Was This Camelot?

W as this C am e lo t?
N E W A S P E C T S OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
Edited by Sir Mortimer Wheeler
Was this Camelot?
Excavations at Cadbury Castle
1966-1970
Leslie Alcock
15 Color Plates
95 Monochrome Plates
36 Line Drawings
STEIN A N D DAY,
PUBLISHERS, NEW Y O R K
To
D V C D M E HSG
CL CR M MGS
whose skill and dedication ensured the success of

the Cadbury-C am elot enterprise
First published in the U nited States in 1 9 7 2

Th is edition G, Tham es and Hudson 1 9 7 2
Library o f Congress Catalog N o . 7 2 - 8 2 2 1 4
A l l R ights Reserved
Printed and hound in Great Britain by

H a ze ll Watson and V in ey Ltd, Aylesbu ry
Stein and D a y , Publisher, 7 East 4 8 Street, N e w York, N . Y . 1 0 0 0 1 7
ISBN 8 1 2 8 - 1 5 0 5 - x
Contents
GENERAL EDITOR’ S PREFACE J
FOREWORD 9
Part O ne: Exploration

I THE GROWTH OF A THEORY
Leiand and the identification of Cadbury as Camelot 11
The authenticity of Arthur and Camelot 14
From antiquarianism to archaeologyat Cadbury Castle 19
Camelot revived 21
II RECONNAISSANCE I 9 6 6 - I 9 6 7
The topographical data 24
The archaeological and historical data 25
Resources and organization 28
Survey and excavation, iç66 32
The geophysical reconnaissance : instruments and principles 51
The geophysical reconnaissance : survey and results $4
III EXCAVATION I 9 6 7 - I 9 6 8
Policy and organization 63
The excavation of the defences, 1967 65
The prehistoric defences, 1968 68
The south-west entrance, 1968 69
False clues in the interior, 1967 70
Iron Age pits and buildings 73
Arthurian possibilities, 1968 74
IV FULFILMENT I9 6 9 -I9 7 O
Policy and organization 76
The exploration of the Arthurian hall, 1969 78
Temples and workshops 79
Houses, circular and rectangular 84
The defences in 1969 and 1970 10 2
The elusive Arthurian gate 103
Massacre and defence 10 $
Part T w o : Results
V THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS: NEOLITHIC, BRONZE AGE, EARLIER IRON AGE
The enigmatic Neolithic phases 108
Dating the Early Neolithic phase 1 11
The Late Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age 1 13
The beginnings o f settled life 114
The beginning o f the Iron Age 118
The first defences 122
VI THE IRON AGE TOWN

Developments in pottery 131
Developments in defence 133
The Iron Age town 135
Iron Age crafts and commerce 153
Fine metalworking 1 54
The status and function of the Iron Age town 15 6
VII CELTIC CLIMAX AND DOWNFALL

The end of the Iron Age: historical evidence 15 9
The ultimate phase in the defences 161
The Durotrigian town 163
Crafts and commerce 16 4
Metalwork and art 167
The Roman assault 17 0
Cadbury during the Roman period 172
VIII CAMELOT AND CADANBYRIG

Dating evidence in the late fifth and sixth centuries 174
The defences and gate 175
The hall 177
The status of Cadbury-Camelot 18 0
The strategic role of the fortress 182
Cadbury and Arthur 193
Saxons and Vikings in Wessex 19 4
The archaeology o f Cadanbyrig 19 7
IX AFTER CADANBYRIG
Medieval Cadbury 202
After the excavations 20 4
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 2 IO -I I
EPILOGUE 212
a p p e n d ix : th e b a t t l e of b a d o n 215
NOTES 217
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 221
INDEX 223
General Editor’s Preface
I have no hesitation in presenting this book on a personal note. In 1950, after

war-experience in India, Mr Leslie Alcock decided to attach himself to me
during a part o f my term as an adviser to the then-new Pakistan government.
At the time my functions included the training o f new or potential attachés
to the recently established Pakistan Department o f Archaeology, and I was
delighted to have m y hand strengthened by this new O xford volunteer.
Thereafter at Mohenjo-daro, one o f the two principal sites o f the ancient
Indus Civilization, he was my chief colleague as an instructor at an archaeo
logical training-school. His tireless work in that capacity was invaluable to
Pakistan and incidentally to me, with many other tasks and diversions upon
my table.
When therefore, years later after productive work by Alcock on several
sites in Wales, I was invited to the formal presidency o f a committee estab
lished for the patronage o f a proposed excavation o f Cadbury-Cam elot in
Somerset under his direction, I accepted with pleasure and alacrity. I did so
also with some anticipation o f the rather special problems which were likely
to be involved. Plainly enough the site, then known as Cadbury Castle, was
a substantial multivallate hillfort o f manageable area. Equally plainly, that
was not the main or only reason for its choice as the scene o f a major and
certainly costly excavation. In the days o f Leland and Camden, in the
sixteenth century, the place had been associated with ‘ K ing’ Arthur, in
particular as Camelot, Arthur’s supposititious capital. And now it was a
visitor’s chance discovery on the hilltop o f pottery already recognized else
where by Dr Ralegh Radford as a Mediterranean product o f plus/minus
a d 500 that gave this discredited tradition a new verisimilitude. O f the
Arthurian period we were singularly - almost rcsistantly - ignorant in any

factual and material sense; but here at last was a possibility o f something
approaching chapter and verse. Stated otherwise, the substantive Iron Age
hillfort was a firm base for all to see; on a minimum estimate, excavation here
could not utterly fail; but now there was a real likelihood also o f a positive
advance upon new lines into the alluring crepuscular land o f speculation
where history and romance had long fought for possession.
7
General Editor's Preface
In the event, the exploration has provided more than one bonus as it has
proceeded. Beneath the prehistoric Iron Age lurks a Neolithic occupation
some 5000 years old, and a Late Bronze Age o f the eighth or seventh century
b c . O ver it a Rom an task-force has scattered its disjecta from the time o f the
conquest o f these westlands. Then there is now at last an indubitable ‘Arthur’
or his ilk. And, five centuries after his shadowy but persistent shape had on
any showing passed from the scene, late ‘ Saxon’ kings seemingly struck coins
there and surrounded their mint with a solid mortared wall. In half-a-dozen
directions the site has offered rich rewards to Alcock and his colleagues, and
has incidentally made kindly nonsense o f those earnest scholars who,
desperately anxious to preserve their scientific integrity from Arthurian
pollution, hesitated to approve a serious venture amidst the half-memories
which are happily an occasional and often decorative part o f historic
humanism. Let these young critics, bless them, in this sort o f context recall
the epic battles and victories o f Troy long ago, and o f a certain Heinrich
Schliemann who was not afraid so to venture. . . .
Certainly, M r Alcock has throughout this complex operation thought
clearly and soberly o f the problems and evidences which he and his devoted
team have encountered in five seasons o f arduous and impeccable digging.
In the following pages the entertaining results are displayed for us in a balanced
summary, which includes a clear exposition o f the aims and methods govern
ing procedure from stage to stage. The unspecialized reader can thus not
merely appreciate the main conclusions but can, it is hoped, in some real
measure participate in the reasoned processes o f discovery.
MORTIMER WHEELER
This book is written for the enthusiasts who came, in tens o f thousands, to
sec the excavation o f Cadbury Castle; and for everyone like them, with no
special knowledge but a lively interest in Arthur, in archaeology, or in
history. It attempts to answer the kind o f questions which they asked then,
or have since asked m y colleagues and m yself when we have talked about
Cadbury to non-specialist audiences.
One o f the commonest o f these questions is ‘ H ow do you know where
to dig?’ So in Part One I have tried to show how and w hy the excavation
was organized, how policy was decided, and how, step by logical step, we
expanded our knowledge. Inevitably, the story is a complicated one,
because on an excavation o f this size the making o f decisions is necessarily
a complex process.
In Part T w o I sketch the results o f the excavation as they appear at the
present stage o f research. This is in every sense a summary and interim report,
but the analysis o f finds and structures has already proceeded far enough for
me to be confident that the outlines o f the picture are firm.
The formal dedication is to the supervisors who held responsibility in the
first season. They effectively ensured success in 1966, and laid a sound founda
tion for subsequent seasons. In addition to their role in 1966, they stand here
as representatives not only o f the supervisory staff o f all five seasons, but o f
all m y workers. I hope they will find that the results set out in Part T w o are
not unworthy o f their efforts.
Even in the briefest o f accounts, a few other specific acknowledgements
must be made. First and foremost, a warm tribute is due to M r and Mrs
M ontgomery, the owners o f Cadbury Castle, for allowing the excavations:
an inhabitant o f South Cadbury might say, ‘ for suffering them’ . Then to
the officers o f the Cam elot Research Com m ittee: to Sir Mortimer Wheeler
for his stimulating Presidency; to Dr Ralegh Radford and Professor
Sheppard Frere, for their wise guidance as successive Chairm en; to R . T.
Brooks and S. C. Morland for the care which each in his own w ay devoted
to our finances; and not least to our Secretary, Geoffrey Ashe, whose work
was no less vital than that o f the archaeologists, but far less exciting.
Foreword
The typescript o f the book has benefited from the criticisms o f Elizabeth
Alcock, Michael Bishop, Leonard H ayward and Chris Musson, and above
all from the searching comments o f Peter C rew . In seeing it into print I
have been helped by the wise guidance o f Peter Clayton, who has also pro
vided illustrations. Finally, I wish to record my debt to the Department o f
Archaeology o f University College, Cardiff. Without the facilities and
resources so lavishly provided by that Department, neither this book, nor the
research and exploration on which it was based, could have been undertaken.
io
Part One :•Exploration
I The growth of a theory
Leland and the identification of Cadbury as Camelot
‘At the very south ende o f the chirch o f South-Cadbyri standith Camallate,
sumtyme a famose toun or castelle, apon a very torre or hillc, wunderfully
enstrengtheid o f nature. In the upper parte o f the coppe o f the hille be 4.
diches or trenches, and a balky waulle o f yerth betwixt every one o f them . . .
Much gold, sylver and coper o f the Rom aine coynes hath be found ther yn
plouing . . . The people can telle nothing ther but that they have hard say
that Arture much resortid to Cam alat’ .
Thus wrote John Leland, self-styled K ing’s Antiquary to Henry VIII, in
154 2.’ Leland was the first, and by no means the least, o f a great line o f
British antiquaries and topographers. His sharp observations still have value
today. But when the subject demanded, he could write in a more lyrical
vein, as witness the account o f Camelot in his Assertion of Arthur : ‘Good
Lorde, what and howe many most deepe Ditches are there heere? H ow many
vallyes are there heere out o f the earth delved? Againe what daungerous
steepenesse? And to end in fewe wordes, truly me seemeth it is a mirackle,
both in Arte and nature’ .2
Today, Leland’s Camalat appears as a steep-sided, free-standing hill with Plates 1. 26, I, VII
a grassy summit ridge rising above wooded flanks. O nly at the south-east Fig. 4
corner, and along part o f the southern side, are some o f its ancient fortifica
tions visible above the trees. In the early eighteenth century, as William Plate 2
Stukeley’s drawing so clearly reveals,3 the ramparts had not yet been hidden
by timber; and without a doubt they were similarly unencumbered in
Leland’s day. It is difficult for us now to imagine what Cadbury looked like
then, but in 1967 an attempt was made to capture the visual effect by means Plate 3
o f a model o f the hill-top and its defences. The majesty o f the original was
inevitably lost in a model. Nevertheless, it was obvious that beneath its
tree-cover, Cadbury Castle has few equals among British hillforts for the
number, complexity, and above all the towering steepness o f its defences.
Leland’s description, as we now see, was by no means over-dramatic.
The Growth of a Theory
I + ; and
T h e Iron A g e background o f C adbury C astle (in circle). C o ins o f the Durotriges o f the
D obunni •. Based on the Ordnance S u rv ey Map of Southern Britain in the Iron Age
So much for the objective aspect o f what Leland had seen in terms o f
substantial earthwork: what, then, o f Arthur and Cam elot? Here tw o quite
different sets o f questions are involved. First : was Leland reporting traditions
about Cadbury which he found already present in the folk-lore o f the region ;
or was he making attributions and identifications o f his own? Second : what
historical reality might lie behind such folk-lore or such identifications?
Had there ever been a place like Cam elot, or a man like the Arthur o f the
romances?
So far as the first set o f questions goes, there is some evidence that Leland
himself was responsible for the identification o f Cadbury with Camelot,
and that this owed nothing to local or popular tradition. Almost two cen
turies after Leland’s visit, Stukeley, in his account o f Camelot, reports that
‘the country people are ignorant o f this name, which has generally obtained
among the learned’,4 and he recommends intending visitors to enquire for
Cadbury Castle. M oreover, we know that Leland twisted the evidence -
whether consciously or not - in support o f his identification. He claimed that
the name Camalat was still borne by such nearby villages ‘as Quene-
Cam allat’ . But that village, and its neighbour West Camel, have been
Camelle, Cam m ell or plain Cam el for at least nine hundred years, as the
record o f Domesday Book demonstrates. It is o f course likely that it was the
12
15 acres. Sin gle

