriorated further under sustained
foot traffic, and sections of rampart material beneath have been dislodged by livestock erosion. Area 2 was
closed after two weeks as the Consent agreement prevented further stratigraphic excavation.
6. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
4 | P a g e
These very large hilltop enclosures (Moel Hiraddug, 10 ha; Penycloddiau, 21 ha; Moel Fenlli, 10 ha; Pen y
Cordynn, 15 ha) – averaging 14 ha – are more involved with slope topography than the smaller sub-circular
or D-shaped examples (Dinorben, 2 ha; Moel Arthur, 5 ha; Moel y Gaer Rhosesmor, 1 ha; Moel y Gaer
Llanbedr 3 ha) – averaging 3 ha – it may be that the difference here is one of chronology. The hillforts of
Penycloddiau and neighbouring Moel Arthur are very easily seen from each other (Brown 2004, 73) and a
further ‘pairing’ of a large contour multivallate hillfort with a smaller D-shaped multivallate hillfort might
also be seen at Moel Fenlli and Moel y Gaer Llanbedr. Excavations at Moel Hiraddug and Dinorben might
indicate that the larger contour sites have earlier origins, the smaller enclosures later.
Figure 2: Hillforts in the northern Welsh Marches (Forde-Johnston 1976, fig. 16)
Despite its hilltop location, Penycloddiau is not a true contour fort (Forde-Johnston 1964, 1; contra. Lewis
1849). The site instead favours the southern slopes of the hill, only barely enclosing the highest point at its
northern extent – a technique also found at Moel Fenlli. Forde-Johnston believed that this may have been
to provide easy access, via the southern entrance, for communities living in the Vale of Clwyd (ibid., 2), at
the same time ensuring that the site was strongly ‘defended’ by its natural slopes, crag and rock outcrop
(Forde-Johnston 1976, 62; 73; Brown 2004, 76). Penycloddiau is therefore of Forde-Johnston’s (1976) ‘semi-
contour’ type.
The site is defined along most of its circuit by a single bank – and associated internal quarry scoops – Forde-
Johnston’s (1976) Group 1 type. The enclosure has up to two additional banks and ditches enhancing those
areas associated with the two entrances. The outer-most ditch seems at times to have been provided with
a small counterscarp bank. To the north, a relatively short stretch is defined by four predominantly stone
banks where the land beyond it is decidedly flat. The full circumference of the rampart is 1.93 km (Grant
and Jones 2008, 4). Along the western side, a 3 m wide flat berm of land exists between the main bank and
outer ditch, a wider example is found at Moel Fenlli (Forde-Johnston 1976, 141).
Inside the inner bank are very pronounced near-continuous quarry scoops into the steep natural slope of
the hillside. Also found at Moel Arthur and Moel Fenlli, they are notably large at Penycloddiau – 21-24 m
wide, compared to 9-12 m at Moel Fenlli (Forde-Johnston 1976, 129). To the south, the quarry hollows
have been hewn from the rock (Brown 2004, 76). This arrangement – where material for a single bank has
been won from an interior quarry feature – is referred to by Forde-Johnston as being of the ‘single out-
throw’ type, as also found at Moel Arthur and Moel y Gaer Llantysilio (ibid., 140). At Penycloddiau, in those
places where the bank/quarrying are accompanied by an outer ditch and counterscarp bank this is Forde-
Johnston’s ‘double out-throw system’, as paralleled at Moel Fenlli (ibid.).
7. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
5 | P a g e
The two securely original entrances are SSE- and east- facing, and both have in-turned entranceways (Jones
2006, 3). The SSE entrance is flanked internally by a pair of ‘guard chambers’. The western chamber ‘claw-
type’ with an apparent parallel at Moel Arthur (Forde-Johnston 1976, 229) – accessed from the hillfort
interior it does not open out onto the entrance. The eastern chamber is considered more akin to one at
Moel y Gaer Rhosesmor, appearing to represent perhaps a separate, additional construction event (ibid.).
Roundhouse stances were first recognised in the interior, close to the north-east bank, following a heather
burn in 1962 (Burnham 1995, 58). Recent survey work by CPAT identified 33 house platforms within the
circuit of the enclosure. The large circular quarry scoops against the inner rampart were also considered to
potentially provide a further 49 stances. The smaller quarry scoops at Moel Fenlli are perhaps more readily
recognisable as house platforms; this aside, 82 potential house locations have now been recognised at
Penycloddiau (Fig. 5). There is one permanent and two temporary areas of standing water within the
hillfort, lying upon a flatter saddle of land slightly north of the centre of the site.
Beyond the hillfort, there is little other prehistoric evidence on the site, bar the finding of flints, including a
scraper (Davies 1949, 273). The only other prehistoric feature is a probable Early Bronze Age round cairn on
the summit of Penycloddiau, within the north extent of the hillfort (PRN102277) – as recorded by Lewis
(1849), and recently investigated by CPAT (Grant and Jones 2008; see below). There are records of four
other probable Early Bronze Age round barrows in the local vicinity, in addition to this likely example at
Penycloddiau (see below), all of which occupy summit or prominent positions in the local landscape.
The best parallel for Penycloddiau is Moel Hiraddug at the mouth of the Clwyd (Brassil et al. 1982). A
brooch and harness mount from the 1960s rescue excavations has 5th
century BC continental parallels and
elsewhere the site produced 6th
/5th
century BC C14
dates (Brown 2004, 79; 82), and a saddle quern (Brassil
et al. 1982). Houlder (1961) and Brassil et al. (1982) consider the outer/middle ramparts (enclosing 10.5 ha)
represent a separate phase of occupation to the inner rampart (which defined two separate areas – c. 2.75
ha to the east, 7.5 ha to the west). In 1872, construction of a road, to aid iron ore extraction, revealed two
pieces of shield boss, two pieces of sword, and two bronze plates – one with embossed La Téne decoration
– at/near the base of the innermost ditch (Hemp 1928, 255). The late La Tène decorative style and surface
tinning suggests a date comparable with that of the Romanising Tal-y-llyn (Gwynedd) hoard at c. AD 50-75
(A. Gwilt pers. comm.).1
The suggestion at Moel Hiraddug then is a large Early Iron Age enclosure, with Late
Iron Age remodelling.
History of Investigation
The first textual record of Penycloddiau is in Edward Lhuyd’s Parochialia of 1696 and in two undated letters
to him where it is referred to as ‘ye
eminent fort’ and ‘of about a mile in circumference’ (see Morris 1909,
78; Davies 1929, 201). The site is described more fully by Samuel Lewis in his (1849) topographical
dictionary as ‘the most extensive British fortification in this part of the principality’. Lewis discusses it
‘defences’, noting the circumference as 1¾ miles, and records the main entrance in the west, with five
ditches in the north. The interpretation of the site at this time is one of a defensive enclosure:
“Within the enclosure are several hollows, as if designed or lodgements of men on guard,
or probably as places of greater security, which are now filled with pools of water”
(Lewis 1849)
In addition, Lewis’ reference to standing water, presumably in the internal quarry scoops, is an interesting
one and may have implications regarding the potential survival of organic material, due to waterlogging,
towards the base of these features.
Even despite Penycloddiau’s very early recognition, there is no recorded Antiquarian activity at the site
until Canon Ellis Davies’ (1929) survey (Fig. 3) and his later finding of flints (1949, 273). In 1962, a heather
1
A 4th
/3rd
century BC date might be considered for the Ffynogian spoons – found in the upper reaches of the Clwyd
valley – pending further research.
8. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
6 | P a g e
burn revealed roundhouse stances near the north-east bank (Burnham 1995, 58) after which Penycloddiau
was considered by James Forde-Johnston (1964), of Manchester Museum, who surveyed both entrances,
and gave a profile across the quadruple defences to the north (Fig. 4). Forde-Johnston also considered the
location and construction of the hillfort in greater archaeological detail. By this point, the interpretation of
the site was still thought to be primarily that of defence, although Forde-Johnston began to consider hillfort
design – south off the hilltop – as related to providing an easy access route for the communities from the
Vale of Clwyd below (Forde-Johnston 1964, 2).
