Heather and Hillforts Survey Report
Engineering Archaeological Services Ltd
registered in England
No. 2869678
Commissioned by
Denbighshire County Council
Surveys by
I.P. Brooks and K. Laws
Moel Fenlli from the north
EAS Survey Report 2006/17
Introduction
Caer Drewyn
Topographic Survey
Fluxgate Gradiometer
Surveys
Resistivity Surveys
Discussion
Moel Fenlli
Topographic Survey
Fluxgate Gradiometer
Surveys
Resistivity Surveys
Discussion
References
Acknowledgements
Figure 23: Caer Drewyn, Resistivity
Survey, Area 4, X-Y Plot
Figure 24: Caer Drewyn, Resistivity
Survey, Interpretation
Figure 25: Moel Fenlli, Location
Figure 26: Moel Fenlli, Contour Survey
Figure 27: Moel Fenlli, Hachure Survey
Figure 28: Moel Fenlli, Ground Model
Figure 29: Moel Fenlli, Wire Frame
Ground Model, Looking East
Figure 30: Moel Fenlli, Profiles Across
the Ramparts
Figure 31: Moel Fenlli: Expanded
Profiles Across the Ramparts
Figure 32: Moel Fenlli, Location of the
Fluxgate Gradiometer Surveys
Figure 33: Moel Fenlli, Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey, Grey Scale
Plots
Figure 34: Moel Fenlli, Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey, X-Y Plots
Figure 35: Moel Fenlli, Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey,
Interpretation
Figure 36: Moel Fenlli, Location of the
Resistivity Survey
Figure 37: Moel Fenlli, Resistivity
Survey, Grey Scale Plots
Figure 38: Moel Fenlli, Resistivity
Survey, X-Y Plots
Figure 39: Moel Fenlli, Resistivity
Survey, Interpretation
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of the Hillforts
Figure 2: Caer Drewyn, Location
Figure 3: Caer Drewyn, Contour Survey
Figure 4: Caer Drewyn, Hachure Survey
Figure 5: Caer Drewyn, Ground Model
Figure 6: Caer Drewyn, Wire Frame
Ground Model Looking ENE
Figure 7: Caer Drewyn, Profiles Across
the Rampart
Figure 8: Caer Drewyn, Expanded
Profiles Across the Rampart
Figure 9: Caer Drewyn, Possible
Reconstruction of the Rampart
Types
Figure 10: Caer Drewyn, Possible
Phasing
Figure 11: Caer Drewyn Location of the
Fluxgate Gradiometer Surveys
Figure 12: Caer Drewyn, Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey, Areas 1 and
2 Grey scale Plots
Figure 13: Caer Drewyn, Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey Areas 3
and 4 Grey Scale Plots
Figure 14: Caer Drewyn, Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey Areas 1
and 2, X-Y Plots
Figure 15: Caer Drewyn, Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey Areas 3 and
4, X-Y Plots
Figure 16: Caer Drewyn Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey, Area 1,
Interpretation
Figure 17: Caer Drewyn, Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey, Area 2,
Interpretation
Figure 18: Caer Drewyn, Fluxgate
Gradiometer Survey, Areas 3 and
4 Interpretation
Figure 19: Caer Drewyn, Location of the
Resistivity Surveys
Figure 20: Caer Drewyn, Resistivity
Survey, Areas 2 and 3 Grey Scale
Plots
Figure 21: Caer Drewyn, Resistivity
Survey, Area 4, Grey Scale Plot
Figure 22: Caer Drewyn, Resistivity
Survey, Areas 2 and 3 X-Y Plots
2
Fluxgate gradiometer. The use of a ST1
sample trigger or a hand trigger was
dependant on site conditions, as was the
selection of the size of the grid squares
used. Readings were taken at 0.25 m
intervals along transects 1 m apart. These
transects were walked in a parallel
pattern. Grey Scale Plots were produced
using Geoscan Research “Geoplot”
v. 3.00mx and X - Y plots using Golden
Software “Surfer” v. 5.01.