2 T h e Iron A g e background o f C ad b ury Castle (in circle). Hillforts enclosing over
ramparto; multiple ramparts m. Based on the Ordnance S u rv ey Map of Southern Britain in the
Iron Age
Camel names, combined with the sight o f the great fortifications, which
put the idea o f Cam elot into Leland’s mind. We can, indeed, have no
confidence that he had received the identification from local informants.
The Arthurian attribution is another matter altogether. Leland is clearly
recording what he had heard, not fabricating tales himself, when he reports
the finding o f a silver horseshoe within the camp. There is perhaps nothing
necessarily Arthurian about this, but it shows the special character o f the
hill in contemporary folk-lore, and at some point, silver horseshoes came to
be attributed to King Arthur and his knights in their ghostly ride around
the hill at full moon. M oreover, the Welsh chronicler Elis Gruffydd, a
contemporary o f Leland, refers to a hill near Glastonbury which contains
a cave where Arthur was said to lie sleeping.5 Gruffydd does not identify
the place more closely, but the nearest hill to Glastonbury, the Tor, has no
sleeping-king associations. Cadbury, on the other hand, is certainly one o f
the places where Arthur is supposed to sleep, a belief inspired by a geological
formation which suggests the presence o f caverns. So it is a likely candidate
for the hill mentioned by Gruffydd.
H owever that may be, it is certain that before the end o f the sixteenth
century strong Arthurian traditions were attached to the hill. William
Camden, in his Britannia, reports that ‘the local people call it Arthur’s
Palace’ , incolae Arthuri Palatium dicunt.6 This, it w ill be observed, is in direct

conflict with what Stukeley wrote a century and a half later about the
country-folk. But Cam den’s record deserves all the more credence because
he did not believe for one moment in Arthur’s Palace. ‘It is, how ever’, he
roundly declares, ‘a Rom an w ork, as is shown by the coins that are dug up
daily’.
In sum, then, there is a good case that Cadbury Castle already had
Arthurian associations in Leland’s day quite independent o f his attribution.
But he is probably responsible for the identification with Camelot. I f we
read his own words carefully and critically, this is in agreement with them.
For he never says that the local people told him that the place was Camelot,
only that ‘they have hard say that Arture much resortid to Cam alat’. This
would have been true wherever Camelot was thought to be.
The authenticity of Arthur and Camelot
W e come now to our second set o f questions, those which have to do with
1 the historical reality o f Arthur and Camelot. It is as well to say outright that
Camelot has no historical authenticity : it is a place that never was. The basis
for this assertion is that it is not mentioned in the earliest traditions and
earliest evidence about Arthur. In the twelfth century Geoffrey o f M on
mouth, in his History o f the Kings of Britain, set Arthur’s principal court in
the C ity o f the Legions, Caerleon-on-Usk. But even this finds no warrant
in the British traditions. The Welsh Triads, our most ancient source for
Arthur’s court, place it at Celliw ic in Cornw all - Callington, or more prob
ably, Killibury Castle.7 Even this attribution is far removed from Arthur’s
own day, and those documents which are contemporary with Arthur
himself are completely silent concerning the whereabouts o f his court, even
about its existence.
Where, then, does the idea o f Camelot come from? The name first
appears in the variant manuscripts o f the romance Lancelot, composed by
the French poet Chrétien de Troyes in the late twelfth century. What had
happened was that Chrétien and his successors, with characteristic medieval
anachronism, saw Arthur as a medieval monarch. They then had to
provide him with a court, a castle, a principal centre; and, lacking any authen
tic traditions, they invented Camelot. Perhaps the name itself was shortened
from the British and R om an Camulodunum (Colchester). This, in the form
Camalodunum Britanniae oppidum, has a passing reference in the Elder Pliny’s
Natural History, a w ork which was certainly much read in western Europe
in the twelfth century. But wherever they found the name, the French poets
were inconsistent about its spelling - Camalot, Caamalot, and Camahaloth
are among the variants which occur - and they are, o f course, completely
vague about its location.8
This topographical vagueness inevitably persisted when the idea o f
Camelot was introduced to England. It is mentioned once only in the
fourteenth-century poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and there is not
the least indication where the anonymous poet thought it might be. In fact,
the first suggestion o f a down-to-earth location comes in the fifteenth
century, in M alory’s Le Morte Darthur, where it is regularly identified with
Winchester. It is possible that this attribution was influenced by the purported
‘ Round Table’, a relic o f some medieval tourney, which hung then, as it
still does, in the hall o f Winchester castle. But M alory’s identification was
not invariably accepted. Even his own editor and printer, Caxton, in the
preface to the first published version o f Le Morte Darthur, silently rejected
it. Instead, he referred to the evidence for Arthur ‘in Wales, in the toune o f
Camelot, which dyvers now lyvyn g hath seen’ .9 Was Caxton, under the
influence o f Geoffrey o f M onmouth, thinking o f Caerleon; or was he
referring to the R om an walls o f Caerwent, still upstanding even today?
Whatever his reasons, Caxton had thrown open the whole question o f the
location o f Camelot, and thereby made it possible for Leland to suggest yet
a third identification: Cadbury Castle. And from Leland’s day on, a great
body o f literary, topographical and antiquarian tradition has maintained
that identification down to the Ordnance Survey’s plans o f the area. Lig- 3
The historical reality o f Arthur himself is in no way linked to that o f
Camelot, and to impugn the authenticity o f the one is not to cast doubt on
the other. It needs no saying that over the centuries fabulous tales and
romances have become attached to Arthur’s name. This process had certainly
begun by the ninth century, if not by the late sixth.10 Nevertheless, these
fictions do not o f themselves discredit the figure to whom they are attached,
for it is a commonplace that even in modem times apochryphal tales may
be told about great men within their own lifetimes. The significance o f the
Arthurian romances for our purpose is that they present the historian with
a very complex problem o f analysis. He has to determine which events in
the story o f Arthur were recorded within living m emory, for these are
likely to be historical.
It would be out o f place to recapitulate all the arguments involved here,
and it is enough to state quite baldly the conclusions arrived at in the latest
analysis o f the sources.11 T w o facts about Arthur were noted down in the
IS
3 C ad b ury C astle or Cam elot as it appears on the Ordnance S u rv ey plans. T h e i t f i j excavations
are marked 1-5. T h e R om an site explored in South C adbury village lies immediately south o f S t
Thom as à Becket’s church
records maintained in some British monastery, in the year in which they

