Ramparts of Humbleton Hill hillfort. Photo by Harry Rowland.

(NT 96662829) Camp, Hut Circles (three). (1)

The 'camp' at Humbleton Heugh has irregular ramparts of stone which appear to have been thrown down. At one point in the north-east where the wall is 10 feet thick it is 'coarsed'. The area within the walls is about 3 acres. The southern point of the 'camp' is a precipice. There are one or two 'cairns' within the area but they appear to be of fairly recent date and may have been beacons. (2)

The stone fort on Homildon Hill has an outer wall of stone girdling the hill with one end resting on the brink of the ravine known as Homilheugh. The inner wall rests one of its ends on the outer wall at the east side and from here runs up the hill in a spiral course to the summit making rather more than one complete turn round. The line of main entrance to the centre of the fort was round this spiral curve. (3)

A stone fort in a strongly defended position on the crest of Humbleton Hill. It has an outer annexe to the south-east, and an additional larger annexe to the north and west.
The wall of the main fort is collapsed and widely spread but the remains indicate that the wall must originally have been high and strong. There are seven hut circles visible within the interior.
The south-east annexe wall also indicates its original strength, but again it is now collapsed and spread.
The larger outer annexe wall is slight compared to the fort wall, and is contour-following. It was probably not defensive within itself, and was merely a stock enclosure. This annexe contains three hut circles. The entrance to the camp on the south side is of simple form.
There is no entrance visible around the spiral as alleged by Lynn. Modern enclosures have been built to the north of the main work and within it. Average width of fort wall 9.5m; of south-east annexe wall 8m. Stock annex, wall fragmentary. Average diameter of hut circles 8m. (4)

Superficially, Humbleton Heugh resembles a 'citadel' type of fort, which features a thick-walled citadel-like enclosure with outer systems of stone walls, and for which a tentative post-Roman context has been suggested. It consists of a stoutly built rampart originally some 12ft thick. But whereas the eastern annexe approaches the same massive scale, that to the west appears to have been of much slighter proportions. Eleven hut platforms are visible within the main perimeter, while further traces exist in the eastern annexe. At least ten circular floors, one bearing a 'ring-groove' for a timber building survive in the large outer enclosure.
It is conceivable in this instance that the fort starts as a univallate site, and that the annexes represent two successive extensions. There would seem to be no compelling reason to regard it as a post-Roman structure. (5)

Listed as pre-Roman Iron Age univallate fort. (6)

Published survey (25 inch) revised. Jobey's estimate of the hut sites contained within the work is probably correct, but most are no more than superficial 'scoops' too nebulous for survey. (7)

The east wall of the inner enclosure shows both inner and outer facing stones giving an original width for this wall of approximately 4m increasing to about 4.5m on the north side of the entrance.
On the north side of the entrance at the south-west corner of the inner enclosure is a sub-rectangular platform, about 16m by 5m, formed on its west side by a consolidated turf covered stony bank spread to 2.5m wide by 0.6m high. The remains of stony banks now badly mutilated suggest this entrance was possibly flanked by a stone wall on its south side and the platform may be part of the defence arrangements.
The wall of the outer larger enclosure is generally well preserved measuring 2m in width between facing stones, and 0.3m high average, with a rubble infilling. Although the upper courses appear to have been robbed and there is little loose stone evident, this wall gives the impression of originally having been quite substantial and probably an integral part of the defences as well as forming stock annexe. Surveyed at 1:10,000. (8)

A topographic survey was carried out as part of the Milfield Archaeological Landscape Project by the Newcastle University Surveying Society in April 1995. A section of previously undiscovered in situ wall face was seen on the north side of the inner defensive works revealing dry-stone construction. (9)

In April 1997, RCHME carried out an analytical survey of Humbleton Hill, as part of the national project to record industry and enclosure in the Neolithic, following a suggestion by the National Park Archaeologist that the site might be of Neolithic origin (12). A survey carried out shortly prior to RCHME's by Clive Waddington of Newcastle University concluded that the site was Iron Age in origin and perhaps underwent Dark Age and Medieval re-modelling.The RCHME survey of Humbleton Hill recorded two stone-built enclosures and a number of smaller pen enclosures and house platforms. These enclosures are not accurately dated but the inner one, of a more massive construction, is thought to be of later prehistoric origin and is interpreted as a hillfort. The outer enclosure is also thought to be prehistoric but it has been suggested it may be of Neolithic origin. The relationship between the two enclosures is uncertain. The small enclosures recorded are interpreted as possible medieval shielings with associated animal pens. Three probable archaeological excavation trenches across the bank of the outer enclosure were identified by the survey, although no published record of any investigation has been found.
No particular conclusions are drawn on the possibility of Neolithic origin although comparisons with Cornish and Peak District examples are made. It is also suggested that it may be an example of a Bronze Age irregular enclosure as defined by Burgess. The survey supports Waddington's suggestion that its present appearance owes much to medieval and later history, and that the site was military in function. It remains uncertain whether the hillfort and outer enclosure are separate entities of different date. The hut circles described by previous sources are concentrated within the hillfort and may well be contemporary with it.