Introduction
As part of the development phase of the
Heather and Hillforts Landscape
Partnership Scheme, Engineering
Archaeological Services Ltd were
commissioned to carry out topographical
and geophysical surveys on Caer
Drewyn (SAM ME012) and Moel Fenlli
(SAM DE009) hillforts (Figure 1). The
aims of the project were to record the
physical remains on the sites and to
evaluate the applicability of Fluxgate
Gradiometer and Resistivity surveys to
the sites. The work was also associated
with three public and three schools
training days.
The Resistivity surveys used the same
grid squares as its base as the Fluxgate
Gradiometer surveys using a Geoscan
RM4/DL10 resistance meter. A single
parallel probe setting was used with a
separation between the probes of 0.5 m.
Readings were taken at either 0.5 or 1 m
intervals along transects 1 m apart. Grey
scale plots were produced using Geoscan
Research “Geoplot” v. 3.00e and X - Y
plots using Golden Software “Surfer” v.
5.01.
The fieldwork took place between
14/8/06 and 21/11/06
Methodology
The topographic surveys were
undertaken using a Geodolite 506 Total
Station. Initial stations were defined by
using a Garmin Etrex Summit hand held
GPS system, with subsequent stations
being surveyed using the Total Station.
Features and breaks of slope were
defined at a resolution of less than five
metres between readings, whilst the
general ground form was recorded by a
series of ground levels taken on an
approximate 10 m grid. The surveys
were processed using NRG Engineering
Surveying System v. 8.09. This not only
allowed for the compiling of the survey
drawing, but also calculated the contours
and provided the wire frame ground
models of the sites.
Some resistivity surveys were carried out
as part of the training days. The Public
carried out resistivity surveys at Caer
Drewyn, Pen y Cloddiau and Moel Fenlli
where as the school’s training days were
carried out at Caer Drewyn.
Caer Drewyn
Caer Drewyn sits on the western hill
slope of a ridge north of the River Dee
between Llangollen and Corwen,
dominating the junction of the Afon
Alwen and the River Dee (Figures 1 and
2))
Whilst there are a number of descriptions
of Caer Drewyn from the time of
Pennant (1781, 67) only limited
archaeological intervention has been
carried out on the site. This was carried
out in the late 1880’s by Rev. H
Pritchard (Williams, 2004, Bowen and
Gresham 1967, 145) and was largely
confined to the clearing of loose rubble
from areas of the ramparts to determine
At each site semi-permanent stations
were established using “Feno” Survey
Markers. 350 mm steel anchors were
used because of the small depth of
topsoil. Other temporary stations were
marked with plastic pegs.
The Fluxgate Gradiometer surveys were
undertaken using a Geoscan FM 36
3
the character and structure of the
underlying ramparts.
The main enclosure has a single rampart,
with no external ditch, but this has two
distinct characters (Figures 3 and 4).
The upper (eastern half of the site)
enclosure is constructed totally of dry
stone walling (profiles on Figures 7 and
8). A series of original facings survive at
several points which allows for the
reconstruction of the rampart with a
stepped interior and a near vertical outer
facing (Figure 9).
The site was described in detail by
Bowen and Gresham (1967, 144 – 148)
and an attempt at phasing the remains
made from observation, but with no
further excavation was carried out.
No previous systematic survey of the site
has been carried out; indeed the hillfort,
whilst appearing on the 1:10,000
Ordnance Survey data is not on the base
(1:2500) landline data.
The western (lower) half of the main
enclosure has the remains of an earthen
rampart with either a stone frontage or
possibly stone breastwork. This survives
in places as footings, but is generally
represented by a spread of stone rubble
on the outer face of the rampart. The
inner edge is marked by a series of
shallow quarry hollows which
presumably provided the material for the
earthen rampart. The current profile of
the ramparts is shown on Figures 7 and
8, whereas the possible reconstruction is
shown on Figure 9.
Topographical survey
Northing
Level (m)
A
8822.000
44408.000
293.000
B
8756.917
44481.219
279.058
Station
Name
Easting
Permanent stations
Two gateways survive in the main
enclosure, one in the NE corner the other
in western side. The NE entrance is the
most developed consisting of a narrow,
interned passage with the possibility of
guard chambers at its western end. It is
associated with the stone built rampart
and fragments of the original facing
survive, particularly where more recent
disturbance of the collapse resulted in a
series of holes.