actually occurred. First, he took part in the Battle o f Badon ‘and the Britons
were victors’ ; and second, Arthur and Medraut, or Modred, perished in the
battle o f Camlann. Unfortunately we do not possess the original document
in which these events were recorded, only a twelfth-century copy o f a
tenth-century abstract o f it or o f some intervening copy. In the process o f
copying or abstracting, the year-by-year dates which would have been a
feature o f the original record have been lost, and so we are left with a series
o f annals running from Year i to Year 533. T o some extent w e can calibrate
the annals by placing against important events such dates as we can obtain
from other historical sources. On this basis, we can calculate that Badon was
fought in a d 518, and Camlann in a d 539. It is possible, however, that the
chronology here has become confused in the process o f copying from one
document to another. I f this is so, the true date o f Badon m ay be a d 490 or
499. These earlier dates would agree with the belief that" Arthur was the
successor o f the romanized general Ambrosius Aurelianus, w ho is tied by
good historical evidence to the middle decades o f the fifth century.
These two references are unimpeachable in terms o f the normal rules o f
historical criticism, and to reject them is to display prejudice, not scholar
ship. It is impossible to establish any other early source with equal confidence.
A ninth-century compilation, the Historia Brittortum, contains a Latin
abstract o f an early Welsh poem which celebrated Arthur’s battles. From
what we know o f such poems, the original may have been composed in
Arthur’s own day and declaimed in his presence. In that case it would have
all the merits o f an early source. It is perhaps less likely that it was an elegy
composed after his death, displaying a romantic rather than an historical
image. Whatever the truth may be, no convincing identifications have
ever been proposed for the actual sites o f the battles listed in the Historia
Brittonum, or for Badon and Camlann, though it is generally accepted that
Badon was fought against Saxon invaders somewhere in southern England.
Returning to the tw o early records, they do at least assure us that Arthur
was a genuine person, and a great one at that, or else he would not have been
mentioned at all. He appears as a soldier, not as a king, and tw o phrases in
the Historia Brittonum im ply that he was leader o f some kind o f combined
force on behalf o f several British kingdoms. What little w e can discern about
the history o f Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries shows that after Rom an
rule had been shaken o ff about 410, the Rom an diocese o f Britain split
apart into a number o f small kingdoms ruled by tyranni or usurpers. Some
degree o f unity was preserved, however, by an overlord or high king who
17
could initiate m ilitary action on behalf o f Britain as a whole. For instance,

the sixth-century monk Gildas tells us that a certain high king (whom he
does not name) employed Saxon mercenaries to defend Britain against the
Piets. Through the obscurities o f Gildas’s Latin w e can discern Ambrosius
as the general commanding a combined British force, and probably re
sponsible to this same king or his successor. In the decades around 500,
Arthur took over Ambrosius’s role, with great, but temporary, success. In
the long run, the internecine strife o f Camlann revealed the political divisions
o f the British kingdoms, and put an end to any united resistance to the
Anglo-Saxon settlers.
O ur earliest sources, as we have seen, do not allow us to localize Arthur’s
military activity. Indeed, they rather suggest that it was extensive, for the
battle o f Mount Badon was almost certainly fought in southern England,
whereas Cat Coit Celidon, the ‘battle o f the Caledonian Forest’ , which is
mentioned in the Historia Brittonum, was in Scotland, more probably in the
Southern Uplands than in the Highlands. I f Arthur’s battles really were so
widespread, this may owe something to his political positioij as agent o f a
number o f kingdoms, but it owes more to the m obility o f his forces. Early
Welsh poetry shows that they would have ridden to battle, and w ould then
have fought sometimes from horseback in a series o f uncoordinated rushes,
and sometimes dismounted. In any case, we cannot pin Arthur down to any
one region or place. N one o f the Arthur place-names - Arthur’s Seat, the
various Arthur’s Stones, the Round Tables, and so on - has any valid
connection with him, and some refer to archaeological monuments separated
from his day by tw o or three thousand years.
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to think that the historical Arthur might
have had a principal stronghold or military base for his combined force,
and no less reasonable to hope that such a base m ight be identified in archaeo
logical terms. But because o f the silence o f our earliest historical sources,
w e know neither its location nor its original name. In the circumstances, it
seems legitimate to use ‘Cam elot’ as the name o f this hypothetical Arthurian
stronghold. What w e are doing here is in effect to turn a poetic symbol into
an historical one.
At this point, the initiative in research passes from the historian to the
archaeologist, w ho must determine whether or not there is anything in the
archaeological record which might correspond with this symbolic Camelot,
and might turn it into a reality. In the 1950s, new ly-w on archaeological
evidence suggested that Cadbury Castle could have been such an Arthurian
base or stronghold, so to Cadbury we now return.
From antiquarianism to archaeology at Cadbury Castle
Whatever Arthurian associations Cadbury had in Leland’s day, in the follow

ing centuries it certainly acquired the full repertory o f Arthurian folk-lore -
the sleeping king in the hollow hill, the ghostly ride, and so on. Here we
are concerned not with these things, so much as with the historical facts
about Arthur and the archaeological facts about Cadbury. What is certain
is that the Arthurian connection continued to attract the attention o f anti
quarian and topographic writers, who recorded, either at first hand or by
simple repetition from their predecessors, the discovery o f ancient buildings
and ancient relics upon the hill. One o f the best accounts is that by William
Stukeley, who visited ‘Camalet Castle’ in 1723, and this must stand here as
representative o f three centuries o f observation and speculation.12
‘Camalet is a noted place’, he wrote. ‘It is a noble fortification o f the
Romans, placed on the north end o f a ridge o f hills separated from the rest
by nature; and for the most part solid rock, very steep and high: there are
three or four ditches quite round, sometimes m ore: the area within is twenty
acres at least, rising in the middle: its figure is squarish, but conforms to the
shape o f the hill. There is a higher angle o f ground within, ditched about,
where they say was king Arthur’s palace: it was probably the praetorium,
and might be king Arthur’s too, who lived in this place: the country people
refer all stories to him. The whole has been ploughed over since the memory
o f man, and much stone has been taken from the surface, which has altered
it. The rampart is large and high, made chiefly o f great stones covered with
earth, and perhaps, in some parts where it was necessary, laid with mortar.
In this camp they find many pebble-stones exactly round, half a peck at a
time; whereas there are none such in the country: they suppose them stones
to sling withal, fetched from the sea, or perhaps shot in cross-bows. Rom an
coin in great plenty has been found here: I saw vast numbers o f Antoninus
and Faustina. They have dug up square stones, door-jambs with hinges, and
say there are subterraneous vaults thereabouts. Sclden, in his notes on
Polyolbion, writes it was full o f ruins and reliques o f old buildings. At top
they told me many pavements and arches have been dug up, hand-grind-
stones, and other domestic or camp utensils.’ Most o f this seems the result
o f close and sound observation, though we might doubt whether ‘pavements
and arches’ had ever been dug up; it is more likely that the natural slabby
limestone o f the top o f the hill had been mistaken for artificial pavements.
Stukeley’s account seems to have been based entirely on relics and remains
turned up in the course o f ploughing and o f quarrying for stone. For the
19
beginnings o f purposeful excavation, we have to wait until the late nineteenth

century, when the R ev. Jam es A. Bennett, R ector o f South Cadbury and
Secretary o f the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society
began delving into the hill as w ell as collecting traditions about it.13 Bennett
is our best source for the mature development o f folk-lore about Cadbury,
with his tales o f com stacks sinking into the hollow hill, and o f querns used
by fairies on the hill-top, but regrettably he left no systematic account o f
his diggings. He mentions ‘opening up a hut dwelling upon the plain o f the
hill’ , in which he found potsherds, and h alf a large quern. His ‘hut dwelling’
was most probably an Iron A ge storage pit, for these used to be interpreted
as ‘pit-dwellings’ .
Bennett also cut a trench thirteen feet deep through the innermost ram
part, observed the different layeA which were present, and recorded that
‘as we went down the pottery decreased in quantity and increased in coarse
ness'. From .this he very sensibly concluded that ‘there must have been a
considerable interval between the beginning and the completion o f the
rampart, and that a rude race who began it had to give w ay to another in a
higher state o f civilization, and this it would seem, from the differences in
the remains at different levels, m ay have happened more than once’ . Eighty
years on, after considerable exploration o f the ramparts, we can only expand
on the text originally preached by Bennett.
Bennett himself had little idea o f the age o f the pottery and other objects
which he found. He recognized the Rom an coins, o f course, and even ‘a
British coin, earlier than the Rom ano-British coinage’ . Beyond this he
could only speculate that his finds probably belonged ‘to different dates,
some ante-Rom an, some R om an or post-Rom an’ . It was left to H. St
George G ray, the father-figure o f Somerset archaeology, to analyse the relics
found by Bennett, noting that most o f them ‘m ay be referred to the Late-
Celtic Period (dating approxim ately from 20 0 b c to a d io o ) ’ ; noting too
the occurrence o f flint implements o f Neolithic type, but rejecting altogether
the suggestion that ‘the camp was constructed and occupied in the Stone
A ge’. 14
The occasion o f St George G ray’s comments was a report on his own
Fig- 3 trial-excavation, carried out with six labourers from 1 7 June to 24June 19 13.
This was a mere scratching at the surface o f the great hillfort, but it has
considerable historical importance for a number o f reasons. Firstly, Gray
himself bridges the gap between nineteenth- and twentieth-century archaeo
logy in Britain. Consistent with his early training as assistant to the pioneer
archaeologist Pitt R ivers, he recorded the location o f his trenches, and the
20
exact positions o f the principal finds, in a w ay which would have been

