Heiferlaw defended settlement 100m north of Holywell (Denwick)
(NU 18041769) Camp. (1)
Diameter of camp at Heiferlaw c.80x with internal walls and divisions, traces of two ramparts visible. 80x north east of the camp are traces of ancient dwellings. (2)
Entrances are on east and west sides; traces of hut circles within the camp. The flagged floor of a hut dwelling 13' in diameter was found a few years ago not more than 100 yards east of the camp. (3)
This earthwork is situated on the summit of a slight rise. It has been badly mutilated by tree planting and at present consists of ramparts of earth and stones with traces of an outer ditch and counterscarp bank in the south east quadrant.
The rampart which is very much spread has an average width of 8m and a maximum height of 1.3m. An outer ditch, visible only in the south west quadrant 3m wide and 0.4m deep, terminates at its northern end in a rectangular depression and is probably modern.
A fragmentary outer bank to the north west of average width of 4m and a height of 0.5m may also only be the upcast from a terraced trackway.
The main rampart has entrances on the east and west side. From the south side of the west entrance a bank runs in a south east direction to form an internal division. This bank is badly spread and has an average width of 5m and a height of 0.4m, and is the only trace of the walls and divisions referred to by MacLauchlan.
There are no surface indications of internal habitation. Tree planting has probably obliterated traces of Tate's hut circles and also the dwellings to the north east and east of the earthwork noted by both him and MacLauchlan. Although in a defensive position, earthwork itself is of weak construction probably for pastoral purposes and native in origin. (4)
Listed as Iron Age univallate (Forts, settlements and enclosures). (5)
The work is clearly Iron Age in both proportions and construction, but the site has no natural strength. Early references to internal and external habitational remains, of which there is now no trace, suggests some secondary native settlement in common with most Iron Age enclosures in the area. Resurveyed at 1:2500. (6)
Holywell, NU 181177. Listed under 'Moated Sites in Northumberland'. (7)
Heiferlaw defended settlement, 100m north of Holywell. Scheduling revised on 29th April 1996, new national monument number 25192.
The monument includes a defended settlement of Iron Age date situated on the summit of a rise. The enclosure, roughly circular in shape measures a maximum of 63m in diameter within two ramparts of earth and stone and traces of an outer ditch. The main rampart measures an average 8m wide and stands to a maximum height of 1.3m. There are opposing entrances through the rampart 4m wide. A second rampart is situated 5m beyond the first which is 5m broad and stands to a maximum height of 1m; this rampart is fragmentary and is best preserved on the north west and south east sides. There are traces of an outer ditch 3m wide and 0.4m deep surrounded by a counterscarp bank on the south west side of the enclosure but this cannot now be traced on the other sides as the ditch has become infilled and the bank levelled. It is thought that the visible remains may represent more than one phase of activity. In 1867 the surveyor Henry MacLauchlan described the enclosure a being divided by internal walls and
divisions and other observances have described the existence of circular huts; today the only obvious internal feature is a wall 5m wide running from the western entrance in a southerly direction to form an internal compartment.
The settlement is well preserved and retains significant archaeological deposits. It is one of a group of Iron Age settlements in the area and will add greatly to our knowledge and understanding of prehistoric settlement and activity in the area. (8)
Summary of Monument
Reasons for Designation
During the mid-prehistoric period (seventh to fifth centuries BC) a variety of different types of defensive settlements began to be constructed and occupiedin the northern uplands of England. The most obvious sites were hillfortsbuilt in prominent locations. In addition to these a range of smaller sites,sometimes with an enclosed area of less than 1ha and defined as defendedsettlements, were also constructed. Some of these were located on hilltops,others are found in less prominent positions. The enclosing defences were of earthen construction, some sites having a single bank and ditch (univallate),others having more than one (multivallate). At some sites these earthenramparts represent a second phase of defence, the first having been a timberfence or palisade. Within the enclosure a number of stone or timber-builtround houses were occupied by the inhabitants. Stock may also have been keptin these houses, especially during the cold winter months, or in enclosedyards outside them. The communities occupying these sites were probably singlefamily groups, the defended settlements being used as farmsteads. Constructionand use of this type of site extended over several centuries, possibly throughto the early Romano-British period (mid to late first century AD).