Station
Name
Easting
Nothings
Level (m)
Temporary Stations
C
8870.254
44485.125
295.381
D
8918.1540
44467.919
293.586
E
8891.801
44372.544
291.453
F
8760.715
44335.619
280.395
The Western entrance is also inturned
but has been disturbed by later activity,
particularly the construction of a series
of rectilinear structures assumed to mark
a medieval or later farmstead.
The general description of the site
continues to be valid with a main
enclosure of about 2.9 Ha surrounded by
a single rampart and an “Annex” of 0.1
Ha to the west, partly defined by a single
rampart and ditch.
Eight possible hut platforms have been
recorded within the main enclosure.
These survive largely on the steeper
slopes within the enclosure probably
suggesting that other potential round
houses may exist on the flatter areas, but
4
do not give rise to earthworks. A
number of stone spreads and possible
stone features were also recorded.
in the Western gate house. Within the
stone rampart there were also a series of
30 holes dug into the structure and the
tumble. The larger of these appear to be
carefully constructed with dry stone wall
sides. The function and date of these
structures is not known, although they
pre-date Pennant visit in the late 1700’s
(Pennant 1781, 67).
The “Annex” has a large, earthen
rampart with an external ditch and no
evidence for a counterscarp rampart.
The line of the ditch can be traced on the
other side of the main enclosure rampart
suggesting that it predated the
construction of the stone rampart. The
northern end of the “Annex” rampart is
open with no evidence of its full extent
and it may be that this rampart continued
little or no further and was designed only
to define the end of the ridge in the form
of a possible promontory fort.
The physical remains are such that a
possible development of the site can be
advanced (Figure 10).
Phase I: consists of the rampart of the
“Annex” together with its
extension into the main
enclosure. The western extent of
any enclosure is uncertain but
may have followed the relatively
flat area at this end of the site. It
is possible that some of the
degraded stone features recorded
may be related to this phase.
There is a single narrow entrance
through the rampart with the rampart
being splayed both inwards and outwards
to form and narrow passage.
Linking the main enclosure to the Annex
Rampart is a smaller linking rampart.
This may be later than the Annex
rampart and has a character similar to the
earthen rampart of the western half of the
main enclosure.
Phase II: would include the main
enclosure of the hillfort. It is
uncertain whether the stone and
earthen ramparts are of the same
date. It is possible that the stone
rampart may be slightly earlier
and that there may have been a
division of the site along the line
of the break of slope across the
site. This is shown in dark blue
on Figure 10. The earthen
rampart (light blue) would then
have been added possibly with a
stone face to the rampart to
reflect the outward appearance to
the stone rampart. Alternatively it
is possible that only a stone
breastwork was added to the
earthen rampart.
Within the “Annex” is the remains of a
large round house which appears to have
been inserted into the join between the
“Annex” and main enclosure ramparts.
Its construction of stone would suggest
that it is later than the “Annex rampart”
and its position would also suggest that it
may be later than the main enclosure.
More degraded series of stone spreads
and possible features were also recorded
within the “Annex” which possibly relate
to the stone spreads and features
recorded in the eastern half of the main
rampart. Indeed some of these features
would appear to continue below the
spread of rubble from the main stone
rampart.
Phase III: is assumed to be a revamping
of the “Annex” with the
construction of the dividing
rampart and the stone built
roundhouse.
Later disturbance of the hillfort was also
recorded including the possible
medieval, or later rectilinear, structures
5
Post hillfort activity is shown by the
possible medieval structures
shown in purple on Figure 10 and
the probably post-medieval
disturbance of the rampart shown
in yellow.
the main enclosure. The grey scale plot
is shown on Figure 12 and the X – Y plot
on Figure 14. Once again the area was
very magnetically quiet; however the
platform gave a slightly mixed response
(Anomaly E, Figure 17). To the east of
this was a possible linear anomaly
(Anomaly F) which may be of
archaeological origins. Other, weaker
possible anomalies (shown in green on
Figure 17) are probably geological in
origins.