unthinkable to Bennett. But, most important, G ray’s major excavations
at the Glastonbury and Meare Lake Villages are the principal foundation
for our knowledge o f the Iron A ge culture o f south-western England. His
conclusions that the relics from Cadbury belonged principally ‘to the Late-
Celtic Period’, and that ‘Camelot has produced conclusive evidence o f
Late-Celtic and R om an occupation’ established for a generation that our
site was a perfectly normal hillfort, built in the Iron Age, and re-used in Fig. 2
some fashion in the R om an period as well. There was little room here for
speculation about Camelot and Arthur.
Camelot revived
The possibility that Cadbury Castle had a connection with Arthur and with
Camelot was revived in the m id-1950s, as a result partly o f chance discovery,
partly o f systematic research. At this time, the interior o f the Cadbury
defences, which had been in pasture for a period, was cultivated for several
years. As in the days o f Leland and Stukeley, coins and other relics were
turned up by the plough ; and, as in earlier centuries, most o f these relics
disappeared, unrecorded, into private collections. All the more credit is due
therefore to one amateur collector, the late Mrs M ary Harfield, w ho not
only picked up pottery, flints, and other objects on a systematic basis, but
also noted where her finds had come from and, even more important,
presented them to a public institution, the Somerset County Museum at
Taunton. Mrs Harfield’s material, together with objects collected by J.
Stevens C o x , were examined by Ralegh Radford, the leading figure in Dark-
Age studies in western Britain. He recognized among them pottery o f Early-
Neolithic date, as well as Iron A ge material considerably older than the
Late-Celtic pottery distinguished by Gray. These discoveries must be
deferred until Chapter II. For our present purpose, what matters was Dr
R adford’s recognition that some pottery could be dated to the late fifth and
sixth centuries - the period in which the historical Arthur had been active.
It was entirely due to Dr R adford’s own researches that such pottery was
distinguishable. In the 1930s, in the course o f excavating an early Celtic
monastery which underlay the medieval castle o f Tintagcl in Cornwall,
he had found pottery which was without known parallels in Britain, but
for which a southern Gaulish origin and a Dark-Age date seemed possible.
Subsequent research on existing collections, together with new material
from other excavations, made it possible in the mid-1950s to present a
21
systematic account o f what could now be called the ‘imported pottery

found at Tintagel, Corn w all: an aspect o f British trade with the Mediter
ranean in the Early Christian period’ .15 D r R adford showed that similar
pottery was common in the East Mediterranean, including Athens, Con
stantinople, and Egypt, and that a date in the fifth and sixth centuries was
most probable.
The seminal paper on the Tintagel pottery contained, in a postscript, a
Plate XIII note o f some five lines on the comparable pottery found by Mrs Harfield
at South Cadbury. A fuller account, by R alegh Radford and Stevens C ox,
appeared about the same time in the Proceedings o f the Somerset Archaeo
logical Society. After describing and illustrating characteristic fragments o f
Figs. 27, 28 pottery and a piece o f D ark-A ge glass, the authors concluded: ‘the small
collection indicates an occupation during the fifth, sixth, or early seventh
century and provides an interesting confirmation o f the traditional identifi
cation o f the site as the Camelot o f Arthurian legend’ .16
With hindsight, and recalling what I have already said about the fabulous
character o f Camelot, it is possible to see that this statement was rather
questionable in historical terms. At the time, however, it did not appear
this w ay. The new evidence made it possible to assert that Cadbury was a
military site in use at the time when Arthur was a warrior. So these new
archaeological discoveries, when compared with those o f Bennett and St
George Gray, put quite a different complexion on the traditional Arthurian
associations o f Cadbury. And this in turn created a new interest in the site,
in both professional and amateur circles, which eventually bore fruit in the
summer o f 1965, in the formation o f the Camelot Research Committee.
The founding Chairman o f the Committee was, naturally, D r Radford.
The onerous and unrewarding task o f Secretary was filled by Geoffrey Ashe,
writer o f distinguished m iddle-brow books on the problems o f the historical
Arthur. Shortly after its formation, the committee was strengthened by Sir
M ortim er Wheeler’s acceptance o f the Presidency. The committee itself
represented a very wide spectrum o f Arthurian - and even non-Arthurian -
interests, from the most austere learned societies through to amateur bodies
who had only a boundless enthusiasm to contribute. Its principal term o f
reference was to promote a large-scale excavation o f Cadbury Castle, and
its first task was to raise funds adequate to that purpose. After several flirta
tions with professional fund-raisers, it became apparent that the more
conventional type o f appeal for funds was likely to be altogether more
rewarding. But first it was necessary to know whether or not the site justified
a large project and a commensurate appeal. The committee therefore
22
charged me, in the summer o f 1966, with the direction o f a reconnaissance

investigation, in order to examine both the feasibility and the desirability o f
large-scale research.
Before that reconnaissance is described in Chapter II, it seems opportune
to clarify certain matters about the Cam elot Research Committee and its
policy. For a start, it may be said that the ideas held by individual members
o f the committee about Arthur and Cam elot ranged from an uncritical
belief in the most romantic and unhistorical tales, through a vague but un
informed scepticism which might be combined with a very lively interest
in the archaeology o f the fifth and sixth centuries, to a degree o f scholarship
unrivalled in the Arthurian field.
M y own position, when 1was invited to serve as the committee’s Director
o f Excavations, was that I had no first-hand knowledge o f the historical
issues involved. I was prepared to accept the historical reality o f Arthur and
the authenticity o f Cam elot as w orking hypotheses. In the event, m y own
historical researches during the course o f the excavation brought me to the
position outlined above: the affirmation o f Arthur and the rejection o f
Camelot. From the archaeological, as opposed to the historical point o f view,
however, I had worked intensively on fortified sites in Arthurian Britain,
and on their economic and social background. I was particularly interested
in Cadbury because it did not fit m y general picture o f the fortifications o f
the period. Indeed, its very existence was a challenge to m y ideas, and
stimulated a desire to investigate it thoroughly.
But the interest o f Cadbury Castle extended beyond its Arthurian occupa
tion. The evidence for settlement in the Iron Age has already been mentioned,
and Neolithic activity has been hinted at. M oreover, in the late 1950s it had Fi.C- 34
been shown conclusively that, under the O ld English name Cadanbyrig,
Cadbury had held an emergency mint o f King Ethelred the Unready
(978-1016). In other words, even before the excavations began, it appeared
that the site had witnessed an unusually long span o f human activity, which
marked it o ff from the general run o f southern English hillforts. I f the results
o f our reconnaissance confirmed this appearance, then Cadbury would
merit excavation on the largest scale. And if that proved possible, it was the
firm purpose both o f the committee and o f m yself as Director o f Excavations
that the whole history o f the hill-top should receive attention consistent with
the actual archaeological remains.
This, then, was the spirit in which the committee laid its plans, and in
which the reconnaissance o f 1966 was organized. T o that investigation, and
the subsequent geophysical prospecting, we now turn.
-3
Il Reconnaissance 1966-1967
The topographical data
Before the 1966 plan o f campaign can be described, it is necessary to set out
the data on which that campaign was based: in other words, the topo
graphical, archaeological and historical information that was already
available before the Camelot Research Com m ittee’s excavations began.
The Arthurian data have already been described in sufficient detail, and here
attention will be concentrated firstly on the general aspect o f the hill, and
secondly on other periods in the history o f the site.
Plate i Cadbury Castle occupies a free-standing hill towards the eastern border
o f Somerset. The summit is a little over five hundred feet above Ordnance
Figs. 3 , 4 Datum, with the hill itself standing about tw o hundred and fifty feet above
the surrounding countryside. Geologically-speaking, it consists o f bands o f
a hard Oolitic limestone and o f a softer yellow sandstone characteristic o f
the Yeovil Beds. The disposition o f these bands suggests a major fault line
running roughly west-north-west to east-south-east. In the scarp formed
by the fault there are soft pockets and even minor chasms in the rock which
lend themselves to romantic speculations about hollow hills and sleeping
kings. There is no water on the hill-top itself, but at the north-east corner,
about one hundred feet below the summit, a natural spring has been built
over to make ‘ King Arthur’s W ell’ .
T o the east, at a distance o f under a mile, the view is blocked by hills a
hundred feet or so higher, which mark the western scarp o f the higher
ground o f Wessex. Interrupted only slightly by the valley o f the Stour, this
high ground runs through to Salisbury Plain. T o the south are the more
distant hills o f north Dorset and south Somerset, with the great fortress o f
Ham Hill darkly visible. But west and north the whole Somerset basin
opens up, with a view which on a clear day extends to the islands o f the
Bristol Channel, and even the hills o f Glamorgan. The principal feature o f
this extensive plain is the conical hill o f Glastonbury T or, eleven miles
north-west o f Cadbury. This immediately evokes thoughts o f Arthur’s
24
Reconnaissance 1966-1967
burial at Glastonbury - which may have more substance than historians

have recently allow ed17 - and o f the rich and famous Iron A ge ‘lake-villages’
o f Glastonbury and Meare.
Before the visitor can enjoy these views, he must first pass through the
defences either from South Cadbury, by means o f the north-east gate, or
from Sutton Montis by the south-west gate. The defences themselves are Plates 2 6 ,1, VII
sited where the original hill-slope was steepest. The innermost is between
twenty and sixty feet vertically below the summit, and from it three or even
four banks range down the slope over a vertical distance o f almost one
hundred and fifty feet, more than h alf the total height o f the hill. The two
principal entrance passages rise steeply through the banks, but in the case o f
the South Cadbury gate the apparent steepness is partly the result o f erosion.
The right-hand side o f each entrance is overshadowed by a projection o f the
ramparts, which is probably based on a natural spur o f the hill. On the eastern
side there is a third entrance, which is also ancient, but nothing is known o f
its history. On this side, moreover, the tw o outer banks have been obliterated,
probably in the course o f farming over the last few centuries.
Within the defences is an area o f about eighteen acres, which is far from
uniform in its aspect. R o u gh ly one quarter o f the hill-top, lying above
four hundred and ninety feet O .D ., forms a broad summit ridge or plateau,
which slopes gently from west-north-west to east-south-east. On the west
and south-west the plateau is edged by a steep scarp, which is partly but not
entirely the result o f quarrying. Elsewhere the plateau dips o ff into slopes
which are more moderate but still steepish. Towards the rear o f the rampart
these slopes level o ff in a zone fifty feet or more in width, which is clearly
the result o f soil loosened by the plough coming to rest against the back o f
the inner bank. These three distinct areas - the level zone, the slopes, and the
plateau - all merited separate attention during the reconnaissance.
The archaeological and historical data
The archaeological data came partly from the objects deposited in Taunton
Museum by Bennett and others; partly from St George G ray’s limited
scratchings in 19 13 ; and principally from the material collected by Mrs
Harfield, Stevens C o x, and others in the 1950s. These collections, for a
start, put the Neolithic activity at Cadbury in quite a different light from
that in which it had appeared to Gray. He knew only o f axes and other flint
implements, which might have been lost in the course o f forest clearance or
hunting, and he could therefore reject the idea that the hill had been occupied
25
JT
in the Stone Age. N o w , however, the discovery o f a fair quantity o f charac

