Brough Law hillfort. Photo © Northumberland County Council.

(NT 99851635) Camp. (1)

Brough Law. Multiple earthwork approximately 3/4 acre in area. (2)

A strong camp with entirely stone ramparts on Brough Law, it commands the valley and overlooks the country to the west.
To the South there are two ramparts with internal divisions - probably used for dwelling - for there are now only three huts to be seen within the camp. Outside the outer rampart on the South may be seen a number of four- sided compartments which were probably stock enclosures, but whether they are contemporary with the major work cannot be stated.
The principal entrance to the Camp appears to have been on the east, with another on the west connecting with the valley by a steep winding path. Water was probably available 90 yards to the south-west.
Though small in area the strength of its construction makes it an important site. (3)

Brough Law. The site resembles Yeavering Bell and Humbleheugh although it is much smaller. Excepting on the north where the hill is precipitous there are two concentric ramparts of great strength.
Excavations upon three hut circles within the camp revealed charred wood in all. Pottery (Unclassified and present location not stated) in one 18 inches below ground level, and in another 2 feet below ground level, an iron knife (location not give). Excellent masonry was exposed in the ramparts, of the same character as that of Greaves Ash. The work was probably used as a place of temporary refuge. (4)

Type B1 (17). Forts on hill tops with artificial defences following the natural line of the hill. (5)

Brough Law Pottery. The pottery found (Authy 4 refers) consists of a plain roll rim from a cooking pot (Possibly Votadinian 0-700 AD) and a fragment from the shoulder of a fine grey jar of Roman date, probably early 2nd century, but the pieces are not proved to be associated. Both fragments are now in Alnwick Castle Museum. (6)

The knife found (Authy 4 refers) is Saxon. (7)

Case 'C'. Tray marked 28a. No 2 Three fragments of pottery from Brough Law. (Description of tray's contents includes an iron knife 4 inches long and factured, but provenance is not stated. See authy 4 and 7). (8)

Alnwick Castle Museum. On a narrow shelf in Case 'C' are three sherds, two of coarse pottery and one of thin grey ware. They are marked 'Brough Law'. The knife referred to is not exhibited. (9)

Remains of a nearby circular earthwork are situated upon the highest part of the hill called Brough Law, at approx 950 feet above sea-level. The hill-top slopes a little to the south-east.
The site commands the surrounding country on all sides. To the north and west are precipitous scree slopes to the valley of the River Breamish. The slopes to the valley on the east side are less steep. To the south is a saddle with, beyond, a local rise of ground, with open moorland pasture to the east of it.
The earthwork consisted of a massive rampart of loose unhewn stone held up on the exterior side by a stone retaining wall, which has been exposed on the south-east side. An outer rampart of loose stone provides additional defence on the south and east sides, where the site was most vulnerable. There is a staggered entrance in the east side, which is little more than a metre in width. An entrance in the west side does not appear to be an original one. (Authority 3 refers).
A retaining wall on the interior of the rampart on the north side is probably of late construction, as it stands in good condition. Two hut circles were located within the enclosure. One against the inner rampart on the south side, approx 4m in diameter, has been excavated to below ground level. The other is to the north-west, is also approx 4m in diameter, and is frgmentary. Divisions between the ramparts on the south side, constructed of loose stone, are probably of a late date of erection.
In the depression to the south of the earthwork, an earthen rampart, with an outer ditch has been constructed. It links up with a line of low crags at the west end, and probably originally extended eastwards round the hill top to where the slopes become very steep. There is a causewayed entrance facing south. A marshy tract of ground lying in the hill saddle, most likely to have been of much greater extent formerly, would provide yet additional defence on this side.
On the north side, where the steep slopes rise to the perimeter of the earthwork, the collapsed rampart has spread downhill to a width exceeding, in places, 20m The nearest present fresh water supply is a stream to the south-east. (10)

In the centre of the enclosed area are traces of two more probable hut circles (making four in all) with diameters of 7m and 10m.
The western entrance referred to by authority (3) is merely a roughly cleared path through the debris of the collapsed wall. There are a few small enclosures attached to the outside of the outer rampart but these appear to be modern, probably erected as sheep pens.
On the east side, a little north of the entrance gap in the outer rampart, a slight stony bank runs down the ridge in a south-east direction and can be traced for approx 200m. It may be the remains of an old field bank but possibly demarcated a track down to the lower ground. (11)