Fluxgate Gradiometer surveys
Four areas were subjected to fluxgate
gradiometer survey. These consisted of
an area 30 x 60 m (Area 1), two of 30 x
30 m (Areas 2 and 4) and an area of 20 x
40 m (Area 3) laid out as in Figure 11.
With all the survey areas readings were
taken at 0.25 m intervals along transects
1 m apart. All transects were walked in a
parallel pattern.
Area 3 was within the Annex and
covered the area between the Annex
rampart and the main rampart (Figure
11). The grey scale plot is shown on
Figure 13 and the X – Y Plot on Figure
15. Of particular interest are Anomalies
F and G (Figure 18). These are along the
tail of the rampart to the Annex and may
suggest a level of burning or other
activity associated with the ramparts.
This is particularly marked around the
possible gateway into the annex. The
other anomalies within this survey are
less clear, however Anomalies I, J and K
may be related to a scarp and outcrop of
natural rock which runs parallel to the
main enclosure rampart at this point. It
is not certain whether they and Anomaly
H are related to human activity or
geological factors, but given their
locations it is possible that they have an
anthropogenic component.
Area 1 was within the main enclosure
and adjacent to the eastern rampart. The
grey scale plot is shown in Figure 12 and
the X- Y plot in Figure 14. The area
proved to be very magnetically quiet,
however a number of possible anomalies
were located (Figure 16). The majority
of the anomalies located are probably the
result of geological differences within
the survey area; these are shown in green
on Figure 16. A few anomalies, in the
northern half of the survey area are
possibly archaeological in origins.
Anomaly A (Figure 16) is part of an arc
which appear to form a sub-circular
anomaly approximately 15 m in diameter
extending beyond the extent of the
survey. It would appear to contain an
area of mixed magnetic responses
(Anomaly B) possibly suggesting a level
of activity.
Area 4 was on the marked shelf crossing
the site near to the northern rampart.
The grey Scale plot is shown on Figure
13 and the X – Y plot on Figure 15.
Once again this area proved to be
magnetically quiet with only one
possible anomaly (Anomaly L, Figure
18) in the north-west corner of the
survey area. Similar in character to
Anomalies I, J and K in Area 3 the
origins of this anomaly is uncertain. The
only other anomalies located in this
survey area are very feint and are
Anomaly C is less clear, but it appears to
be a curvilinear anomaly forming part of
a circle approximately 20 m in diameter.
Once again it appears to contain areas of
magnetic disturbance (Anomalies D and
E) which might be the response to
human activity.
Area 2 was over a large, obvious
platform near to the southern rampart of
6
assumed to be geological in origins.
They are shown in green on Figure 18.
The clearest anomaly within this survey
would appear to be a zone of increased
resistance forming a band crossing the
southern half of the survey area
(Anomaly P, Figure 25). This anomaly
may suggest a division of the Annex just
to the north of the gateway through the
Annex rampart. The slightly higher
readings would also suggest that this was
a bank or wall.
Resistivity surveys
Three areas were subjected to resistivity
survey (Figure 20). Areas 2, 3 and 4
correspond with areas in which Fluxgate
gradiometer surveys were undertaken. In
all areas the soils proved to be have high
electrical resistance and in Area 1 it
proved to be impossible to gain
consistent readings over much of the
survey area. Readings were taken at 1 m
interval along transects 1 m apart in Area
2 and at 0.5 m intervals along transects
1 m apart for the other areas. Area 3 was
surveyed as part of the school’s training
days and Area 4 as part of the public
training days.
Two areas of relatively lower resistance
(Anomaly Q and R) were also located.
Anomaly Q is parallel with the Annex
rampart and may suggest the presence of
a slight quarry hollow at this point.
Anomaly R is more difficult to
determine, but may be a shallow hollow,
associated with the construction of the
assumed bank (Anomaly P).
Area 2 proved to be problematic. The
soil conditions were such that only very
high readings were available with some
readings going over range. The adjusted
grey scale plot is shown on Figure 21
and the X – Y Plot on Figure 23.
Two apparent linear anomalies
(Anomalies S and T) cross the survey
areas. These are of uncertain origins, but
are possibly the response to local
geological conditions.
Anomaly U, along the northern edge of
the survey area is likely to be the effect
of the dividing rampart for the Annex
area.