teristic Neolithic pottery made it far more likely that there had been a
permanent settlement on the hill-top. But there was nothing to show what
kind o f settlement it might have been.
The Bronze A ge remained a blank in the Cadbury record, but the Iron
Age now appeared to extend well back behind the ‘ Late-Celtic Period
(200 b c to a d 10 0 )’ diagnosed by St George Gray. In particular, the publica
tion o f distinctive coarse jars with finger-tip ornament on the shoulder and
the rim suggested that Cadbury had been inhabited in the fifth or fourth
centuries b c , as early as any Iron A ge hillfort known at that time in southern
Britain. This in turn implied the probability - as Bennett had already
suggested - o f a long and complex history in the defences.
Another piece o f information, which extended the history o f the site in
the other direction, came from the researches o f numismatists, principally
M r Michael Dolley. Silver pennies o f Ethelred the Unready with a mint- Fig- 34
mark C A D A N B Y R IG or C A D A N B Y R IM have, indeed, long been
known. M any examples have been found in Scandinavia, because Ethelred
paid tens o f thousands o f pounds to the Vikings in an attempt to buy them
off. It had been surmised that the Cadanbyrig in question was our Cadbury,
but the name was too common in south-west England for the identification
to be certain. The coins, however, bear not only the name o f Ethelred and
the place o f minting, but also the names o f the individual moneyers who
struck them. Dolley was able to show that late in Ethelred’s reign certain
moneyers were moved from Ilchester to Cadanbyrig; and that early in the
succeeding reign o f Cnut, they were moved from Cadanbyrig, either back
to Ilchester or on to Crewkerne or Bruton. South Cadbury fits this triangular
movement so exactly that the identification was clinched. The further
probabilities were that the coin-mint would have been inside a burh or
fortified town and that the burh would have been on top o f the Cadbury hill
and would have re-used the Iron Age defences. Our excavations therefore
promised a priceless opportunity o f investigating a Late Saxon town which
had not been built over in medieval and modem times.
One further set o f data was available to us. In 1955 the hill-top had been
sown with oats, and in June o f that year Mrs Harfield noticed dark patches
in the ripening crop. Such patches, known to the archaeologist as ‘crop-
marks’ , indicate pits and ditches dug into the solid rock. During the summer
months, these pits retain more moisture than the surrounding soil, and the
crop above them ripens more slow ly; in other words, it remains green
longer. Crop-m arks are best seen and recorded from the air, so with great
27
enterprise Mrs Harfield arranged for Cadbury to be photographed by the

R o ya l N aval Air Station at Y eovilton .18 A t about the same time, another
local amateur, M r M . C . Jones, was able to use his position with Westland
Aircraft at Y eo vil to photograph the crop-marks. These air-photos should
have been o f great assistance in planning the excavations, but both sets
suffered from various snags. All were o f low contrast, so that the crop-marks
did not appear at all strongly. The negatives o f the R N A S photos had been
lost, so that it was not possible to manipulate the prints. And all the view
points were oblique, not vertical, so that it was difficult to pinpoint on the
ground any features which seemed o f particular interest on the photos.
A t this point, the layman might wonder w hy w e did not simply ask the
R N A S to re-photograph the hill, or employ some commercial air-photo
grapher to do this, so that we had photos which met our needs. The answer
is that the marks show only in ripening cereal-crops, not in pasture - and
w e could scarcely ask the landowners to sow the site with oats so that we
could then photograph crop-marks! As it was, M r Jones displayed very
great ingenuity in trying to correct the distortion caused by the obliquity
o f the viewpoint, and did succeed in producing some near-vertical prints
on which major features could be located. But in general, the principal
importance o f the air-photos was to demonstrate that the whole hill-top
had been intensively occupied - if, that is, the black dots which marked
ancient refuse pits were a valid index o f occupation.
Resources and organization
M y original intention in 1966 had been to restrict our reconnaissance to a

detailed survey o f Cadbury, both o f the defences and o f the area inside them.
T he reason for this was simple. When I was appointed Director o f Excava
tions, m y knowledge o f the fort was limited to a brief visit in the company
o f other people. I f I was to plan large-scale excavations at all effectively, I
needed to know the site in great detail - to get the subjective feel o f it as well
as to learn its objective shape and pattern. And the best w ay to do this was
to spend three weeks making a comprehensive survey.
I was persuaded, however, that it would also be useful to test the archaeo
logical layers inside the fort, if only because there was good reason to fear
that they had been largely destroyed by ploughing. Indeed, reading the
antiquaries’ accounts o f the coins, pottery, sling-stones and so on that had
been dug up over the last four centuries, it seemed doubtful whether there
would be either layers or relics left for a modern archaeologist to find. So I
28
Reconnaissance 19 6 6 -19 6 7
agreed to take a small digging team along with the surveyors. Somehow
this snowballed into a labour-force which was quite sizable by normal
standards: about fifty staff and volunteer workers for a period o f just over
three weeks.
The principal resources for the reconnaissance, in the three equally
necessary components o f brains, brawn and cash, came from University
College, Cardiff. Here it is appropriate to pay a special tribute to the five
generations o f C ardiff students, both graduate and under-graduate, who
effectively ran the Cadbury dig. It is true that over five years the excavation
attracted a few competent supervisors from outside, and that w e also trained
up several outstanding workers w ho came to us from elsewhere; but the
overwhelm ing m ajority o f our supervisory staff were from the Cardiff
Department o f Archaeology. The sheer size o f the excavation in the four
main seasons meant that very little control could be exercised in detail by the
Director; and the success o f the w ork was therefore principally due to the
skill and devotion o f the site supervisors and their assistants.
In addition to the financial backing o f University College, Cardiff, funds
were provided by learned societies, notably the British Academ y and the
Society o f Antiquaries o f London ; and also by the Bristol United Press and
the British Broadcasting Corporation. These last two grants were sympto
matic o f the great, and on the whole helpful, interest taken in the project by
the Press and broadcasting media. But over the years the largest single item
in our budget came from private donations, and especially from the offerings
made on the site by the hordes o f visitors who had been shown something
o f the excavation and the finds. Our conducted tours and exhibition o f
finds were, indeed, a special feature o f the Cadbury excavations. In part
our motive was the disinterested one o f educating the sightseers w ho throng
to any archaeological dig, but the financial returns formed a very important
part o f our income.
A major point o f fund-raising policy was involved here. In 1966, w e found
that a firm o f fund-raisers was prepared to carry out a pilot survey to ex
amine the feasibility o f raising the ,£ 1 $,000 or so which we needed for large-
scale excavations. For the pilot survey, they would charge £ 7 0 0 . At the
end o f it, they might report unfavourably, in which case the money would
have been thrown aw ay; even if they had thought it possible to raise funds,
most o f the w ork would have to be done by the committee by means o f
jumble-sales, coffee-mornings, and simple begging. It was obviously better
to use our limited funds - which did not even amount to jT700 - on an
archaeological pilot survey, with tw o objectives: first, to demonstrate the
29
5 T h e progress o f excavation (solid black) and o f
geophysical survey (stippled), 19 6 6 -6 9 . (F o r the
1 9 7 0 season, see F ig . 9 )
30
31
importance o f Cadbury in terms o f archaeological scholarship to the learned