The hillfort
The plan of the hillfort differs from Jobey's in one important respect: the relationship between the inner and outer ramparts would suggest that the inner rather than the outer is the later addition, as Waddington has pointed out. As MacLaughlin noted, the inner rampart appears to have been deliberately slighted, so that its original outer face now lies towards the rear of the broad rubble spread, and the continuous line of orthostats which represents the original inner face is isolated, some 3m behind the rampart. The eastern entrance through the inner rampart, which was discounted by Waddington, is in fact probably genuine, although disturbed by the present path. An alignment of stones appears to represent the lowest course of a wall defining two sides of a 'guard chamber' c.2m square within the thickness of the northern terminal.

The outer rampart, described by previous sources as a single broad dump of stone rubble, seems to represent the remains of two closely-spaced walls; the outer faces of both can be traced intermittently, and where absent their line is usually visible as a steeper scarp in the rubble spread. Each seems to be c.3m wide. The 'platform' interpreted by Source 8 (and subsequently Waddington) as a possible outwork protecting a south-western entrance is very different in appearance from the rest of the ramparts, and much sharper in profile, suggesting that it may be a more recent modification (of unknown function).

The outer enclosure
In addition to the predominantly earth and stone bank recorded by previous sources, the RCHME survey identified a possible continuation of the earthwork, also running along the contour, around the eastern side of the hill and up to the edge of the Homilheugh ravine (similar to the northern end). The section which leads obliquely across the contours to join the hillfort, which is indeed similar in construction technique to the fort, may therefore be a later modification. Thus, there is no direct stratigraphic relationship between them, and the term 'annexe' is perhaps inappropiate; it remains possible that the outer enclosure is not contemporary. It is possibly Bronze Age, given its unusual plan and the eroded, rounded boulders (presumably from surface clearance) used in its construction.

Three or four possible excavation trenches were noted sectioning the northern perimeter; these appear to be of 20th century date, but there is no record of any such investigation.

The bank on either side of the broad entrance at the south-western corner of the outer enclosure has certainly been enlarged at some point, involving the enlargement of the quarry hollow behind the rampart and the removal of part of the rear of the bank itself. It is tempting to link this modification with the documented Battle of Humbleton Hill in 1402, which is thought to have taken place on the western flanks of the hill.

The 'modern' enclosures and sheilings mentioned by Source 4 may be Medieval, or earlier Post-Medieval; the cairn on the summit semms unlikely to have been a beacon. These are described as NT 92 NE 98 and 99 respectively.

For further details, see plan at 1:1000 scale and full Level 3 report, held in the Archive.(10, 15h)

Joint survey by C Waddington and University of Newcastle Surveying Society in April 1995. Three main elements of the hillfort were identified:
1) remains of a 'citadel' (inner enclosure) defended by a massive stone circuit wall and an inner wall on the north and east sides;
2) remains of an outer enclosure defined by a now badly robbed stone wall, which encloses all but the south east side of the citadel;
3) remains of later features, not contemporary with the monument's use as a hillfort.
The following sequence is proposed for the monument on the basis of the survey:
1) primary phase included the construction of the original univallate citadel ramparts and at least some of the hut coops within it. The eastern entrance is likely to be part of this phase;
2) the defences were reorganised and strengthened with the construction of an inner rampart. The entrance may have been relocated at this time to the south west angle. The ramparts of the outer enclosure may have been added at this time;
3) the defences were abandoned and probably fell into disrepair. Later, they provided a backdrop for stock shelters and possibly some shielings. Modifications may also have been made when the Scots took their positions before the Battle of Humbleton Hill in AD1402. (11)

Scheduled. (12)

A drawn and photographic record was made in 2000 of an area of burning in the north east part of the inner enclosure. At least two possible phases of underlying archaeology were suggested. The latest seems to consist of one or more rectilinear stone-built features abutting the west face of the inner rampart wall; the hollow in which the fire was set seems to correspond with the interior of one of these features. These features seem to overlie an earlier earth and stone bank running north west from the northern side of 'entrance C'.
The rectilinear 'features' may be related to a 'guardroom' noted by the RCHME 1997 survey north of 'entrance C', or may represent the remains of medieval or early post-medieval shielings in the lee of the rampart. (13)

In 2004 some of the stone that had been used in modern times to construct wind breaks within the ramparts was removed and returned to the ramparts. Care was taken not to obscure sections of extant rampart wall. The summit cairn was retained in its current form as it was first recorded in 1858 and may have originated as the site of an Armada beacon. (14)

NT 967 283. Humbleton Hill. Listed in gazetteer as a univallate hillfort covering 3.6ha. (15a)

Additional reference (not consulted). (15b)

NT 967 283. Humbleton Hill camp. Scheduled No ND/217. (15c)

Details of Waddington's survey have been published in Northern Archaeology vol. 15/16. In the same journal can also be found an account of the battle of Homildon. (11, 15d)

The site is visible on a number of aerial photographs. (15e-g)

The site has been mapped from the air as part of the Milfield Geoarchaeoloy Project. (See archive object MD000292) (15)

General association with HER 34614 (shielings), HER 34615 (cairn) and HER 34616 (witches shrine). (15)