The plot is dominated by an area of very
high resistance readings which can be
divided into two regions. Centrally
placed is the core area (Anomaly M,
Figure 25) which can be correlated to the
platform recorded by the topographic
survey. This is within a zone of
enhanced readings (Anomaly N), which
follow the general slope around the
platform.
Area 4 did not reveal any anomalies of
obvious archaeological origins. The grey
Scale plot is shown on Figure 22 and the
X – Y Plot of Figure 24.
Two broad zones have been defined. A
slightly enhanced resistance zone
(Anomaly V, Figure 25) and a slightly
reduced resistance zone (Anomaly W).
Neither of these zones can be
immediately related to archaeological
features or activities and may be the
effects of local topography or geological
effects.
The areas of lower resistance (Anomaly
O) is probably the general background
readings for this area, but the very high
readings of the platform and the slope
give rise to the apparent low response.
Area 3 corresponds to the northern half
of the area surveyed with the Fluxgate
Gradiometer. The Grey Scale plot is
shown on Figure 21 and the X – Y Plot
on Figure 23.
Discussion
The physical remains at Caer Drewyn
suggest a complex development of the
7
site, probably over a long period of time.
Dating on physical remains is
problematic as local traditions and
choices may not follow the general
trends suggested by the excavation of
other hillforts.
Moel Fenlli
Moel Fenlli stands on the southern side
of the Pen-Barras pass (Forde-Johnston
1965, 152). It consists of multiple
ramparts crowning the top of the hill
which enclose an area of approximately
9.5 Ha.
The geophysical surveys suggest that the
area was not particularly suitable for
Resistivity surveys. Readings were
generally very high, and on occasions
exceeded the measurement capability of
the equipment used. Even so it is
possible to suggest that some extra
features exist which are not obvious
earthworks. Of particular note is the
possibility of a second dividing rampart
within the “Annex”. The Fluxgate
Gradiometer surveys were more
successful, but the general magnetic
regime would appear to be very quiet
with the possibility of geological features
masking the archaeology. Once again
the survey within the “Annex” proved to
most successful. The increased magnetic
field associated with the “Annex”
rampart may suggest that this feature had
been burnt at some time in its history,
however excavation would be needed to
confirm this.
Early finds of a hoard of over 1500
Roman Coins on the site in 1816
(Williams 2004) eventually lead to
limited excavation on the site by W.
Wynne Ffoulkes (Forde-Johnston 1965,
149) in 1849. Prior to the present survey
up to 40 possible hut platforms had been
recognised within the enclosure (Jones,
2004, 5) together with a probable Bronze
Age cairn at the highest point of the hill.
Topographical Survey
Station
Name
Easting
Northing
Level (m)
Permanent Stations
A
16526.000
60092.000
511.000
B
16740.877
60012.700
501.833
H
16155.087
60150.900
465.933
8
Station
Name
Easting
Northing
Level (m)
Temporary Stations
C
16485.356
60114.675
511.179
D
16513.151
60011.946
501.973
E
16548.788
60105.251
509.141
F
16453.637
60160.653
503.283
G
16304.810
59965.891
442.225
Station
Name
Easting
Northing
Level (m)
I
16093.538
60116.923
452.313
J
15910.282
59885.627
366.033
K
16059.636
60153.272
448.391
L
16347.458
60055.167
478.216
M
16372.900
60091.265
488.307
O
16405.017
60219.086
487.494
P
16215.955
60220.299
467.147
fairly typical, inturned entrance with a
narrow passageway giving access to the
enclosure. Associated with this gateway
would appear to be an area between the
inner rampart and the counterscarp bank
which may have served as a stock
enclosure to the south of the gateway.
Whilst no remains of any other gateways
survive it would seem likely that the
natural shelf now occupied by the Offa’s
Dyke footpath, may also have provided
access to the site. This is particularly
important as the shelf continues into the
core of the hillfort providing easy access.
The ramparts enclose an area of 9.5 Ha
within which there are a number of
features. At the highest point there are
the remains of a cairn. Whilst much of
the visible structure is that of a modern
walker’s cairn it obviously sits on an
earlier structure. 61 possible hut
platforms have been recorded
particularly at the southern and western
ends of the enclosure. The grouping of
these features is largely defined by the
slopes within the hillfort, however there
would appear to be a few, possible up to
six, larger platforms which appear to act
as foci for other activity.