Defended settlements are a rare monument type. They were an important elementof the later prehistoric settlement pattern of the northern uplands and areimportant for any study of the developing use of fortified settlements duringthis period. All well-preserved examples are believed to be of nationalimportance.Heiferlaw settlement is well preserved and retains significant archaeological deposits. It is one of a group of Iron Age settlements in the area and willadd greatly to our knowledge and understanding of
prehistoric settlement andactivity in the area.
History
The monument includes a defended settlement of Iron Age date situated on thesummit of a rise. The enclosure, roughly circular in shape measures a maximumof 63m in diameter within two ramparts of earth and stone and traces of anouter ditch. The main rampart measures on average 8m wide and stands to amaximum height of 1.3m. There are opposing entrances through the rampart 4mwide. A second rampart is situated 5m beyond the first which is 5m broad andstands to a maximum height of 1m; this rampart is
fragmentary and is bestpreserved on the north west and south east sides. There are traces of an outerditch 3m wide and 0.4m deep surrounded by a counterscarp bank on the southwest side of the enclosure but this cannot now be traced on the other sides as the ditch has become infilled and the bank levelled. It is thought that thevisible remains may represent more than one phase of activity. In 1867 thesurveyor Henry Maclaughlan described the enclosure as being divided byinternal walls and divisions and other observers
have describe the existence of circular huts; today the only obvious internal feature is a wall 5m widerunning from the western entrance in a southerly direction to form an internalcompartment.
The site of the monument is shown on the attached map extract.It includes a 2 metre boundary around the archaeological features,considered to be essential for the monument's support and preservation. (9)
NU 181 177. Heifer Law camp. Scheduled No ND/108. (10a)
Diameter of camp at Heiferlaw c.80x with internal walls and divisions, traces of two ramparts visible. 80x north east of the camp are traces of ancient dwellings. (2)
Entrances are on east and west sides; traces of hut circles within the camp. The flagged floor of a hut dwelling 13' in diameter was found a few years ago not more than 100 yards east of the camp. (3)
This earthwork is situated on the summit of a slight rise. It has been badly mutilated by tree planting and at present consists of ramparts of earth and stones with traces of an outer ditch and counterscarp bank in the south east quadrant.
The rampart which is very much spread has an average width of 8m and a maximum height of 1.3m. An outer ditch, visible only in the south west quadrant 3m wide and 0.4m deep, terminates at its northern end in a rectangular depression and is probably modern.
A fragmentary outer bank to the north west of average width of 4m and a height of 0.5m may also only be the upcast from a terraced trackway.
The main rampart has entrances on the east and west side. From the south side of the west entrance a bank runs in a south east direction to form an internal division. This bank is badly spread and has an average width of 5m and a height of 0.4m, and is the only trace of the walls and divisions referred to by MacLauchlan.
There are no surface indications of internal habitation. Tree planting has probably obliterated traces of Tate's hut circles and also the dwellings to the north east and east of the earthwork noted by both him and MacLauchlan. Although in a defensive position, earthwork itself is of weak construction probably for pastoral purposes and native in origin. (4)
Listed as Iron Age univallate (Forts, settlements and enclosures). (5)
The work is clearly Iron Age in both proportions and construction, but the site has no natural strength. Early references to internal and external habitational remains, of which there is now no trace, suggests some secondary native settlement in common with most Iron Age enclosures in the area. Resurveyed at 1:2500. (6)
Holywell, NU 181177. Listed under 'Moated Sites in Northumberland'. (7)
Heiferlaw defended settlement, 100m north of Holywell. Scheduling revised on 29th April 1996, new national monument number 25192.