Listed under pre-Roman Iron Age multivallate, (forts settlements and enclosures) with an overlying settlement of round stone huts. (12)

A well-preserved hillfort with the remains of stone-founded huts confirming secondary occupation. Published survey (25 inch) revised.
The bank with outer ditch in the depression to the south of the fort to which F1 refers, is weak and unlikely to be an additional defence. In fact, the bank appears to be no more than upcast from the ditch, which may have been a hollow way from lower ground, or alternatively a
drainage channel from the marshy area to the south-west. (13)

Radio-carbon tests on material collected from beneath the rampart yielded a date of 245 BX +/- 90 (I-5315 half-life 5568). (14)

Since 1969 some of the walls of the fort have been partially cleared revealing several sections of inner and outer facing stones. The inner wall width varies from about 3m to 6m but the outer wall is not so massive averaging about 2m thick.
Of the four huts the northernmost one (a) on the summit of the hill is visible as a turf-covered stony area about 9.5m overall. The centre is not depressed, but is uneven, and part of the south-west (topped by a modern marker cairn) is outcropt rock suggesting that this may be the remains of a robbed cairn rather than a hut-circle. (Jobey disagrees with this). An excavation trench running east to west across it, is, according to Jobey, the one dug by Tate about 100 years ago, though it appears more recent than this. Surveyed at 1:10,000. (15)

Part of Scheduled Monument 32782: Ingram Farm prehistoric to post-medieval settlement, agricultural and funerary remains. (16)

[NT 9985 1635] Camp [OE] (17a)

The record for the multivallate hillfort on the summit of Brough Law at NT 9985 1635 has been reconstituted. The following report incorporates the relevant sources previously included in the OS record. The old OS record card is available in the NMR archive. The fort is set on the summit of Brough Law at 290 m OD, a site which overlooks a bend in the River Breamish and dominates the surrounding countryside, having extensive panoramic views. Around the immediate N and W are the very steep scree strewn rocky crags known as Ingram Glidders with gentler slopes on the E, whilst to the S is the more easily accessible saddle from Ewe Hill.

The main defence is formed by a massive stone wall, with double outer face, enclosing a sub-circular central area about 68 m E-W by 54 m transversely, some 0.32 ha (0.8 acres) in area, and containing at least three hut circles. Diverging from the main wall in the NE and NW is an outer wall providing a secondary defence around the more vulnerable southern arc. There are staggered entrances through these walls in the E and ESE. Some 40 m due S of the outer wall a third line of defence has been created by a bank with outer causeway ditch cutting across the narrowing neck of the saddle. The inner rampart varies in thickness being about 3.5 m wide in the N and widening to a maximum of 5.5 m at the entrance. Several stretches of its vertical outer face have been revealed by clearing away the collapsed rubble infill, showing the construction of large irregular rectangular stone blocks, standing six courses high in some places with a maximum height of 1.5 m (2.5 m to the top of the rubble core). The double outer faces are generally about 0.8 m apart but reach a maximum of 1.4 m between faces in the S. No evidence was seen of the original inner face of the wall apart from just inside the entrance. Elsewhere what at first glance appears to be the inner face is most probably recent crude attempts at reconstruction. However, the collapse of the rubble core is remarkably sharp around the inside of the wall and therefore the width measurements across it can be reasonably estimated with some accuracy. The entrance gap appears to be splayed being 3.8 m across the inner face and narrowing to about 2.6 m across the outer face. The outer rampart, extensively robbed and not as well preserved as the inner one, has reached a maximum width of some 5 m near the entrance but elsewhere has been much less. In the S, where the two parallel faces are clear, it is 4 m wide, but generally it is only evident as a massive rubble bank 2 m in maximum height and partly turf-covered in places. There is a 10 m long stretch of outer face about 1.1 m high around the NE, and another 0.7 m high in the NW, but no trace of the inner faces where the walls converge. The entrance is now too obscure for accurate measurement, but is has probably been about 2.5 m wide. In the N and in the WSW are what seem at first glance to be entrances, but the former is apparently an old excavation trench some 10 m long and 2.5 m wide, which would have cut down through all faces of the ramparts, and the latter is a modern `entrance' gap worn down through the rubble.