Figure 3: Canon Ellis Davies’ (1929) survey Figure 4: Forde-Johnston’s (1964) survey work
The site was not considerd by A.H.A. Hogg (1975) in his synthesis of British hillforts. Forde-Johnston’s
(1976) synthesis on the hillforts of England and Wales, however, does include numerous references to
Penycloddiau, and an improved survey of the entrances (Fig. 5). Of the eastern entrance, he begins to
consider a function beyond that of defence:
“The hornwork at the eastern entrance of Pen-y-cloddiau.. may have been designed as
much to prevent cattle from straying into the gully immediately to the south as to
prevent any hostile approach from this direction”
(Forde-Johnston 1976, 241)
Figure 5: Forde-Johnston’s (1976) entrance surveys
Some, limited excavation was undertaken in 1988 in connection with tree felling and erosion control works
on the eastern side of the hillfort, but with few aims beyond stabilisation of the site (Brassil et al. 1988).
More recent archaeological syntheses have looked at Penycloddiau in the context of the wider Clwydian
archaeological landscape – work that has done much to provide a solid foundation for future work in the
9. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
7 | P a g e
region (Gale 1991; Brown 2004). Similarly helpful is the doctoral thesis of Andy Wigley (2002) on the
hillforts of the central Welsh Marches, and the HLF-funded project Heather and Hillforts – the
archaeological element of which was managed by Fiona Gale, County Archaeologist for Denbighshire
County Council.
As part of the Heather and Hillforts Project, an archaeological evaluation of the summit cairn took place in
2008, which was defined as being constructed from earth and stone, 7.2 m in diameter and 0.3 m in height.
A pit and possible cist were located beneath the cairn but were not investigated due to the terms of the
Scheduled Monument Consent (Grant and Jones 2008, 9). The large pit into the centre of the monument
may suggest antiquarian activity. No prehistoric finds were recovered, but the form and position of the
monument does suggest an Early Bronze Age burial monument (ibid., 13). A basic chronology for the site
and an understanding of everyday life inside the hillfort, however, remains unknown.
Recent Survey Work
More extensive in recent years has been the topographic and geophysical survey work commissioned by
Denbighshire County Council as part of the Heather and Hillforts project.
Topographic Survey
Topographic survey conducted by Clywyd and Powys Archaeological Trust (Jones 2006) is responsible for
the majority of our current knowledge of the form of the enclosure and house platforms (Fig. 6). The 33
house platforms appear to be distributed in three main groups: 1) in the north-east quadrant of the hillfort
interior, taking advantage of the natural shelter in the lee of the hill; 2) close to the two natural ponds in
the centre; and 3) within the quarry hollows, particularly in the south-east sector of the site, again in an
area of better shelter (ibid., 4). The survey also provides a far more detailed appreciation of the form and
number of ramparts, including several rampart transect profiles.
Geophysical survey
There have been three separate instances of geophysical survey on the site (Fig. 7). The first was a 0.9 ha
survey undertaken in 2004 by Stratascan in association with condition-survey work, following a heather
burn across part of the monument. A second set of surveys were undertaken by Engineering Archaeological
Services as part of an outreach event organised by Denbighshire County Council in 2008. Community
volunteers were involved in magnetic, earth-resistance and magnetic-susceptibility survey (Brooks and
Laws 2008). This 60 x 80 m survey failed to conclusively identify any anomalies that can be securely related
to potential archaeological features, as it suffered from severe magnetic disturbance and interference. The
final episode of survey was undertaken in 2009 by the University of Liverpool as part of an undergraduate
dissertation. This work extended across 210 m of the width of the interior and both ramparts on the
eastern side, utilising exclusively resistivity as the most appropriate technique for the conditions. This
survey securely identified three potential hut circles and characterised differences in the construction of
the inner and outer ramparts (see Fig. 8).
Digital Terrain Modelling
Using their 2006 data, Clwyd and Powys Archaeological Trust have also produced an impressive digital
terrain model of the site, which allows a much more detailed understanding of the internal quarry scoops
and earthworks (Fig. 9).
Electrical Resistance Tomography
With funding from the Prehistoric Society, Electrical Resistance Tomography (ERT) survey was undertaken
by Dr Ben Edwards (Manchester Metropolitan University) at four selected intervals along the hillfort
perimeter in August 2011 (see Fig. 10). The technique is relatively new – ERT survey is based upon the same
principles as standard resistivity; however, in this technique, a transect of 25 static probes is utilised to
produce a pseudosection through archaeological features (see Fig. 10), with the intention of elucidating
their structure. Results of this survey have yielded positive results and are being prepared for publication.
10. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
8 | P a g e
Figure 6: CPAT topographic survey showing potential hut circles (Jones 2006, 10)
11. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
9 | P a g e
Figure 7: Location of geophysical surveys; single red lines represent 201 1 ERT transects (Base mapping: Jones 2006)
13. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
11 | P a g e
Current Project
The 2012 project season was undertaken between July 22nd
and August 17th
by the University of Liverpool
Archaeological Field School lead by project directors Dr Rachel Pope (University of Liverpool) and Richard
Mason (Consultant Archaeologist to English Heritage). The excavation team consisted of site supervisors
Thomas Lightbown (Commercial Archaeologist), Katie Purdy (Commercial Archaeologist), Edward Rule
(University of Liverpool), Andy Shuttleworth (University of Liverpool); site technician Jason Hall (University
of Liverpool); site surveyor Dr Ben Edwards (Manchester Metropolitan University); and archaeological
illustrator Dr Joseph Skinner (University of Liverpool).
The four week season operated as two 14 day training excavations for 39 undergraduate students from the
University of Liverpool, and one international student from Dickinson College (USA). Students were trained
in the principles of stratigraphy and formation processes, single context excavation, finds processing,
environmental sampling and processing, single context recording, planning and section drawing,
archaeological photography, surveying, geophysics, archaeological illustration, and health and safety issues.
Aims and Objectives
Project Aims and Objectives
The Liverpool project aims to characterise the chronology and function of the Clwydian contour forts, via
targeted excavations at Penycloddiau. Wider research aims are to update our current understanding of the
nature and chronology of later prehistoric settlement in north Wales. Project results will provide vital
information in a bid to manage the monument more effectively.
Objectives include: 1) conducting four 4-week seasons of excavation between 2012-2015, with students
from the University of Liverpool, Dickinson College, and local community volunteers; 2) to undertake
academic research surrounding the project aims; and 3) to disseminate the results of this research to both
local (i.e. north Welsh) and national (i.e. British) audiences.
2012 Aims and Objectives
Our aims for 2012 were to: 1) quantify the impact of livestock and foot traffic erosion; 2) characterise, date
and assess the damage caused by the ‘farm track’ through the inner rampart; 3) assess the archaeological
potential of an ‘intact’ section of inner rampart; 4) characterise the construction and subsequent collapse
of the inner rampart with the aid of digital terrain modelling.
Our objectives for 2012 were: 1) to investigate and record the extent of livestock damage to the inner
rampart; 2) to strip and clean an area of ‘intact’ inner rampart to: a) characterise the construction of the
inner rampart in plan; and b) investigate the potential for cut features; 3) to excavate an area of ‘damaged’
inner rampart to: a) quantify the extent of the damage caused by the ‘farm track’ and gain an idea of its
date; and b) to excavate rampart collapse deposits to obtain material for C-14 dating, and assess resource
potential in the damaged area regarding its ability to reveal information on rampart construction; and 4) to
conduct digital terrain modelling and reconstruct rampart profile during erosion, collapse and construction.
Area of Investigation
The area of investigation is located on the eastern side of the hillfort, approximately 210 m from the
northern end of the monument (Fig. 10) – where a farm track appears to have truncated both inner and
outer rampart (Jones 2006, 4). Situated inside the interior on either side of the track at the base of the
western gradient are two quarry scoops. Further in to the hillfort interior to the south is a well-defined hut-
circle, with a potential house platform north of the track (see Fig. 9).
14. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
12 | P a g e
Fig 9: 2012 trench locations
Fig 10: Inner rampart and farm track prior to excavation, looking south-west
Methodology
Rather than the proposed trenches identified in the original project design (see fig 9), Scheduled
Monument Consent was instead granted for two trenches to the north of the requested location.
Area 1 (Fig. 11)
The largest trench, Area 1 (9.5 x 6.5 m), was positioned to strip, clean and excavate a damaged section of
inner rampart and ‘farm track’; the area saw extension further down the eastern gradient (3.1 x 2.6 m) to
incorporate the full extent of the break of slope. Area 1 was located to record and assess: a) the extent of
livestock damage to the inner rampart; b) the date of the ‘farm track’; c) a section through the damaged
inner rampart; and d) a section through the associated ditch.
15. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
13 | P a g e
Fig 11: Area 1 prior to excavation (looking north-west) showing extent of monument damage
Area 2 (Fig. 12)
Area 2 (7.8 x 6.8 m), was positioned to strip and clear a section of ‘intact’ inner rampart crest immediately
north of Area 1. Area 2 was located to record and assess: a) the extent of livestock damage to the inner
rampart; b) the surviving archaeological resource without excavating intact rampart deposits.
Fig 12: Area 2 prior to excavation (looking east) showing extent of monument damage
2012 Excavation Results
Modern damage/erosion (late 20th
/21st
century)
Vehicle damage
Visible prior to the removal of vegetation/turf were two linear wheel ruts [F14] into turf (see fig. 11), the
northernmost of which was included in Area 1, extending along the southern trench edge. At 0.47 m wide x
0.13 m deep, the rut exposed a compacted, gritty grey silty clay (with orange flecks) in its base (21) – two
fragments of bamboo cane were recovered from the upper horizon of this deposit, presumably from the
2010 Liverpool resistivity survey. On removal of topsoil, it was found that deposit (21) extended north
beyond the area of the wheel ruts – to a maximum width of 2.6 m – thus representing a much longer-term
phase of track use than the ruts themselves, as indicated by its heavily compacted nature. Although the
track has been in active use, the ruts were not seen prior to April 2012 and were perhaps formed during the
particularly wet weather earlier in the year.
16. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
14 | P a g e
Track re-cut
The removal of late 19th
century topsoil (4) in the area of wheel rut [F14] exposed a further cut, [F25]. This
held the same east-west alignment along the southern trench edge. Only the northern edge of [F25] was
exposed by Area 1 (see fig. 13), representing a shallow scoop 0.13 m deep (as exposed), filled by fine
brown-black clay silt (22), and cut by modern wheel rut [F14]. [F25] represents the continuation of access
into the hillfort, one earlier than the modern activity represented by [F14]/21. This earlier track activity is
later, however, than the original track construction cut [F20] through the rampart (below), which it cuts.
The nature of the horizontal interface for [F25] does suggest this is a cut feature rather than the result of
wear, and may represent a recut into the track, or a clearance episode, to better enable cart access.
The episode of track use represented by re-cut [F25] truncated the more substantial sloping track
construction cut [F20] into the inner rampart (below). Cut [F20] had originally exposed rampart material
(29), but the formation of silty deposits (30) and (35) over this open rampart material (below) suggests that
there was a passage of time before the track is subsequently re-cut by [F25]. We know that the topsoil in
this area cannot be contemporary with that on the east and west gradients as it must have formed post
original track cut [F20] Ordnance Survey maps do not record the existence of a track into the hillfort
interior until 1970, and a mid-late twentieth century date – perhaps contemporary with the shift towards
motorised farm vehicles – seems most likely for this re-cut event.
Fig. 13: Track re-cut [F25] filled by deposit (22)
Livestock erosion
Land use at Penycloddiau is largely unimproved upland pasture, which sees the practice of sheep grazing
under the existing occupied tenancy. The sheep occasionally seek shelter from the wind and rain,
predominantly on the interior rampart gradients. The result is surface interventions known as ‘sheep
scrapes’, four of which were recorded across the two areas of excavation.
Three of the four scrapes were represented in Area 1 by irregular curving cuts [F1] (fig. 14). These cut turf
(3) and topsoil deposits (4)/(15) down the eastern gradients, and to the south they cut track construction
cut [F20]. At the crest, the scrapes cut into the rampart crest superstructure (13) to a depth of 0.15 m; and
down into rampart material (10)/(18) to a depth of 0.20 m. Associated with the sheep scrapes was an
erosion deposit (2) containing a high concentration of sub-angular stones (1-5 cm) with a grey-black sandy
silt at their base, both against the cuts and also ‘spilling’ down slope. Whilst (2) was visible at the surface in
the base of the open scrapes, its maximum extent – 2.17 x 1.11 m – was only revealed on removal of turf. A
17. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
15 | P a g e
Dalton Rototag sheep ear tag, dated 1990, was recovered from (2) on the eastern gradient. [F1] represents
erosion caused by sheep scraping into the slopes, dislodging already-eroded superstructure material (6)
which is then re-deposited down slope by water action and compacted by livestock in the scrape base.
Fig 14: Area 1, extent of sheep scrape erosion material (2), exposed on removal of turf
In Area 2, the fourth scrape was represented by curving cut [F1] into the rampart crest (6)/(13) and turf (3)
+ topsoil (4). The cut here was 0.22 m deep and 1.22 m long. Deposit (2) was again found against the cut
and in this trench was confined to the worn plateau of the relatively flat-bottomed scrape. Again although
(2) was visible through the open cut, the full extent was revealed on removal of turf, to reveal an area 2.23
x 1.31 m. Like the instances of [F1] in Area 1, this cut is the result of sheep nestling into the earthwork
gradient, the material dislodged by this process (2) is primarily eroded superstructure material (6) and
compacted by the sheep in the scrape. The re-establishment of turf over (2) down slope and the exposed
area against the cut, again suggested a period of time since the original intervention; but akin to those in
Area 1, the Area 2 cut still appeared to be being utilised, keeping material (2) closest to the cut exposed and
actively compacted. A sheep scrape repair peg was found in amongst the surviving stones of [F12] (below) –
the attempt at sheep scrape repair utilising one of the only bits of surviving bank/wall at the crest.
In Area 1, in addition to erosion deposit (2), the removal of topsoil revealed several large stones
compressed into the upper horizon of track deposit (21). These were equivalent to tumble deposit (19) in
Area 2, and suggest an episode of collapse/tumble down slope following track construction, presumably as
a result of this sheep-scrape erosion into the crest of the rampart. Re-establishment of turf over deposit (2)
down slope (the location of the ear tag), suggests that originally this intervention may have begun in the
late 20th
century – the ear tag providing a terminus post quem. In addition, a plastic sweet packet was
recovered from turf (3) where it had re-grown over deposit (2). Prior to excavation the scrapes were still
being utilised, however, with (2) closest to the cut still active in exposure and compaction.
Impact of foot traffic erosion
Penycloddiau attracts thousands of visitors annually (Stocqueler 2010). In Areas 1 and 2, partially visible
prior to the removal of turf was a deposit of broken stone brash (6) along the flat crest of the rampart,
truncated by sheep scrape [F1] and track construction cut [F20]. This deposit was presumably formed by
continuous foot traffic breaking up larger stone deposit (13) below, allowing little vegetation
growth/topsoil formation along the rampart crest. Whilst this erosive process is still active – tourists do
seem to prefer to walk along the crest of the inner rampart – we believe that this erosion and its product,
(6), must have been forming over several centuries. Fragments of a stoneware bottle (c. 1880) found in turf
and topsoil would suggest this process of erosion has been active at least since the late 19th
century,
perhaps contemporary with the 19th
century walker’s cairn excavated in 2009 (Grant & Jones 2008, 8).
18. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
16 | P a g e
In Areas 1 and 2, removal of turf revealed sub-angular stone tumble (7) lying on the horizontal interface of
19th
century topsoil (4), primarily on the eastern gradient of the inner rampart. This seems to represent the
final phase of erosion/collapse of rampart superstructure [F12] on the crest (below), as a direct result of
this foot traffic along the crest of the inner rampart.