The monument includes a defended settlement of Iron Age date situated on the summit of a rise. The enclosure, roughly circular in shape measures a maximum of 63m in diameter within two ramparts of earth and stone and traces of an outer ditch. The main rampart measures an average 8m wide and stands to a maximum height of 1.3m. There are opposing entrances through the rampart 4m wide. A second rampart is situated 5m beyond the first which is 5m broad and stands to a maximum height of 1m; this rampart is fragmentary and is best preserved on the north west and south east sides. There are traces of an outer ditch 3m wide and 0.4m deep surrounded by a counterscarp bank on the south west side of the enclosure but this cannot now be traced on the other sides as the ditch has become infilled and the bank levelled. It is thought that the visible remains may represent more than one phase of activity. In 1867 the surveyor Henry MacLauchlan described the enclosure a being divided by internal walls and
divisions and other observances have described the existence of circular huts; today the only obvious internal feature is a wall 5m wide running from the western entrance in a southerly direction to form an internal compartment.
The settlement is well preserved and retains significant archaeological deposits. It is one of a group of Iron Age settlements in the area and will add greatly to our knowledge and understanding of prehistoric settlement and activity in the area. (8)
Summary of Monument
Reasons for Designation
During the mid-prehistoric period (seventh to fifth centuries BC) a variety of different types of defensive settlements began to be constructed and occupiedin the northern uplands of England. The most obvious sites were hillfortsbuilt in prominent locations. In addition to these a range of smaller sites,sometimes with an enclosed area of less than 1ha and defined as defendedsettlements, were also constructed. Some of these were located on hilltops,others are found in less prominent positions. The enclosing defences were of earthen construction, some sites having a single bank and ditch (univallate),others having more than one (multivallate). At some sites these earthenramparts represent a second phase of defence, the first having been a timberfence or palisade. Within the enclosure a number of stone or timber-builtround houses were occupied by the inhabitants. Stock may also have been keptin these houses, especially during the cold winter months, or in enclosedyards outside them. The communities occupying these sites were probably singlefamily groups, the defended settlements being used as farmsteads. Constructionand use of this type of site extended over several centuries, possibly throughto the early Romano-British period (mid to late first century AD).
Defended settlements are a rare monument type. They were an important elementof the later prehistoric settlement pattern of the northern uplands and areimportant for any study of the developing use of fortified settlements duringthis period. All well-preserved examples are believed to be of nationalimportance.Heiferlaw settlement is well preserved and retains significant archaeological deposits. It is one of a group of Iron Age settlements in the area and willadd greatly to our knowledge and understanding of
prehistoric settlement andactivity in the area.
History
The monument includes a defended settlement of Iron Age date situated on thesummit of a rise. The enclosure, roughly circular in shape measures a maximumof 63m in diameter within two ramparts of earth and stone and traces of anouter ditch. The main rampart measures on average 8m wide and stands to amaximum height of 1.3m. There are opposing entrances through the rampart 4mwide. A second rampart is situated 5m beyond the first which is 5m broad andstands to a maximum height of 1m; this rampart is
fragmentary and is bestpreserved on the north west and south east sides. There are traces of an outerditch 3m wide and 0.4m deep surrounded by a counterscarp bank on the southwest side of the enclosure but this cannot now be traced on the other sides as the ditch has become infilled and the bank levelled. It is thought that thevisible remains may represent more than one phase of activity. In 1867 thesurveyor Henry Maclaughlan described the enclosure as being divided byinternal walls and divisions and other observers
have describe the existence of circular huts; today the only obvious internal feature is a wall 5m widerunning from the western entrance in a southerly direction to form an internalcompartment.
The site of the monument is shown on the attached map extract.It includes a 2 metre boundary around the archaeological features,considered to be essential for the monument's support and preservation. (9)
NU 181 177. Heifer Law camp. Scheduled No ND/108. (10a)
N4421
FIELD OBSERVATION, Ordnance Survey Archaeology Division Field Investigation 1958; E Geary
FIELD SURVEY, Hill forts and settlements in Northumberland ; G Jobey
FIELD SURVEY, Hill forts and settlements in Northumberland ; G Jobey
Disclaimer -
Please note that this information has been compiled from a number of different sources. Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council can accept no responsibility for any inaccuracy contained therein. If you wish to use/copy any of the images, please ensure that you read the Copyright information provided.