The third outer line of defence across the more easily approachable S is completely different to the main body of the fort being an outwork composed of an earthen bank, 0.7 m maximum height and 4 m wide, which terminates on outcropping rock in the W and fades out some 90 m further E on the steeper slopes. The ditch on its S side is somewhat shorter in length, 0.5 m deep and 4 m wide. There is a well-defined causeway towards the E end, 0.4 m high and 3.5 m wide, with an
opposing entrance gap in the bank. The ditch ends quite abruptly some 20 m to the E. Unfortunately there is no trace of this earthwork connecting up to the fort but there must be little doubt of it being contemporary.

The NW interior of the fort is slightly domed with much of the area being outcropping rock. There is evidence of three, possibly four, hut circles. The highest is 5 m in diameter within a turf-covered
stone wall, 0.2 m high and 1.5m wide. There are remains of an excavation trench, running E-W across it which has probably destroyed the entrance in the E. There is a modern marker cairn 1.5 m high and 5 m in diameter obscuring the SW side of this hut. Some 25 m to the SW is another hut, also 5 m in diameter within a boulder wall 0.5 m high and 1.7 m maximum width. It is very mutilated, probably by excavation and robbing and has debris dumped in the centre. There is a possible entrance in the NE. The third hut lies between the other two and is not so well defined. It has a diameter of 8.8 m inside a turf-covered stone wall 0.2 m high and 1.2 m wide. The entrance would probably have been in the SW where there is a break in the wall. Some 20 m W of the main enclosure entrance set up against an outcrop of rock is the possible site of another hut, which is 5 m in diameter inside a turf-covered stone wall 0.2 m high and 1.2 m wide.

There is a break in the S, possibly an entrance but the whole is too ill-defined to be certain. About 10 m N of this hut circle are the indeterminate remains of an L-shaped wall about 6.5 m long surmounting the outcropping rock. Set into the rubble of the inner wall in the S is what at first appears to be another hut, but this is probably no more than a semi-circular feature created from debris cleared out of the rubble, possibly following an unsuccessful search for an inner face of the rampart.

Between the two ramparts are several apparent `cross walls' dividing the area up into two or three roughly rectangular compartments. Similar features appear on the outside of the outer rampart in the S as well as elsewhere amongst the rampart debris around the fort. Excavation by Jobey in 1971 (14) suggests that these are not contemporary with the fort and it is probable that they are all later constructions, possibly animal pens built out of rubble. On the NNE side outside the fort, below the spread of rubble, is a flat plateau area, approximately 50 m E-W by 20 m transversely, cleared of stones. It is edged on its E side by a low turf-covered stone wall 0.3 m high and 2 m wide emerging from the base of the tumble and running in a NNE direction to the edge of the plateau where it ends on a rocky escarpment. This escarpment may have been enhanced by scarping around to the W forming the edge of the plateau which could be natural, but may be associated with the fort. There is a short length of wall about 20 m long, 0.3 m high and 2 m wide running W from the base of the tumble in the W. Just to the N of the entrance to the second rampart in the SE, a similar but more clearly defined wall [NT 9916/33] 0.4 m in maximum height and spread to about 2.7 m, runs down the slopes to the SE. These walls may be contemporary with the fort, the field system to the NE of it [NT 9916/32], or the settlements further down the hill to the E [NU 0016/3 and 4].

Excavations of three hut circles within the camp (4) revealed charred wood, fragments of pottery, later identified as possibly Votadinian (0-700 AD), and also 2nd c Roman, and an iron knife, subsequently considered to be Saxon (6-7). The site was examined in the field and fully described by OS Archaeology Division Field Investigations on 09-Apr-57 (10), 15-Apr-57 (11), 14-Oct-69 (13) when the existing 1:2500 survey was revised, and finally on 24-Nov-76 (15). Jobey (12) listed the site under pre-Roman IA multivallate, (forts, settlements and enclosures) with an overlying settlement of round stone huts. It was partly excavated by Jobey in 1971; radiocarbon tests on material collected form beneath the rampart yielded a date of 245 BC +/- 90 (14). (17b)

NT 998 164. Brough Law. Listed in a gazetteer of British hillforts as a multivallate structure enclosing 0.25ha. (17c)

NT 999 164. Enclosure(s) on Brough Law. Scheduled No ND/180. (17d)

[NT 9985 1635] Fort [NR] (17e)