Whilst not included in the 2012 investigations, the inner rampart on the western side of the hillfort shows
no evidence for an equivalent degree of surface erosion; the presence of a timber fence along the rampart
crest – maintained by the current tenant farmer – appears to have prevented both livestock and foot traffic
erosion on this side of the hillfort.
Track construction (Post-Medieval-e. 19th
century)
Topsoil formation
In Areas 1 and 2, removal of topsoil (4) – a friable brown-black silty loam – revealed varying depths of
formation; like turf/vegetation it was deepest at the gradient bases (0.10 m) reducing in depth (to < 0.01 m)
at the rampart crest. Fragments of a late 19th
century stoneware ginger beer/soda bottle were recovered,
down the eastern gradient, in both areas, providing a terminus post quem. In Area 1, the removal of topsoil
(4) on the eastern gradient revealed a very clear horizon of a further, very humic, black sandy silt (15), 0.12
m deep, extending 4.50 m from the northern trench edge, and 4.20 m down the eastern gradient. We
believe this represents additional vegetation decay in the areas of greater heather and gorse growth.
In Areas 1 and 2, removal of topsoil at the base of the western gradient exposed a smeary black silty clay
(8) – 0.01-0.05m deep – with a high humic content. Running along the western trench edges, in Area 2 the
deposit was 0.65 m wide in the north-west corner to 2.0 m wide in the south. In Area 1 the deposit was
0.40 m wide in the north to 1.6 m in the south where it was cut by wheel rut [F14]. Given that (8) is only
present in areas where drainage is poor – close to reed vegetation in the quarry scoops – we believe it to
be a further topsoil deposit formed by vegetation decay into standing water. Similarly, at the eastern end of
the Area 1 Extension, excavation of topsoil (4) and (15) exposed a dark brown-black humic clay silt (23), to a
maximum depth of 0.12 m, across the width of the Extension and extending 2.16 m up the gradient. The
very humic nature towards the base of the slope is indicative of additional decayed vegetation forming in
the slight dish above the inner ditch fills, in formation terms very similar to deposit (8).
Track construction cut into rampart
Visible in the turf prior to excavation (fig. 15), with an equivalent cut also visible on the south side of the
track; the cut became clear in plan following the removal of topsoil (4)/slump deposits (30) and (35), was a
triangular cut [F20] into the southern gradient of the inner rampart [F5]. 5.0 m in width at the base and
extending 3.40 m up slope, this cut truncated rampart erosion deposit (11), rampart collapse (45), and
original rampart material (10)/(29)/(36)/(44)/[F50].
Fig. 15: Triangular track construction cut [F20] through inner rampart
Removal of topsoil (4) in the southern half of Area 1 revealed a light brown sandy silt (30), irregular in plan
– 4.0 x 3.20 m, and 0.04 m in depth. This deposit had only formed in the area truncated by track
19. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
17 | P a g e
construction cut [F20] and we believe it was formed by material slumping down the gradient following the
[F20] cut into the rampart material. Beneath the latest track deposit (21), was a patch of orange-brown clay
silt (35), 1.52 x 0.34 m, and 0.08 m deep. This sat above above secondary rampart material (29) and may
represent a further episode of slumping following the excavation of a triangular cut through the rampart
[F20]: the original cut for track construction.
Although we have no dating evidence for the track construction itself, its presence on the 1874 Ordnance
Survey map (fig. 16) provides us with a terminus ante quem, after which we have a track re-cut/clearance
episode represented by [F25] – revealing a clear time lapse between these two events. Whilst the track
could date to any time after the Iron Age, the distinct triangular cut visible in the turf leads us to suggest a
Post-Medieval to early 19th
century date for track construction. We intend a full examination of maps
curated at Flintshire Record Office as they may provide a terminus post quem.
Fig. 16: Extract from the 1874 Ordnance Survey map, with the track cutting through the hillfort rampart
Stone bank/wall on rampart crest (?Medieval/Post-Medieval)
In Area 2, removal of topsoil (4) and foot traffic erosion deposit (6) revealed a loose light orange-brown
sandy silt (13) along the crest of the rampart to a maximum width of 2.20 m. This deposit was excavated in
Area 1 where it had been truncated by sheep scrapes [F1]. Approximately 60% of the deposit consisted of
angular large stone brash. In Area 2, the deposit was significantly wider to the north, where it had seen
some collapse to the west. In Area 1, excavation of (13) revealed it sitting above rampart material (10)
which on the crest had a high stone content. Although unexcavated in Area 2 – due to the Cadw brief – we
did demonstrate that deposit (13) was later than turf line (17), revealing that this rampart superstructure
was constructed at some point after the post-abandonment phase of the hillfort (below). Again this is an
issue that might be resolved by examining relevant maps at the Flintshire Record Office.
The form of deposit (13) held a greater degree of ‘structure’ to the south (Fig. 17a), leading us to suggest
that this deposit was associated with a largely destroyed dry-stone bank/wall [F12] along the crest of the
inner rampart (Fig. 17b). Only a 1.60 x 0.40m section of [F12] survived (see fig. 16b), the rest presumably
now tumble episodes (7) and (19) down the eastern gradient. The in situ remains of [F12] consist of a linear
arrangement of five c. 20-30 cm sub-angular set stones above (13), 2.0 m north of the southern trench
edge. Three more isolated c. 20-30 cm sub-angular stones against the southern trench edge also seem to
represent surviving remnants of [F12]. One stone of deposit (13) sat above two adjoining stones of [F12]
suggesting a close contemporaneity between the two. It is likely that both comprise a phase of dry-stone
construction along the crest of the rampart. The fact that brash deposit (13) lay beneath remnant [F12]
might imply that (13) represents a foundation/levelling deposit, laid prior to the construction of [F12].
20. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
18 | P a g e
Fig. 17: Area 2: Linear stone brash deposit (13) (left), and fragmented remains of in situ linear stone bank [F12] (right)
In Area 2, the presence of large angular stone tumble (7), below turf down the eastern gradient, suggests
that the final phase of [F12] collapse was broadly contemporary with the early phase of foot traffic erosion.
Whilst we retrieved no dating material for the stone bank, we believe there are two potential scenarios: 1)
[F12] is equivalent to the stone bank surviving along the crest of the inner rampart on the west side of the
hillfort (visible as a stone earthwork and associated timber fence) which we are told has been utilised as a
parish boundary since the 12th
century AD; or 2) [F12] represents a much later phase of pastoral enclosure
potentially constructed during the Post-Medieval period. Again, a map search will help us to clarify this.
Post-abandonment phase (?Middle/Late Iron Age)
Turfline
In Area 2, removal of topsoil on the western gradient revealed a patchy, fibrous tan-brown sandy silt (17)
with frequent angular/sub-angular grit and small stone inclusions (up to 1 cm). The shallow depth and
fibrous nature suggests it may represent a turfline: a period of vegetation growth over post-abandonment
colluvium deposit (11) (below). Extending across the trench north to the south, it seemed to respect the
line of humic deposit (8), perhaps revealing the ancient extent of grass as opposed to reed vegetation. Our
having made the decision to close Area 2 in line with the Cadw brief, this deposit remained unexcavated. It
was established, however, that deposit (13) of the stone bank/wall on the rampart crest sat above it.
Colluviation
Downslope from (13), along the western gradient, sat a discrete c. 1.40 m wide band of black-brown sandy
silt (11) containing frequent small stone sub-angular inclusions of c. 1-5 cm. In excavation, the black colour
was found to represent staining from humic deposit (8) above. The deposit was identified running N-S along
the western gradient in both Areas 1 and 2. In Area 1, the deposit was cut by triangular track cut [F20] to
the south. A relationship between (11) and brash deposit (13) was not established in Area 1. In Area 2,
however, we know that the two deposits were separated by the formation of turfline (17), so are clearly
separated in time – the stone bank/wall of (13) later than the rampart. Deposit (11) seems to represent an
episode of erosion of the rampart material, with water depositing small stone material towards the base of
the gradient, prior to the establishment of vegetation, as represented by turfline (17).
