(NY 96959980) Camp. (1)

Harehaugh Hill Camp. (2)

Harehaugh. A hillfort of the contour type enclosing approx 3.25 acres. (3)

Harehaugh Camp is on a knoll surmounting a promontory between the Woodhouse Burn and the River Coquet. To the north is a precipitous outcrop and to the south at a distance of about 130 yards, the declivity formed by the Harehaugh Burn.
The inner part of the work is somewhat oval in shape with an area of about 1.25 acres. On the isthmus [west] side it has four ramparts, but on the other sides two only. The rest of the camp projects to the east and is defended by two ramparts. The whole work occupies about 4.25 acres.
There seem to have been two entrances from the isthmus; the one on the north, a narrow way between the ends of the ramparts and the precipice and the other on the south, between the ends of the ramparts and the steep ground. (4)

[Early account referring to the inner enclosure as The Citadel]. (5)

The western side is defended by three ramparts with corresponding ditches. [Plan accompanying article unsuitable for reproduction]. (6)

Type B2 (Forts on high ground less dependent on natural slopes for protection). (7)

Scheduled Ancient Monument (County no 46). (8)

Remains of a multi-ramparted earthwork are situated at approx 520ft above sea level upon the highest part of an east-west ridge of heather and bracken covered moorland. The eastern limits of the site fall upon gentle east slopes where the ridge terminates, and the ground commences to fall away to the broad valley of the River Coquet.
The west side of the earthwork, the most vulnerable side, facing the nearly level ridge-top, has been defended with four ramparts with three medial ditches, which link up a line of crags on the north side with precipitous slopes on the south side. There are traces of there having been a slight rampart along the north side. The south and east sides were defended with double ramparts with a medial ditch; the inner rampart has been reduced to a steep outward facing scarp. There are traces of there having been an additional rampart round the east end with a second medial ditch, but these may have been formed by the throwing up of earth for the construction of the inner banks.
The interior is subdivided into two compartments of approximately equal area, by a steep east-facing scarp. There is an entrance through it about midway. The break in the ramparts on the north-east side may be a further original entrance to the two described by authority 4, though it may have formed in more recent times in association with the numerous hollow-ways which lead from it down the hill slopes north-eastwards.
There are no surface indications of interior occupation. The nearest present freshwater supply is the Harehaugh Burn at the foot of the slopes on the north side. (9)

A multivallate fort of close-set mounds and ditches which appears to have replaced a smaller univallate enclosure. (10)

Re-surveyed at 1:2500. (11)

Aerial photographs. (12)

A low bank curves across the interior from north-south, may be remains of earlier univallate enclosure. (13)

NY 9695 9980. Multivallate hillfort 400m W of Harehaugh. Scheduled RSM No 20953. (14)

A survey by the RCHME, and a small evaluation trench by the Department of Archaeology, University of Newcastle, were carried out in 1994 for Northumberland National Park. The survey revealed a more complex monument than was previously thought, with evidence of multi-phase activity.
The single excavation trench, located on the outer western rampart, was able to confirm two or possibly three phases of activity on this part of the monument. Two buried land surfaces were located below the rampart: the upper dating to the Neolithic and one below to an earlier, though as yet undated, period. A radiocarbon date from the upper buried land surface dates the construction of the phase I dump, which sits directly on it, indicating that this initial earthwork recognised in the excavation trench dates to the Neolithic c.3300-3000BC (cal). This is the first carbon dated Neolithic enclosure in the northern uplands. (15)

Magnetometry and resistivity surveys were carried out in December 2001. This showed the western part of the fort is more disturbed than the eastern side, with the exception of the highest part of the fort towards the western ramparts. Here the fort is relatively undisturbed. Three ditches were detected in the fort and coincide with a single earthwork surveyed by the RCHME. There was no conclusive evidence of any hut circles. It is suggested the eastern part of the fort was used for some agricultural or pastoral function and there is a possible enclosure in this part together with a small rectilinear building. There is no clear evidence of an entrance into the fort, although there may have been a staggered entrance in the north side late in the fort's history.
It is thought that a Neolithic origin is feasible, possibly beginning with a small ritual enclosure on the highest point. The defences could have their origins in the Bronze Age. (16)

A series of 11 evaluation trenches carried out by The Archaeological Practice in 2002 carried out across the hillfort revealed that the ramparts throughout the site are constructed from re-deposited boulder clay till thrown down hill. These make use of the natural slopes of the site and sited on the rim of the flattish ridge on which the hillfort is positioned. Nothing was seen in the trenches across the rampart that was definitibe of wooden or stone revetments to shape the external faces of the ramparts, though some stone alignments were seen suggesting ad hoc revetting of the ramparts during or following construction. The results of the excavation confirm the earlier suggestions of the defences being added to in stages. The earthwork running north to south running across the interior of the hillfort seen in the earlier geophysical survey was confirmed as a rampart of earthen construction topped by stone rubble, possibly being contemporary with the secondary ramparts.
The suggestion for a Neolithic enclosure as a smaller ditched enclosure at the highest point within the Iron Age enclosure is possible, though nothing of the excavations confirmed this. It appears that the defences developed through time, though there is no evidence to support the idea that the site was first defended as a promontory site on the western side of the hill. Only limited dateable material was recovered. Material from Trench 6 within the interior of the hillfort provided a pair of dates restricted to the middle of the 4th to late 2nd century BC suggesting some lengthy occupation of the hillfort.
There are hints of a possible Neolithic presence (as series of flint blades and a possible cup marked stone or as unfinished mace head) for the hilltop, as well as Romano-British period activity (as black shale armlet). The few sherds of pottery recovered are too small and formless to be securely diagnostic. The evidence of smithing and probable smelting of iron ore was recovered from the site in two of the trenches from possible remains of hearth floors. (17)

NY 9695 9980 (feature centred). Harehaugh Iron Age hillfort was surveyed at 1:1000 scale by RCHME in 1994: this plan, together with sections over the ramparts and a full field report, is held in the NMR Archive.

The fort appears to comprise at least two phases. Phase I is a univallate earthwork, overlaid on the south and west sides by the ramparts of the much larger phase II. The earlier work is roughly
oval, and is assumed to measure about 100m E-W by 70m transversely enclosing and area of c. 0.6 ha. Phase II, extended eastwards and northwards of I, measures about 170m E-W by 100m transversely (1.5 ha). Around the E and S sides it is defended by two ramparts, on the W by three and on the N, above the steep, rocky slopes, by a single line, which has almost entirely disappeared over the edge.

The ramparts survive as turf-covered, outward facing scarps with outer berms, or as banks with outer ditches. Considerable damage to the defences, mainly in the multiple west ramparts, and the interior has been caused by rabbit burrowing; for this reason the Northumberland National Park produced a management proposal (7a) to repair and consolidate the remains with a view to encouraging public access. In order to assess the nature and extent of the problem, a trial excavation (7b) was undertaken in part of the west defences; this showed that the part of rampart that was exposed was faced with stone. (18a-c)

General association with HER 31646. (18)