societies which must always provide the basic funds for major research
programmes; and secondly to awaken a widespread and popular interest in
a site which had so much to offer, both scenically and historically, to the
ordinary man and his fam ily on holiday, in the hope that this would yield
returns in private donations. With this in mind, publicity was deliberately
sought, the Press and broadcasting media were given every encouragement,
and in 1966 I seemed to spend more time as a public relations officer than as
an archaeological director. Since this gave m y staff the chance to get on with
survey and digging free from directorial interference, no harm was done.
As a fund-raising programme, this was manifestly successful. On two
occasions - in the spring o f 1968, and at the end o f 1969 - the Committee
was momentarily disturbed by the lack o f balance between the Director’s
proposed expenditure and the actual money in hand, but in each case the
deficit was made good. O ver the five seasons, plans formulated to meet
the needs o f research were never curtailed by lack o f cash.
Survey and excavation, 1966
Fig. 3 Since an acceptable w orking plan o f the Cadbury defences was already in
existence in the form o f the large-scale Ordnance Survey plans, our own sur
vey could concentrate on more refined details. It was necessary to study the
defences thoroughly as a preliminary to excavating them, and the best w ay
Fig. 4 to examine them was to survey profiles across them on all sides o f the hill.
This exercise was more akin to jungle warfare than to normal archaeological
surveying. So heavy is the tree-cover and undergrowth around most o f the
perimeter that it was necessary to begin each profile by hacking lines o f sight
through the jungle. Beneath the trees, the ramparts appeared as bare earth
at a high angle, and in wet weather the lines o f sight became mud slides, on
which the surveyors slithered about for hours on end. Despite their diffi
culties, the result was an informative series o f profiles, and an enhanced
impression o f the formidable character o f Cadbury’s defences.
In the interior, our principal aim was to delimit the areas most convenient
for building - the places where human occupation was most likely to be
concentrated, and the most rewarding, therefore, for the excavator. A very
detailed contour plan seemed the best w ay to achieve this. It was already
obvious that the summit plateau was the most suitable for buildings because
o f its flatness, while the south-western scarp was impossibly steep. These two
32
i B e f o r e th e e x c a v a t io n s . C a d b u r y C a s t le a n d S o u t h C a d b u r y v i lla g e seen f r o m
th e a ir in 19 6 6 . T h i s v i e w , lo o k in g a lm o s t d u e w e s t , s h o w s h o w th e C a d b u r y h ill
a n d its d e fe n c e s sta n d u p a b o v e th e S o m e r s e t lo w la n d s . T h e R o m a n o - B r it is h
se t tle m e n t e x c a v a t e d in S o u t h C a d b u r y b y M r J o h n L a id la w (p p . 5 1 , 1 7 0 , 17 2 ) lies
b e t w e e n th e c h u r c h a n d th e c o tt a g e s to its le ft. F r o m th e c o t t a g e s a t r a c k slo p e s u p
to th e le ft t o w a r d s th e n o r t h - e a s t e n tr a n c e o f C a d b u r y C a s t le , w h ic h is c o n c e a le d
b y th e h e a v y g r o w t h o f trees. T h e in n e r r a m p a r t is v is ib le a r o u n d m o s t o f th e h ill
t o p , a n d B a n k s 2 a n d 3 c an b e seen at th e s o u t h -e a s t c o m e r . B e l o w th e tr e e - lin e a re
th e a g r ic u lt u r a l t e r ra c e s k n o w n as ‘ T h e L in c h e s ’ (p. 2 0 3 )
2 W illi a m S t u k e l e y ’ s d r a w i n g o f th e r a m p a r t s o f C a d b u r y C a s t le as t h e y a p p e a r e d f r o m th e n o r t h in
1 7 2 3 (p. 1 1) . T h e a p p a r e n t n u m b e r o f r a m p a r t s is e x a g g e r a t e d b e c a u se th e d r a w i n g d o e s n o t d is tin g u is h
b e t w e e n d e fe n s iv e w o r k s a n d a g r ic u lt u r a l t e r r a c e s ; b u t th e ste e p n e ss o f th e r a m p a r t s is fa it h fu l ly
d e p ic t e d
3 T h e m o d e l o f C a d b u r y C a s t le m a d e b y th e B B C to s h o w th e d e fe n c e s as t h e y w o u l d h a v e a p p e a re d
b e f o r e tre es w e r e p la n t e d o n th e m . A s im p le p a lis a d e h as b e e n r e c o n s t r u c t e d o n to p o f th e in n e r b a n k
( p .n )
4 , 5 R N A S a ir - p h o t o g r a p h s s h o w in g th e c r o p - m a r k s v is ib le in th e s u m m e r o f 19 5 5 (PP- 2 7 - 8 ) . T h e to p
v i e w is lo o k in g so u t h -e a s t, th e l o w e r o n e l o o k in g w e s t. T h e t w o h o l l o w - w a y s le a d in g u p f r o m th e
n o r t h - e a s t e n tr a n c e to th e s u m m it r id g e a re v is ib le as b r o a d b la c k m a r k s in a r o u g h V f o r m a t io n
(p p . 5 0 , 7 4 ). T h e w e ll- d e f in e d b la c k b lo b s in d ic a te r o c k - c u t p its f o r s t o r a g e o r re fu s e (p p . 7 3 , 13 6 )
6 , 7 T h e p u lse d m a g n e t ic in d u c t io n
lo c a t o r a n d th e so il a n o m a ly d e t e c t o r
(‘ b a n jo ’) b e in g u se d b y te a m s f r o m
O x f o r d a n d C a r d i f f (p p . 5 2 - 5 )
8 E x c a v a t io n o n th e s u m m it p la te a u
in 1 9 6 7 . T h e t o p s o il h as b e e n r e m o v e d
f r o m S it e F , a n d r o c k - c u t p its a n d
d itc h e s , c lo s e ly c o r r e s p o n d in g w i t h
g e o p h y s ic a l a n o m a lie s , a re b e g in n in g
to a p p e a r (p. 70)
9 S it e E F G a t th e e n d o f th e 19 6 7
se a so n . T h e p r in c ip a l fe a tu re s a r e :
th e c r u c if o r m t r e n c h (Fig. 10, 29)
b o t t o m le f t ; th e fie ld b o u n d a r y (Fig.
10, 3 ) ; a n d th e I r o n A g e r in g - d it c h
(Fig. 10, 2 1 ) . F o r a p la n o f th e a re a ,
see Fig. 8
m
m^ l i p ir lM ämt
*tl'?.-*•'.•
V 'v i ’ S
J ,•»*1
î * s ? ^ Ä J « A '•
|.
•íêSn
V - jt i't .
A SK
l u B r o n z e o b je c t s ro u n d m 19 6 6 . L a te B r o n z e A g e s p ir a l- h e a d e d p in (p . 5 0 ) ; Iro n
A g e fid d le b r o o c h {Fig. 2 6 ) ; R o m a n s h ie ld - b in d in g a n d c u ira ss h in g e (p . 5 1 a n d
P la t e s 7 0 - 2 ) ; g ilt - b r o n z e le tt e r , p e r h a p s f r o m an in s c r ip t io n a t a R o m a n o - C e l t i c
t e m p le (p . 5 1 ) . A c t u a l size
1 1 S ig n i f ic a n t fin d s in 19 6 7 . N e o lit h ic flin t a r r o w h e a d (p . 1 0 8 ) ; L a t e B r o n z e A g e
s o c k e te d k n ife (p . 1 1 4 ) ; E a r ly I r o n A g e s w a n ’ s n e c k p in (p . 1 2 2 ) ; C e lt i c b r o n z e
b r o o c h e s , th e p in s m is s in g (p. 16 8 ) ; I r o n A g e s c a b b a r d c h a p e o f b r o n z e ; g ilt - b r o n z e
S a x o n b u t t o n b r o o c h (see P la t e X I V ) ; t w o C e lt i c c o in s (p p . 1 6 6 - 7 ) ; R o m a n c o in
o f th e E m p e r o r C la u d iu s (p . 16 0 ) . T h e k n if e is 3 in s lo n g
1 2 , 1 3 A i r - v i e w a n d k e y - p la n o f
S it e s P , S , a n d T a t th e e n d o f th e
1 9 7 0 se a so n . 1 - 4 p r o b a b le
r e c t a n g u la r b u ild in g s ( s e e F i£ . n )\
5 -8 w a ll- s lo t s o f ro u n d h o u se s ;
9 fe n c e b o u n d in g a re a o f a n im a l-
b u r ia ls ; 1 0 sh r in e (p p . 1 6 3 - 4 ) ;
1 1 m e d ie v a l o r la te r fie ld b o u n d
a r y ; 1 2 r e c t a n g u la r b u ild in g ,
p o s s ib ly a n c illa r y to th e s i x t h -
c e n t u r y h a ll; 1 3 site o f h a ll {Fig.
jo)\ 1 4 fu r n a c e a re a (p . 15 6 ) .
N o t e a lso th e la r g e a d m in is t r a
t i v e tail to th e e x c a v a t io n s : fin d s
h u t, p o t t e r y - w a s h in g a re a , d ir e c
t o r ’ s a n d s u p e r v is o r s ’ h u ts, a n d
m arq u e e fo r w o rk e rs
1 4 E x c a v a t io n o f th e s o u t h e r n d e fe n c e s in 19 6 7 . C u t t in g D a c ro ss B a n k s 2 , 3 a n d 4,
a n d D it c h e s 1 , 2, a n d 3. S e c t i o n - d r a w in g is in p r o g r e s s in D it c h 1 . T h i s w a s th e o n ly
lin e a c ro ss th e d e fe n c e s w h ic h w a s c o m p le t e ly c le a r o f tre es
1 5 T h e e x c a v a t io n o f th e
d e fe n c e s in 19 6 7 , seen f r o m
th e b o t t o m o f D it c h 3 . T h e
n e a re st f ig u r e is w o r k i n g
o n th e sc a rp o f D it c h 3 ; th e
th ir d f ig u r e u p th e tr e n c h
stan d s o n b e d r o c k b e n e a th
B a n k 3 ; th e fo u r t h f ig u r e
in th e tr e n c h is o n th e c re st
o f B a n k 2 ; a n d th e s k y lin e
is f o r m e d b y B a n k 1. T h is
v ie w is g r e a t ly fo re
s h o r te n e d , a n d g iv e s n o
a d e q u a te im p r e s s io n o f th e
ste e p n e ss o f th e s l o p e ; b u t
th is m a y b e j u d g e d fr o m
th e n e e d to c u t s lo p in g
p a t h w a y s (r ig h t o f tre n c h )
a n d to p r o v id e a s a fe t y lin e
(le ft o f tr e n c h ). S e e P la t e 28
f o r th e v i e w d o w n th e
t r e n c h , a n d Fig. 21 f o r th e
p r o file o f th e d itc h e s
1 6, 1 7 A i r - p h o t o g r a p h s o f th e e x c a v a t io n s in 19 6 9 . T h e u p p e r v i e w is lo o k in g
n o r t h , th e l o w e r o n e s o u t h - w e s t . W o r k is in p r o g r e s s o n S ite s K , L , N , a n d B . S e e
Fig- 5
1 8-20 E x c a v a t io n o f th e N e o
lit h ic p it P i 54. A t th e to p is a
h u m a n s k e le to n , b a d l y m u t ila t
e d b y p lo u g h in g , w h ic h o v e r
la y th e p it. T h e d a te o f th e
sk e le to n is n o t y e t e st a b lish e d ,
b u t it m a y n o t b e N e o lit h ic , a n d
its a ss o c ia t io n w i t h th e p it m a y
b e c o in c id e n t a l. Centre a n d bot
tom, th e c o n t e n ts o f th e p it,
in c lu d in g a h u m a n l o w e r j a w ;
rib s a n d j a w s f r o m o x a n d p i g ;
f r a g m e n t o f d e e r a n t le r ; flin t
fla k e s a n d N e o lit h ic p o t t e r y (p.
n o ) . T h e p it h as g iv e n r a d io
c a r b o n d a te s o f 2510 ± 120B C
a n d 2825 ± 11 $ B C (p. 1 1 2)
2i A L a t e N e o lit h ic s t a k e - h o le d is c o v e r e d b e n e a th B a n k i o n S it e A (p p . 10 2 , 1 1 3 ) . S c a le o f c e n t i
m e tre s
2 2 L a te N e o lit h ic p o t t e r y in th e R i n y o - C l a c t o n s t y le f o u n d b e sid e th e st a k e - h o le . F o r a r e c o n s t r u c
tio n d r a w i n g , see Fig. 14
2 3 S o m e s i g n ific a n t b r o n z e s . E a r l y B r o n z e A g e fla n g e d a x e , 4 in s lo n g (p. 1 1 3 ) . L a te B r o n z e A g e