On the eastern side, excavation of humic topsoil deposit (23) at the eastern edge of Area 1 Extension
revealed a patchy deposit of maroon clay (24) – extending 1.48 m upslope and 0.05 m at its deepest. This
deposit had accumulated, in clumps, between the upstanding stones of deposit (27) beneath. The clay
appears to represent an episode of colluvial action at the base of the eastern gradient, into the top of the
silted ditch. Removal of topsoil deposit (15) on the eastern gradient exposed an episode of sub-angular
stone tumble (26), consisting of stones between 5-20 cm and compressed into the silty deposit beneath,
with which it seemed relatively contemporary; this fine brown sandy silt (27) – up to 0.08 m deep –
extended from the northern trench edge until cut in the south by track cut [F20] and extended 5.90 m
down the eastern gradient into the Area 1 extension (fig. 18). The deposit contained angular stones
21. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
19 | P a g e
between 5-20 cm. We believe that both tumble (26) and silty (27) are the result of rampart material
eroding down slope, accelerated by water action. These deposits presumably represent the post-
abandonment phase of the hillfort.
Fig. 18: Rampart collapse deposit (27) on eastern gradient
Final ditch fill
At the eastern end of the Area 1 Extension the removal of post-abandonment deposit (27) revealed a black
clay deposit (47), densely packed with large angular stones (of 10-45 cm). In plan, the deposit extended
from the northern trench edge and appeared to terminate within the Area 1 Extension, covering an area
0.90 x 0.83 m. This deposit seems to represent the final phase of ditch fill, incorporating a high
concentration of angular stone collapse from the rampart. The black colour might suggest this represents a
phase of vegetation growth into the top of the filled ditch. In plan, the deposit shows characteristics of a
ditch terminal, although we have yet to find any evidence of a contemporary entrance through the inner
rampart. The deposit contains an arrangement of large stones which could be seen to show characteristics
of fallen packing stones for a large timber upright (fig. 19) – something that remains to be tested in 2013, as
this deposit remained unexcavated in 2012.
22. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
20 | P a g e
Fig. 19: Area 1 Extension: Possible inner ditch terminal (left), ditch fill (47) (right)
Primary structural collapse (Iron Age)
Removal of post-abandonment deposit (27) revealed a band of brown-black sandy silt (45); extending from
the northern trench edge until it was cut in the south by track cut [F20] and extending 1.20 m down the
eastern gradient. The deposit contained long flat stones of c. 10-20 cm. The deposit appeared to sit against
a potential stone facing structure [F50] (below), and as such may represent a primary structural collapse
deposit. This deposit remained unexcavated in 2012.
Late rampart construction (Iron Age)
Potential timber uprights – western gradient
In Area 1, first seen on removal of topsoil (4) down the western gradient, were four discrete deposits
apparently cutting erosion deposit (11) – the edges of these deposits were only entirely defined, however,
on removal of (11), and they are now more securely thought to be cutting rampart material (36) (fig. 20). A
discrete black-brown sandy silt deposit (37), c. 1.0 m from the western trench edge, and circular in plan
(0.46 x 0.44 m) contained what appeared to be three packing stones around its edges. Immediately east of
(37) was a group of three intercutting ?features. A gritty dark black-brown sandy silt deposit (38), broadly
circular in plan (0.65 x 0.59 m), contained what again seemed to be three packing stones around the north-
east edge and a large fallen/dislodged packing stone on the western side. This appeared to cut a gritty black
sandy silt deposit (39), circular in plan (0.43 x 0.36 m), containing what appeared to be a large packing
stone against the west edge. This in turn appeared to cut a gritty dark-brown sandy silt deposit (40), again
circular in plan (0.26 x 0.24 m), containing what appeared to be a large packing stone against its west edge.
The fact that all four of these potential features appear to contain packing stones does suggest that they
have been cut into the rampart – as opposed to being founded lower down with rampart material then
thrown up around them. As a result, if confirmed, they appear to be relatively late in the construction
sequence. All four remained unexcavated in 2012, and are to be investigated in the 2013 season.
23. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
21 | P a g e
Also in Area 1, the sheep scrape [F1] at the rampart crest exposed two further potential features.
Immediately south of the sheep scrape was a smooth brown-yellow sandy silt deposit (34), circular in plan
(0.23 x 0.20 m), containing infrequent 1-5 cm sub-angular stone inclusions; but only visible when dry.
South-east of (34) was a gritty black-brown sandy silt deposit (32), circular in plan (0.25 x 0.21 m),
containing 1-5 cm sub-angular stone inclusions. We believe that these two deposits are potential cut
features into rampart material (29) (below). Unfortunately due to truncation by [F1], we cannot be sure
whether these features relate to rampart superstructure deposit (13) above; however, given that no other
features were found cutting this much later deposit at the crest, we do suspect that they relate to the
earlier, rampart phase. Both remain unexcavated in 2012, to be investigated in the 2013 season.
Immediately west of the central baulk near the south trench edge was a gritty black brown sandy silt
deposit (31), circular in plan 0.46 x 0.50 m. The deposit has five potential packing stones surrounding a
discrete black sandy silt deposit, again circular in plan 0.10 x 0.11 m, containing infrequent charcoal
fragments (33). In plan this seems to be a packed post hole, with a surviving post-pipe of a potentially burnt
post (fig. 21). Again this was cutting rampart material (29). Truncated by the track construction cut [F20], its
potential later phasing is again an issue. These deposits remained unexcavated in 2012.
Fig. 20: Potential timber upright feature (37), and intercutting features (38), (39) and (40)
24. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
22 | P a g e
Fig. 21: Potential timber upright feature (31) with packing stones and post pipe (33)
Fig. 22: Final plan (unphased) showing location of potential cut features
Earth/turf rampart material (36/10/29)
In Area 1, beneath colluvium (11) on the western gradient was a band of red-brown silty sand (36)
containing frequent sub-angular stone inclusions, 2.66 m wide at the north end and 2.54 m at the south,
where it is truncated by track construction cut [F20], and track re-cut [F25] near the southern trench edge.
This deposit remains unexcavated in 2012; however we did demonstrate its relationship with yellow
rampart material (29) (below), which it lay above. The relationship between this context and deposit (10)
(below) was not established in 2012, and will be achieved in 2013.
In Area 2, sheep scrape [F1] exposed small patches of a dark-brown sandy silt (10) containing sub-rounded
stone inclusions (c. 1-5 cm). Due to the Cadw brief, this deposit remained unexcavated. In Area 1, deposit
(10) was first seen on removal of foundation/levelling (13) for the stone bank/wall [F12], and exposed
25. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
23 | P a g e
further by removal of post-abandonment colluvium deposit (11). Exposed to 2.0 x 1.4 m, at the western
side down from the rampart crest, it appeared to be cut by two possible features (39) and (40) (above).
Beneath (10) was a powdery pale-yellow pure silt (29) with occasional grit inclusions, 3.40 m wide and
apparently originally spanning the full north-south length of Area 1. Both (10) and (29) were truncated by
sheep scrape [F1] at the rampart crest, and more substantially down slope by the track cut [F20] (fig. 23),
exposing (29) down to base of the track where it was in turn cut by the track re-cut [F25]. Both deposits
remain unexcavated in 2012; but do seem to form a substantial component of the inner rampart material,
perhaps banked against a series of stone deposits on the eastern side of the rampart (below). The pure silt
composition of (29) suggests a possible earth/turf component to rampart construction. In Area 2, in the
base of the sheep scrape [F1], patches of a gritty mustard clay silt (18) were exposed on the removal of
sheep scrape deposit (2), which we believe may equate to deposit (29).
Fig. 23: 2012 season closing area shots
Stone rampart material (43/44/F50) – eastern gradient
At the top of the eastern gradient, removal of rampart erosion deposit (27) exposed a band of angular
stone brash (43), 0.84 m wide, with stones c. 5-10 cm, extending 1.20 m south of the northern section.