Moel Fenlli is largely defined by a single
large rampart with an external ditch and
light counterscarp bank (Figures 26 and
27) which extends for most of the
circumference of the hillfort. This
general pattern breaks down in the
eastern and north eastern sections of the
rampart where the general hill slope is
less. Here at least two main ramparts
were located with the outer rampart
extending the line of the counterscarp
bank for the rest of the hillfort. A
counterscarp bank was also recorded
associated with the outer ditch at this
eastern end. Further complications were
recorded with the remains of at least two
other ramparts outcropping from the
sides of the main ramparts in the northeastern sector of the hillfort. It is likely
that these features may suggest the
possibility that the ramparts have been
re-worked in this sector. The profiles
through the ramparts are shown on
Figures 30 and 31.
Of particular note is a large platform on
the slope above the central spring. The
spring pool appears to have been scarped
into the hillside and has a rough dam
along its southern edge. Leading from
the northern edge of the possible dam is
a linear hollow. This has previously
been assumed to have been a track way
(Burnham 1995, 60), but it may be a leat
draining any excess water from the
spring pool.
The relatively steep natural hillside on
the site has lead to the digging of a series
of quarry hollows to provide material for
the inner rampart.
Fluxgate Gradiometer Surveys
Two areas were subjected to survey with
a Fluxgate Gradiometer (Figure 32). The
position of these survey areas was
confined to the areas of heather which
had been burnt making survey slightly
A single gateway was recorded at the
western end of the hillfort. This was a
9
less difficult. Even so it was not possible
to use a sample trigger, thus readings
were taken using guide ropes and a hand
trigger. Readings were taken at 0.25 m
intervals along transects 1 m apart, with
the transects walked in a parallel pattern.
other possible round houses within the
survey area.
The two broad, linear zones of magnetic
disturbance (Anomalies AD and AE) are
of uncertain origins, but may relate to the
other anomalies assumed to be of
archaeological origins.
Within the burnt areas, Area 2 was
designed to include a known platform
and Area 3 the relatively flat areas
above.
Area 3 proved to be much quieter. The
Grey Scale Plot is shown on Figure 33
and the X-Y Plot on Figure 34.
Area 2 had a number of anomalies
which not only correspond to the features
recorded in the topographic survey, but
suggest the possible presence of other
archaeological features. The Grey scale
plot is shown on Figure 33 and the X – Y
Plot on Figure 34.
A broad area of slightly mixed readings
(Anomaly AG, Figure 35) is crossed by a
feint linear anomaly (Anomaly AF)
which extends beyond the area of mixed
readings. The origins of neither anomaly
are clear, but Anomaly AG is near to the
break of slope and it is possible that both
anomalies are the result of geological
effects, although an archaeological origin
cannot be ruled out.
The possible hut platform recorded in the
topographic survey can be related to a
curving linear anomaly (Anomaly Y,
Figure 35). Indeed, within the arc of
Anomaly Y, a zone of enhanced readings
(Anomaly Z) may suggest the presence
of a possible burnt feature such as a
hearth.
Resistivity Surveys
Two areas were subjected to resistivity
survey (Figure 36). Area 1 was adjacent
to the cairn on the highest part of the
hillfort, whereas Area 2 consisted of the
north western half of the area of the
Fluxgate Gradiometer survey. The
resistivity surveys were restricted
because of the ground conditions.
Although areas had been burnt, with the
idea of making contact with the soil
possible, this proved not to be very
successful. The burning tended only to
remove the top leaves and fine structure
of the heather leaving the stalks and mats
of undergrowth virtually unaffected.
Another clear anomaly (Anomaly X) is a
straight linear anomaly crossing the
survey area from WNW to ESE. This
corresponds to a footpath crossing the
survey area, which in places is marked
on sight by a slight scarp.