s o c k e t e d sp e a r - h e a d (p. 1 1 4 ) . H a lls t a t t r a z o r a n d s w a n ’ s n e c k p in , in t r u s iv e e le m e n ts in th e I n itia l
a n d E a r l y I r o n A g e (p p . 1 2 0 , 1 2 2 )
2 4 , 2 5 L a te B r o n z e A g e o v e n -
p it, a n d th e p o t w h ic h la y in it
(p . 1 1 6). In th e v i e w o f th e p it,
h a l f o f th e w o o d ash w h ic h
fille d it h as b e e n r e m o v e d , re
v e a lin g th e b a se a n d lo w e r w a ll
o f th e p o t still in p o s itio n f r o m
its last use. S c a le o f c e n t im e t r e s .
R e c o n s t r u c t io n o f th e f r a g
m e n ts fr o m th e p it s h o w e d th at
w h il e a lm o s t a ll o f th e lo w e r
p a rt o f th e p o t w a s p re s e n t,
m o s t o f th e rim a n d u p p e r b o d y
h a d b e e n lift e d o u t. F o r a d r a w
in g o f th e p o t , see Fig. 1 6
E ä ’' '■ '-*** *,
2 6 A i r - v i e w o f th e d e fe n c e s at th e so u t h -e a st
c o r n e r . B a n k s I , 2 , a n d 3 a re c le a r o f tre es,
b u t B a n k 4 is c o n c e a le d . C o m p a r e P la t e V I I
2 7 T h e r o c k - c u t s c a rp o f D it c h 1 as it w a s
r e v e a le d in C u t t in g D . T h e r u b b le o f B a n k
i is j u s t v is ib le to p r i g h t ; th e st o n e - fa ll f r o m
th e b a n k f ills th e d itc h b o t t o m le ft. C o m p a r e
Fig. 21
28 L o o k in g d o w n C u t t in g D fr o m th e c re st o f B a n k i in 19 6 7 . T h e v i e w is d ra s t ic a lly f o r e s h o r t
e n e d , b u t th e d im in is h in g size o f th e fig u r e s g iv e s so m e im p r e s s io n o f sc ale. F o r th e v i e w l o o k in g
u p th e tr e n c h see P la t e 1 5 ; f o r a n o t h e r v i e w sec P la te II
2 9 B a n k 1 : th e lia s -sla b r e v e t m e n t to
R a m p a r t B (p p . 6 8 - 9 , 1 2 9 - 3 0 ) as r e
v e a le d in C u t t in g D in 19 6 8 . O n e -
m e t r e r a n g i n g p o le s sta n d in th e slo ts
w h e r e t i m b e r u p r ig h t s h a v e d e c a y e d .
F o r a re c o n s t r u c t io n see Fig. 1 9
I 3 0 D e t a ils o f th e f r o n t o f R a m p a r t s A
a n d B seen in se c tio n ( c o m p a r e Fig. 7).
I In th e c e n t re f o r e g r o u n d (a n d r u n n in g
u n d e r th e la te r s t o n e w o r k ) is th e le d g e
I o n w h ic h th e lo w e s t b e a m o f th e
tim b e r r e v e tm e n t o f R a m p a rt A w a s
se a te d . T o th e r i g h t o f th is a re N e o
lit h ic le v e ls ; to th e le ft th r e e la r g e
sto n e s a re p o s t - p a c k i n g f o r th e u p
r ig h t s o f R a m p a r t A . T h e o n e - m e t r e
r o d st a n d s a g a in s t th e st o n e c o r e o f
R a m p a r t B , a n d th e th in sla b s o f th e
lia s r e v e t m e n t o f th a t r a m p a r t c a n b e
seen fa r le ft. F o r re c o n s t r u c t io n s b a se d
o n th is e v id e n c e see Figs 18 a n d 19
limits were easy to define. Between the extremes, however, lay the slopes
o f the hill. W e thought that these would have been inconveniently steep,
but that i f they had been built on at all, it would have been necessary to cut
level platforms. O ver subsequent centuries, these platforms would have been
largely obscured by the downward drift o f plough-soil but we hoped that
an accurate contour survey might still detea faint traces o f them. In the
event, no platforms were located, but we shall see that this was less significant
than we had expected in terms o f the actual location o f buildings.
Meanwhile, each o f the three zones which 1 have already defined was Fix- 5
being sampled in a small excavation. On Site A, the level zone against the
back o f the rampart was examined in the hope that the washing down o f
plough-soil might have covered and preserved traces o f buildings belonging
to the later periods o f the site. There was, as expected, a considerable depth
o f plough-soil - around four feet, in fact. But the latest structural level
beneath it was no later than the very end o f the Iron Age. This was demon
strated by the occurrence o f pottery closely comparable with that from the
well-known ‘ War Cem etery’ at Maiden Castle in Dorset, which certainly
marked the end o f the Iron A ge at that site. Below this Ultimate Iron Age
level at Cadbury was a series o f earlier Iron A ge deposits, with traces o f Plates 38, 39
structures in the form o f rough dry-stone walls, and drainage gullies which
had probably surrounded circular houses. The limited resources o f our
reconnaissance prevented the full exploration o f these, but our original
objective, to determine the character and depth o f the archaeological layers,
was fully achieved.
Although Site A had been placed against the back o f the innermost
rampart, and traces o f the rear walling appeared in the north face o f the
cutting, it had been no part o f our original plan to examine the actual
defences. This policy was modified at the urging o f Sir M ortim er Wheeler,
President o f the Camelot Research Committee. The surveying o f profiles n X. 4, CD
across the defences had already revealed a marked step in the outer slope
o f the inner bank. In the course o f a perambulation o f the ramparts. Sir
Mortimer suggested that this step might mark the face o f a late rampart
raised upon the decayed top o f an earlier one. If this was so, then Cadbury
had been rcfortified some time long after the Iron Age. Could this be the
w ork o f Arthur, or o f Ethelred? Cutting A was quickly extended across the Plate 86
top o f the bank, and revealed a well-laid mortared stone wall, backed by a
bank o f earth. The character o f the masonry made it certain that this was
Late Saxon work, and confirmed the identification o f Cadbury with the
Cadanbyrig o f Ethelred’s coins.
49
Site B had as its prim ary purpose the examination o f the stratification on
the sloping part o f the interior, where it was reasonable to expect that
archaeological layers had been largely destroyed by ploughing. In deciding
where to put the trench, we had half the interior to choose from. We
decided that the cutting should fulfil the further purpose o f examining one
Plates 4, 5 o f the most prominent crop-marks noted in 1955 - a large but irregular
black streak which appeared on both the R N A S photos and those taken by
M r Jones. Despite the obliquity o f the air-photos, it was possible to locate
this streak with sufficient exactness to lay a trench across it. It was found
that the crop-mark had been caused by a wide but shallow ditch - some
fifty feet wide by six feet deep. This was clearly not defensive, but both its
date and purpose remained obscure. Either side o f the ditch w e found that
ploughing had failed to destroy ancient floors, hearths, and scatters o f pottery.
M oreover, the relative steepness o f the slope had not deterred the early
inhabitants o f Cadbury from building hereabouts. This had very disturbing
implications for our future programm e o f excavations, because it meant
that traces o f buildings might be encountered almost anywhere in the
eighteen acres o f the interior.
Site C was placed close to the summit o f the hill, where the air-photos
showed a rash o f black blobs suggesting rock-cut pits. As we had expected, the
ploughing here had gone right down to the solid rock, so that all ancient
floor levels had been destroyed. But once we had removed the plough-soil,
we could immediately detect features dug into the rock, because they stood
out blackly against the golden-brown o f the Jurassic limestone. In our
excavation, these rock-cut features included both pits dug for storage and
used subsequently for refuse, and also holes that had held the uprights o f
timber buildings. Stains in the soil showed that some o f the posts had been
massive - up to seventeen inches across. This in turn implied the existence
o f very substantial buildings on the plateau. Within the small area o f the
excavation, no building plans were detectable. We could nevertheless
speculate that the posts might have belonged to large circular houses, o f
the kind already w ell-known on other Iron Age sites. On the other hand,
the discovery o f pottery o f the imported Tintagel type raised the hope that
some o f the posts had formed part o f a rectangular hall o f Arthurian date.
The objects found in 1966 added little to the extensive range already
Plate 10 known from Mrs Harfield’s collection, but that little was o f great interest.
There was, for instance, a bronze pin with its head formed out o f two spiral
coils. Such pins have only rarely been found in Britain, and one o f them
was associated with a Late Bronze A ge spearhead. But similar pins were
50
Reconnaissance iq 6 6 - iq Ó7
widely known in the Mediterranean in the ninth and eight centuries bc .