Whilst this was not excavated in 2012, it seemed to run underneath rampart material (29). Immediately
down slope, was a band of gritty brown-black sandy silt (44), 1.20 m wide, also revealed on removal of (27).
This extends 1.95 m south of the northern section, and contained sub-angular stone blocks of c. 10 cm. This
deposit was not excavated in 2012, but we believe it runs underneath stone brash material (43) upslope.
Deposit (44) appears to abut the remains of a linear stone structure [F50] consisting of large stone blocks
(c. 30 x 28 cm) running north-south along the line of the rampart (figs 24-25). At just one course high, at
least 14 stones (a few displaced) are visible, extending 3.0 m southwards from the northern section, where
the structure appears to have been truncated by track construction cut [F20].
26. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
24 | P a g e
Fig. 24: Area 1: Stone rampart material (43) and (44), stone facing [F50], and primary collapse material (45)
Fig. 25: Area 1: Line of stone facing [F50] along rampart exterior, and ?contemporary feature/s
Associated potential timber uprights
On the eastern edge of stone facing [F50] are two discrete deposits (fig. 26). Towards the southern end, a
fine brown-black sandy silt (48), circular in plan (0.30 x 0.28 m), containing 0-1 cm sub-angular stone
inclusions, with potential packing stones around the outer edges. At the northern end of [F50] (partially in
section), a slightly gritty dark red-brown sandy silt (49), circular in plan (0.35 x 0.25 m), containing frequent
0-1 cm sub-angular stone inclusions. Whilst both (48) and (49) were not excavated in 2012, their location
along the eastern edge of linear stone structure [F50] might indicate potential timber uprights (c. 1.0 m
apart) – perhaps later timber revetment against the stone rampart. South of (48), removal of collapse
deposit (27) also revealed a gritty black sandy silt deposit (51), triangular in plan (1.0 x 0.45 m) on a west-
east long-axis, which appeared to intersect with [F50]. This remained unexcavated in 2012; however we
believe it to be a potential feature, either contemporary with the stone structure [F50] or truncating it.
27. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
25 | P a g e
Fig. 26: Area 1: Possible timber revetment features (48) (left), and (49) (right)
Pre-rampart land surfaces
Pre-rampart soils (46/42)
Excavation of post-abandonment colluvium deposit (27) along the eastern trench edge exposed a band of
gritty red-brown clay silt (46), 1.60 x 0.90 m, with infrequent sub-angular stone inclusions. The deposit is
cut by track construction cut [F20], is beneath structural collapse (45), and sits above a band of exposed
shattered bedrock (28) in the north-east corner of Area 1. Immediately south of (28) in the Extension, the
removal of colluvium deposit (27) exposed a smooth mustard-brown silty clay (42), 3.0 x 1.70 m. Like (46),
this deposit sits above shattered bedrock (28) and appears to be cut by the inner ditch at the base of the
gradient. These deposits may represent pre-rampart soils. Both deposits remain unexcavated in 2012.
Bedrock outcrop
The excavation of post-abandonment colluvium (27) exposed a band of shattered bedrock (28), extending
2.50 x 0.70 m along the eastern trench edge, below potential pre-rampart soils (46) and (42). The shattered
nature of the bedrock may indicate a period of fragmentation due to exposure, potentially during the
period of inner rampart construction.
Unphased gley soil
The excavation of standing water deposit (8) at the base of the western gradient exposed a smooth white-
grey clay silt (16), entering the trench along the western edge (on level ground) and widening to 2.30 m
where it was cut by wheel rut [F14] in the south west corner. Upon weathering, (16) turned brown. The
post-abandonment colluvium material (11) sat above (16), but no relationship with rampart material (36)
was established in 2012. We believe this deposit represents an episode of gleying; the white-grey colour on
exposure followed by a change to brown is typical of this type of hydric deposit as the iron content of the
soil oxidises after exposure. Whilst we are currently uncertain about its exact phasing, we are confident it
pre-dates the post-abandonment phase at the site. Excavation next year will establish its relationship to
?secondary rampart material (36).
Discussion
The project achieved its aims for the 2012 season. These were:
1) To quantify the impact of livestock and foot traffic erosion on the inner rampart
The two activities of concern to Cadw and Denbighshire County Council are the impact of sheep and tourist
traffic at the site. Land use at Penycloddiau is largely unimproved pasture, currently subject to sheep
grazing under the existing occupied tenancy. Livestock erosion seems to have occurred predominantly on
the interior rampart gradients, where shelter from the wind and rain is most successful. Penycloddiau also
attracts thousands of visitors annually (Stocqueler 2010). Whilst the Offa’s Dyke Path runs through the
centre of the interior to the hillfort summit, an alternative returning footpath is not provided along the
eastern side; and it is the crest of the inner rampart that has instead been utilised for this purpose.
28. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
26 | P a g e
Prior to excavation, the scrapes were still being utilised with the erosion deposit closest to the cut exposed
and actively being compacted. In both areas the sheep scrapes both cut into the remnant Medieval/Post-
Medieval bank/wall at the crest: to a depth of 0.15 m in Area 1, and 0.22 m in Area 2. In addition, removal
of topsoil in Area 1 revealed several large stones compressed into the horizon of the uppermost track
deposit, representing an episode of collapse/tumble (of the late bank/wall material) down slope following
the re-cutting of the track, presumably as a result of this sheep-scrape erosion into the crest. The material
dislodged and re-deposited down slope by the sheep is already-eroded material from the Medieval/Post-
Medieval bank/wall. Re-establishment of turf over this erosion deposit suggests that this activity may have
begun in the late 20th
century – a 1990 ear tag providing a terminus post quem and plastic sweet packet
recovered from turf where it had re-grown over this deposit. A sheep scrape repair peg was found sunk into
the surviving stones of the late bank/wall – an attempt at repair utilising the only in situ bit of this feature.
The impact of the sheep scrapes on the archaeology varies quite considerably between the two excavated
areas. Substantial truncation by track construction cut in Area 1 meant that the sheep scrapes in this area
were also found to cut into rampart material, to a depth of 0.20 m. Whilst in Area 2 – where the rampart
had not been truncated by the track – the sheep scrapes only cut topsoil and the late bank/wall. As such,
and contrary to current beliefs, the sheep scrapes are not actually damaging prehistory – except in the area
where it has already seen damage by the track construction. This has very clear management implications,
as our results show that sheep damage to the prehistoric monument – beyond the area of the track – may
be negligible. This is largely because of: 1) protection provided by the remnant Medieval/Post-Medieval
stone bank/wall at the crest; and 2) protection provided by deposit accumulation down the eastern
gradient, as a result of erosion of the bank/wall at the crest – after long-term erosion from foot traffic.
Our results show that prehistoric deposits are closest to the surface on the western gradient, and it is here
that they warrant most protection. Our results show, however, that the sheep seem to be selecting the
area up towards the crest for protection, rather than the gradient itself. It is suggested that this issue could
be most usefully taken forward in partnership with the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust who have already
conducted condition surveys of the monument for Denbighshire County Council under the auspices of the
the Heather and Hillforts project. By working out in detail the typical location of sheep scrapes and
combining this data with our excavation results – which reveal the western gradient as the most ‘at risk’
area – we can work out actual risk to the prehistoric deposits, as a result of sheep scraping activity. This is
potentially very different to that expected, given the degree of protection provided by later deposits.
Damage by foot traffic erosion seems to have been an issue for much longer than the sheep scraping
activity, potentially stretching back several centuries. It is this erosive process that has perhaps done most
to destroy the Medieval/Post-Medieval boundary on the crest of the inner rampart. This is represented
archaeologically by two separate episodes of stone tumble down the eastern gradient of the rampart, both
above and below topsoil. Fragments of a stoneware bottle (c. 1880) found in turf and topsoil suggest that
this process of erosion has been particularly active at least since the late 19th
century, perhaps
contemporary with the 19th
century walker’s cairn excavated in 2008 (Grant & Jones 2008), as both walking
and visiting monuments became an increasingly popular pursuit. It may be that the degree of foot traffic
erosion represented in this season’s excavations has taken place over just 130 years.