Other anomalies cannot be related to
features recorded in the topographic
survey, but would appear to be consistent
with archaeological activity within the
area. Anomaly AA forms an arc which
appears to contain a zone of enhanced
readings (Anomaly AB) similar to the
responses already described for the
known platform, thereby suggesting the
presence of another possible round house
not seen in the topographic survey. Two
much more feint arcs (Anomaly AC) to
the north of the footpath are less clear,
but may also represent the presence of
The survey of Area 1 was carried out as
part of one of the public training days
with readings taken at 1 m intervals
along transects 1 m apart. Area 2,
however, was surveyed at a later date,
after the heather had been burnt and was
surveyed at 0.5 m intervals along
transects 1 m apart.
10
Area 1, adjacent to the cairn proved to
be relatively successful. The grey scale
plot is shown on Figure 37 and the X-Y
plot on Figure 38.
The footpath crossing the survey area is
also recorded as Anomaly AO. It is
assumed that the compaction of the soils
associated with this footpath has lead to
the slightly enhanced readings recorded.
The tail of the cairn can be clearly seen
(Anomaly AH, Figure 39) giving the
extent of the original cairn. Two linear
positive anomalies have also been
defined. Anomaly AI recorded the line
of a footpath crossing the survey area,
suggesting that a level of compaction of
the soils along this footpath has taken
place.
Discussion
The topographic survey of the hillfort
has extended the detail known of the
construction of the site. Of particular
note are the shelves recorded in the
north-eastern sector of the ramparts
suggesting that the ramparts have
developed with time.
The other linear anomaly (Anomaly AJ)
does not follow a current footpath, but
may record an earlier footpath crossing
the survey area.
The Geophysical surveys were
particularly successful recording not only
the known archaeological features, but
also previously unrecorded anomalies of
possible archaeological origins. Both the
Fluxgate Gradiometer and the Resistivity
surveys were carried out, however the
level of heather growth on the site made
both surveys difficult to carry out. If
further geophysical survey were to be
carried out it is not sufficient to burn the
heather, but cutting and clearing of the
undergrowth would need to be
undertaken
Area 2, although somewhat disturbed by
rogue readings from the remains of the
heather and undergrowth results suggest
that if the heather was cleared a
successful survey could be undertaken.
The grey scale plots (Figure 37) and XY Plots (Figure 38) would tend to
suggest a degree of correlation between
the resistivity, fluxgate gradiometer and
topographic surveys.
References
Anomalies AK and AL (Figure 39) are
over the platform recorded in the
topographic survey and the magnetic
anomalies recorded as Anomalies Y and
Z in the Fluxgate Gradiometer survey.
The low resistance anomaly (Anomaly
AL) probably reflects the retention of
moisture on the platform where as the
high resistance Anomaly AK reflects the
steeper slope above the platform which
would tend to shed moisture.
Bowen, E.G. and Gresham, C.A. 1967.
History of Merioneth. Volume 1.
From the earliest times to the
Age of the Native Princes. The
Merioneth Historical and Record
Society. Dolgellau.
Burnham, H. 1995. A guide to ancient
and historic Wales. Clwyd and
Powys. HMSO, London
A similar pattern can be seen with
Anomalies AM and AN with an area of
low resistance (Anomaly AN) below an
area of higher resistance (Anomaly AM.
This would tend to confirm the possible
presence of a previously unrecognized
round house at this point.
Forde-Johnston, J. 1965. The hill-forts of
the Clwyds. Archaeologia
Cambrensis CXIV, 146 – 178
11
Jones, N. 2004. Heather and hillforts
archaeological conditions survey.
Clwyd-Powys Archaeological
Trust Report 658.
Pennant, T. 1781 Tours in Wales,
Volume 2. The Journey to
Snowdon. London
Williams, S, 2004 Heather and Hillforts
Landscape Partnership. Desktop
study of the hillforts.
Unpublished report by
Denbighshire Countryside
Services
Acknowledgements
The surveys were commissioned by
Denbighshire County Council on behalf
of the Heather and Hillfort Partnership
Scheme Board from whom particular
thanks are due to Helen Mrowiec and
Fiona Gale for support with the surveys
and the public events. Thanks are also
due to the ranger of Denbighshire
Countryside Services based at
Loggerheads Country Park who provided
much needed support for the event with
the public and local schools.
12