These findings are of immediate relevance as a fence on the inner rampart at the western side of the
hillfort – which has actually worked to discourage foot traffic (both human and animal) and preserve a
similar feature which erosion by foot traffic has destroyed on the eastern side. This fence is currently due to
be removed by Denbighshire County Council, our concern – and the farmer’s – is that this will work to
encourage foot traffic along the crest of the inner rampart and begin the process of erosion of this late
feature, thus putting the prehistoric rampart deposits ultimately at greater risk.
2) To characterise, date and assess damage caused by the ‘farm track’ through the inner rampart
Damage caused by the ‘farm track’ through the inner rampart can be characterised as: 1) the loss of
approximately 2.0 m of in situ prehistoric deposits, as a result of the triangular construction cut through the
rampart; 2) a related slumping of the truncated prehistoric deposits; 3) the increased impact of subsequent
29. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
27 | P a g e
erosive processes (i.e. foot traffic and sheep scrapes) as a result of prehistoric deposits existing closer to
ground surface in the area of the construction cut. The track was re-cut/cleared, perhaps to make it
suitable for use by motorised vehicles, and it would be useful to achieve an excavated section across the
width of this re-cut in 2013 to assess impact on the prehistory – to the south of the limit agreed with Cadw
in advance of the 2012 season.
The most recent vehicle ruts are considered of negligible impact to the prehistory as these came down only
onto the compacted track deposit sitting above the re-cut deposit. The only issue might be further
compaction, however this is considered a relatively minor issue in this already very heavily-damaged
section of the rampart.
Although no material evidence was found that could help us date track construction, its presence on the
1874 Ordnance Survey map provides a terminus ante quem. The distinct triangular cut visible in the turf
leads us to suggest a Post-Medieval to early 19th
century date for track construction. Examination of maps
in the Flintshire Record Office prior to the 2013 season may provide us with a terminus post quem for track
construction. A track re-cut/clearance episode was also identified, presumed contemporary with modern
track use (mid-late 19th
century).
3) To assess the archaeological potential of an ‘intact’ section of inner rampart by stripping and cleaning an
area of damaged inner rampart to: a) characterise the construction of the inner rampart in plan; b)
investigate the potential for cut features
The strip-and-plan method suggested by Cadw was found to be inappropriate for Penycloddiau due to the
masking of in situ rampart material by the accumulation of both prehistoric erosion and modern collapse
deposits. Two separate episodes of collapse from the Medieval/Post-Medieval bank/wall at the crest of the
Inner Rampart – caused primarily by foot traffic erosion – were found covering the eastern gradient, above
an earlier episode of rampart collapse. These masked the in situ rampart material, to a depth of c. 0.16 m
Conclusions were: 1) that the degree of deposit accumulation down the eastern gradient, and the remnant
stone bank/wall on the crest of the inner rampart, meant that understanding the monument via a strip-
and-plan method was impossible; 2) that single-context, stratigraphic excavation was necessary to gain
archaeological information about the monument; and that 3) the western gradient of the Inner Rampart –
the side facing the monument interior – was found to be closer to its original prehistoric abandonment
state, and so might be considered more in need of protection than either the crest or the eastern gradient.
4) To excavate a ‘damaged’ section of inner rampart to obtain material for C-14 dating from rampart
collapse deposits and assess resource potential in the damaged area regarding its ability to reveal
information on rampart construction
The single-context excavation of a section through the damaged inner rampart has begun, having removed
modern destruction/collapse and prehistoric erosion deposits. Charcoal has been hand-collected from
erosion deposit (11) which we has received a preliminary phasing of Middle/Late Iron Age. Initial processing
of environmental samples (30 litres per context) revealed that some contexts were relatively charcoal rich;
a number of carbonised seeds were also identified in drying. We look forward to the results of specialist
processing in the coming weeks.
Regarding assessment of resource potential in the area of damage, just north of the track construction cut
a short stretch of in situ rampart deposits was discovered. Of particular interest was the identification in
plan of what appeared to be a series of cut features. Removal of rampart collapse deposits revealed seven
potential features cutting in situ rampart material. Three were thought, in plan, to be intercutting –
suggesting that one upright may have been replaced on two separate occasions. Five had packing stones
and as a result would be late in the hillfort sequence. Three – including two truncated by a sheep scrape –
have a diameter range between c. 0.20-0.25 m, the other four between c. 0.40-0.60 m. One appeared in
plan to hold a burnt post-pipe. All seven remain to be confirmed through excavation in the 2013 season.
30. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
28 | P a g e
Three deposits exposed in the damaged area appear at present to represent in situ earthen rampart
material – the pure silt composition of one of these might suggest a turf component to rampart
construction. These earthen deposits appear banked up against two deposits – of stone brash and c. 10 cm
stone blocks – which have an external facing, utilising c. 30 cm stones, on the eastern/external side of the
inner rampart. Two further potential postholes (c. 0.30 m in diameter) were located along the eastern edge
of this external stone facing (c. 1.0 m apart) and might represent a later timber revetment phase against
the stone rampart. The sequence remains to be confirmed through excavation in the 2013 season.
What is clear is how investigation of this area of monument damage can provide good archaeological
evidence with very limited impact – just 2.6 m – to the surviving monument. It is considered best practice
to excavate this area – and preserve its archaeology by record – as destruction of the prehistoric deposits
continues to be ongoing, due to their close proximity to ground level at this point. The suggestion is
targeted excavation followed by full re-instatement – in partnership with Denbighshire County Council – to
fully- and better-protect the undamaged area of the monument in the area of the farm track.
At the close of the 2012 season the excavated areas were covered by terram (a breathable membrane) to
aid downward drainage. Above the terram, those depressions created by the sheep scrapes were protected
by backfilling with stone brash – as were the trench edges and any excavated sections – prior to backfilling
with soil by hand, to a height that would allow for settling. Both trenches were re-turfed with the cut turves
– which had been correctly preserved in a grass-to-grass turf wall, with extra turf generously being
provided by Denbighshire County Council. Heather vegetation taken from the areas had been stored in a
vegetation pile, which preserved the plants beneath the surface, and these plants were ‘planted’ in any
gaps in the turves on Area 2 to encourage vegetation growth and help to prevent any further damage by
sheep activity, both in the short- and long-term. On the advice of Graeme Guilbert, we requested that the
DCC laid a strip of ‘chestnut paling’ (a split-stake and wire fencing type) along the crest of the rampart. This
apparently has the effect of discouraging foot traffic (both human and animal) as it effectively works as
something akin to a cattle grid, helping to protect the monument between excavation seasons.
5) To characterise the construction and subsequent collapse of the inner rampart with the aid of digital
terrain modelling by reconstructing the rampart profile during erosion, collapse and construction.
This has been achieved (see Appendix). The Level 1 digital terrain model reveals the general degradation of
the inner rampart down to the cut of the farm track, revealing that the cut of the track was only the first
stage of resulting monument damage, which included the subsequent slumping of deposits. The DTM
perhaps also indicates that this track-damaged area of the monument also received an increased
proportion of foot traffic, presumably as an easy way up on to the inner rampart. The angled nature of the
track cut brought deeper stratigraphy closer to the ground surface meaning that sheep scrapes had far
greater impact in this particular area than elsewhere on the monument, where their impact on the
prehistoric monument was considered negligible due to the existence of the later bank/wall at the crest.
Moving down the sequence, variation on the eastern gradient confirms that this side has seen the greatest
deposition of both erosion/decay and active collapse deposits down from the rampart crest. By Level 3 of
the DTM we are beginning to identify the contours of the pre-collapse phase of the hillfort rampart,
particularly down the eastern gradient, as well as the ditch cut to the base.
31. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
29 | P a g e
2012 Post-excavation
Post-excavation schedule
Work completed
A two week period of post-excavation analysis has now taken place, the following are now complete:
All contexts records now available in an Access database.
A written data structure report for all recorded contexts.
All finds recorded in an Excel sheet and integrated onto the site database.
All plans and section drawings digitised.
All DTM data processed and models produced.
All digital photographs labelled.
2012 interim report produced.
Work in progress
The flot samples are being processed by Ceren Kabukcu (University of Liverpool).
Map search at Flintshire record office re. track construction and rampart superstructure.
Reconstruction drawing by Joe Skinner (University of Liverpool).
Finds illustration (one vessel) by Joe Skinner (University of Liverpool).
Work to complete prior to 2013 season
Assessment of potential
Update project design
Proposal for 2013
Having excavated the destruction and collapse episodes of the damaged section of inner rampart, next
season we hope to extend Area 1 to the east, to encompass a section of the inner ditch – something within
our current scheduling agreement. Before proceeding with excavation of the inner rampart construction
deposits, however, we will apply for consent to extend the excavated section across the much smaller
outer rampart, which is currently presumed to be later in date. This will enable us to demonstrate phasing
between these three key features, and allow us to excavate the sequence stratigraphically.
It would also be useful to achieve an excavated section across the track re-cut to fully characterise this
episode of damage to the monument – something agreed with Cadw towards the end of the 2012 season.
Should Denbighshire County Council proceed with the removal of the fence along the western inner
rampart, we would like to propose a watching brief to record this process; with the intention to strip a 2.0 x
3.0 m slot across the crest to characterise the nature of the upstanding earthwork currently visible in
profile, helping us to understand what may be an equivalent feature exposed in Area 2.
In light of the 2012 excavation results, we hope to work in partnership with the Clwyd-Powys
Archaeological Trust – combining our results with their condition surveys to work out actual risk to
prehistoric deposits. The aim is to provide monument guardians – Cadw, Denbighshire County Council, the
landowner, and tenant farmer – with an increasingly nuanced understanding of the monument, from the
excavated data, which will enable future management decisions that are workable for all stakeholders.
32. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
30 | P a g e
Appendix
Bulk finds/burnt material
Context Area Material Description Weight Date
2 A1 Plastic A fragment of Dalton Rototag two piece sheep ear
tag, with ?date 1990.
>1g Late
20th
century
3 A2 Ceramic Three body sherds of a stoneware soda/ginger beer
bottle, 2 adjoining. Partial inscription on adjoining
sherds '...ON'
31g 1860-
1900
3 A1 Plastic A plastic 'Yankee' ?sweet bag. Best before date 'A07
AUG 9'.
>1g Early
21st
century
4 A1 Ceramic One upper body sherd of a stoneware soda/ginger
beer bottle.
4g 1860-
1900
4 A2 Ceramic Three body sherds of a stoneware soda/ginger beer
bottle. Partial inscription on one sherd 'S...', possible
partial makers stamp on other sherd.
24g 1860-
1900
4 A1 Organic Two small fragments of bamboo ?survey canes. 2g Late
20th
century
15 A1 Metal Small metal stake, used for pinning small trees in
sheep scrapes to prevent further erosion.
47g Late
20th
century
U/S A2 Ceramic One small body sherd of a stoneware soda/ginger
beer bottle.
1g 1860-
1900
U/S A1 Metal Small metal stake, used for pinning small trees in
sheep scrapes to prevent further erosion.
103g Late
20th
century
Spoil
heap
NA Ceramic One body sherd of a stoneware soda/ginger beer
bottle.
14g 1860-
1900
11 A1 Charcoal 1 Small lump of charcoal (Burnt Material #1)
36. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
34 | P a g e
References
Brassil, K. 1988. 'Penycloddiau, Langwyfan'. Archaeology in Wales 28, 51.
Brassil, K.S., Guilbert, G. Livens, R.G., Stead, W.H. and Bevan-Evans, M. 1982. Rescue excavations at Moel
Hiraddug between 1960 and 1980. Flintshire Historical Society 30, 13-88.
Burnham, H. 1995. A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales: Clwyd and Powys. HMSO: London.
Brooks, I.P. and Laws, K. 2008. Penycloddiau Hillfort Survey (Unpublished report # 2008/16, Engineering
Archaeological Services).
Brown, I. 2004. Discovering a Welsh Landscape: Archaeology along the Clwydian Range. Macclesfield:
Windgather Press.
Davies, E. 1929. The Prehistoric and Roman Remains of Denbighshire. Cardiff: William Lewis.
Davies, E. 1949. The Prehistoric and Roman Remains of Flintshire. Cardiff: William Lewis.
English Heritage London Region 1992. Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation Reports (Guidelines)
Archaeological Guidance Paper: 5.
English Heritage 1998a. Archaeological Guidance Paper 3: Standards and Practices in Archaeological
Fieldwork. (English Heritage London Region). English Heritage (1998b). Archaeological Guidance Paper 4:
Standards and Practices in Archaeological Reports. (English Heritage, London Region).
English Heritage 2002. Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice of methods, from
sampling and recovery to post-excavation.
English Heritage 2006. Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment - MoRPHE.
Forde-Johnston, J. 1964. Fieldwork on the hillforts of north Wales. Flintshire Historical Society 21, 1-20.
Forde-Johnston, J. 1976. Hillforts of the Iron Age in England and Wales: A survey of the surface evidence.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Gale, F. 1991. The Archaeology of Clwyd. Clwyd County Council.
Gale, F. 2004. A Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales: Later Prehistoric Archaeology. Available
at: http://www.cpat.org.uk/research/
Gale, F. 2010. A Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales: Later Bronze Age and Iron Age Wales
(1500 BC-AD 43). Available at: http://www.archaeoleg.org.uk/firstreview.html
Grant, I. and Jones, N.W. 2008. Penycloddiau Cairn, Flintshire: Archaeological Evaluation (Unpublished
report # 932, CPAT).
Guilbert, G. 1975. Moel y Gaer, 1973: an area excavation on the defences. Antiquity 49, 109-117.
Haselgrove, C.C. and Pope, R.E. 2007. Characterising the Earlier Iron Age. In C.C. Haselgrove and R.E. Pope
(eds) The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near Continent, 1-23. Oxford: Oxbow.
Hemp, W.J. 1928. A La Tène shield from Moel Hiraddug, Flintshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 83(2), 253-
281.
Houlder, C. 1961. Rescue excavations at Moel Hiraddug. Flintshire Historical Society 19, 1-20.
IFA (Institute of Field Archaeologists) 1992. Standards and Guidance and Guidelines for Finds Work.
IFA (Institute of Field Archaeologists) 1994 (revised 2001). Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field
Evaluation.
IFA (Institute of Field Archaeologists) 1997. Code of Conduct.
37. Excavations at Penycloddiau Hillfort 2012
35 | P a g e
IFAW (Institute of Field Archaeologists Wales) 2008. A Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales.
(http://www.archaeoleg.org.uk)
Jones, N.W. 2006. Penycloddiau Hillfort, Flintshire: Topographical Survey (Unpublished report # 820, CPAT)
Lewis, S. 1849. Topographical Dictionary.
Morris, R.H. (ed.) 1909. Parochialia, being a summary of answers to ‘Parochial Queries in order to a
Geographical Dictionary, etc., of Wales’ issued by Edward Lhwyd. Archaeologia Cambrensis supplements.
London: Cambrian Archaeological Association.
Senior, M. 2005. Hillforts of northern Wales. Llanrwst: Gwasg Carreg Gwalch.
Stocqueler, D. 2010. A ridgeline ramble on the range. Accessed 6th
Sept. 2012. Available at:
http://www.welshicons.org.uk/news/environment/a-ridgeline-ramble-on-the-range/
UKIC (United Kingdom Institute for Conservation) 1983. Conservation Guidelines No 2.
UKIC (United Kingdom Institute for Conservation) 1990. Guidance for Archaeological Conservation Practice.
Wigley, A. 2002. Building Monuments, Constructing Communities: Landscapes of the first millennium BC in
the central Welsh Marches. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield.