So the Cadbury example hinted at far-flung trade connections, and suggested
also that there had been some activity on the site in the centuries immediately
before the Iron Age. As it happened, the relationship o f the cultures o f the
Iron Age with those o f the preceding Bronze Age has been a matter o f
controversy, and it was evident that the Cadbury excavations could con
tribute new information to the debate.
There were hints, too, about the end o f the Iron Age. Out o f seven datable
bronze objects found in 1966, three were fragments o f Rom an soldiers’
equipment - a hinge from a cuirass, a buckle which also probably came from Plates 70-72
a piece o f armour, and a binding strip from the edge o f a shield. These
evidently marked Rom an activity on the hill-top itself, and suggested that
the native fortification had been one o f those stormed by the Rom an general
Vespasian in the course o f his conquest o f southern England. There was,
however, very little other early Rom an material. We shall see later how the
history o f events on top o f the hill was complemented by that which was
being established at its foot by Mr John Laidlaw in an independent excava
tion. In the later Rom an period, however, pottery and coins bore witness
to renewed activity on the hill, most probably pilgrimages to a Rom ano-
Celtic temple. The big ditch on Site B yielded a gilt-bronze letter ‘A ’ which
caused an unnecessary flutter among the Arthurian romantics, but which in
reality came from a temple inscription.
For the post-Rom an centuries, the haul was very slight. N o pottery or
other objects could be attributed to the Ethelredan burh: indeed, the burh
bank contained only weathered scraps which were over a thousand years
old when it was built. For the Arthurian period we had an iron knife, Plate 92
rather formless at first glance, but so like the knives which I had found on
the fifth and sixth-century fort o f Dinas Powys that I had no doubt about its
date. There were also half-a-dôzen fragments from wine jars o f the Tintagel
type to add to those collected by Mrs Harficld. The most significant thing
about them was that the best example came from Site C, from that level
area which appeared so suitable for large buildings.
The geophysical reconnaissance: instruments and principles
One other event in 1966, o f great importance for the future, owed nothing
to our careful planning, though we can reasonably claim credit for its
exploitation. Among our visitors there were many who came with helpful
ideas and comments, like the woman who had seen the image o f King Arthur
on her television set during a programme decrying the Arthurian connec

tions o f Tintagel; or the electronics engineer who offered to locate the
iron - or golden - gates into the hill where Arthur lies sleeping. At the very
end o f the season, a M r Mark Howell brought to Cadbury an instrument
which he had devised for locating metal objects. (Contrary to popular
belief, the digging up o f iron swords, bronze brooches and gold coins is not
a major objective o f the archaeologist: he wants to find such things in
relation to buildings, and in association with more common objects such as
pottery, so that he can create a full picture o f life on his site.) As it happened,
we quickly discovered that M r H ow ell’s instrument was sensitive not only
to metal but also to rock-cut features: certainly to large pits, possibly even
to smaller post-holes. We saw at once that this instrument could meet the
deficiency caused by the lack o f vertical air photographs, provided we could
carry out a sufficiently extensive programme o f prospecting.
It is easier to describe what the Howell instrument does than to explain
Plate 7 w hy it does it. It consists o f a carrying boom with a radio-transmitter at one
end and a receiver coil at the other.19 The transmitted signal is picked up by
the coil, and is fed into a meter which displays the signal visually. In practice,
both metal objects and disturbances o f the sub-soil may distort the signal,
causing fluctuations in the meter reading. Mark Howell believed that these
fluctuations reflected changes in electrical conductivity, and so the in
strument was originally known as a Soil Conductivity Meter. But we found
that changes in local magnetic field were at least a factor, and perhaps a
major one, in distorting the signal. It was possible that the instrument was
detecting a whole range o f geophysical anomalies, so it came to be known
as the Soil Anom aly Detector. It was perhaps as well that archaeologists had
already christened it the ‘banjo’ because o f its appearance.
The layman may well ask what electrical conductivity and magnetic
fields have to do with archaeology.20 The answer is that many human
activities - digging defensive ditches, or drainage gullies, or pits for grain-
storage, or holes for posts - cause a major change in the bedrock. When a
ditch or pit that has been dug into a porous or well-drained subsoil becomes
silted-up, it will normally have a higher moisture content than the subsoil,
and therefore a higher electrical conductivity. The organically-enriched
filling o f a refuse pit also has quite different magnetic properties from the
rock in which the pit was dug. A hearth, oven or furnace has a magnetic
field all o f its own.
O ver the previous score o f years, archaeologists with a taste for scientific
gadgetry and geophysicists with a hankering for humanity had been en-
52
dcavouring to locate these man-made geophysical anomalies. Having been

associated with some o f these experiments, I knew a little not only about the
failures which get swept under the carpet, but also about the very great
possibilities o f geophysical prospecting.
The advantages o f the ‘banjo’ were obvious. It was cheap - about a tenth
o f the price o f other available instruments - so I had no difficulty in per
suading my own department to buy one. Most other instruments emit
brief pulse-like signals, and therefore take their readings at individual
points or stations. The ‘banjo’, on the other hand, transmits a continuous
signal, and can therefore give continuous readings. Since it is highly port
able, it is possible to search an area swiftly and extensively until an anomaly
is located, and then, by m oving around, to define the limits o f the anomaly
with great precision. It was therefore possible to use it for very detailed and
refined prospecting. Its disadvantages, as we learned in practice, were that
it was not measuring an absolute magnetic field, only relative changes; and
that the signal tended to drift to such an extent that it was often impossible
to correlate the readings o f two areas as little as ten metres apart.
For our purposes, however, the ‘banjo’ had two overwhelming advan
tages. Its circuitry was so simple that it was easy to maintain; and it required
neither qualifications in electronics nor a knowledge o f geophysics for its
successful operation. This emboldened us to think that we, as archaeologists,
might carry out a comprehensive geophysical survey ourselves. There was
nothing revolutionary in this - the pioneers o f geophysical prospecting in
archaeology, men like R . J. C. Atkinson, had been archaeologists first and
last. But recently the geophysicists had tended to take over in the field, with
instruments that were both too complicated and too costly for the archaeo
logist to use. The necessary tw o-w ay communication between archaeology
and geophysics had become tenuous, with the geophysicists not fully under
standing the requirements o f the archaeologists, and the latter not appreci
ating the limitations - or the possibilities - o f the instruments. What we
wanted to do was to start by formulating our problems in archaeological
terms, asking what man-made features we needed information about; then
we would match the instrument to the problems; and finally, we would
present the results not in terms o f ohms and gammas, magnetic fields and
electrical resistivity, but in a manner which immediately visualized the
archaeological features.
The basic archaeological problem had been posed by the obliquity o f the
air-photographs. What we now wanted was to locate the rock-cut features
shown by the air-photos in such a way that we could pinpoint individual
S3
pits, plot their patterns in a horizontal plane, and tie them down to fixed
co-ordinates; we could then go back and dig the ones which seemed most
interesting. And since the preliminary test o f the ‘banjo’ in 1966 had sug
gested that it would indicate quite small anomalies, we hoped to distinguish
rock-cut features as small as post-holes. We might then predict, in advance
o f excavation, the plans o f timber buildings.
This hope governed the actual pattern o f our survey. Ideally, we might
have exploited the continuous signal o f the ‘banjo’ by walking it up and
down a series o f very close-set parallel traverses; putting a marker-peg in
every time the needle dipped or rose; and then plotting, by normal survey
methods, the anomalies which we had marked out. In fact this procedure
would have been impossibly complicated and time-consuming, so we
decided instead to set up a grid o f twenty-metre squares, and to take readings
at every half metre within these squares. The idea o f such close readings was
indeed revolutionary, for the standard practice at the time was to read at
two metre intervals. The difference in effort is that between 12 1 and 1681
readings to a twenty-metre square, though this was partly offset by the
portability o f the ‘banjo’. And, o f course, we hoped that the effort would
be more than repaid by the greater detail that we would obtain.
The geophysical reconnaissance: survey and results
These, then, were the general considerations which controlled our pro-
Figs. 5 , 6 , 9 gramme o f geophysical prospecting. In practice, we began in April 1967
with a three-week survey, covering the most level part o f the plateau.
M inor supplementary surveys were carried out during that summer; and
having sampled the validity o f the geophysical indications in the course o f
the 1967 excavations, we committed ourselves to a total geophysical survey.
This was carried out during the excavation seasons o f 1968, 1969 and 1970.
When we first went into the field with the ‘banjo’ in April 1967, it was still
an untried instrument for archaeological prospecting: we were banking on
faith, not certainty. To cover ourselves, we therefore arranged for a com
plementary survey with well-tried instruments and methods. The O xford
Plate 6 Laboratory for Archaeology responded readily to our invitation, and a
team under the leadership o f Dr Martin Aitken joined us for a spell in April,
and carried out further surveys both later that season and in 1968. The
O xford team brought a formidable range o f instruments, both well-proven
and newly developed: proton magnetometer, fluxgate gradiometer, and
pulsed magnetic induction locator. It was particularly interesting to com-
54
■00».
6 Geophysical survey 19 6 7 . D ot-density presentation o f the overall results o f the S o il Conductivity

Meter survey, together with an interpretation o f the principal structures indicated by it and by the
proton magnetometer. (S e e also F ig . 8)
pare the results obtained by the various instruments. We also opened up

three or four small cuttings in order to make sure that the geophysical
anomalies really were related to archaeological features.
Field-work was only the first part o f the geophysical survey. The next
move was to convert columns o f figures, which had no archaeological
reference, into plots or drawings which suggested archaeological remains.
The O xford proton magnetometer measured anomalies against a more or
less standard background, and in terms o f an absolute scale o f gammas.
Consequently, its results could be plotted in absolute terms, and the most
effective way to do this was to draw isographs joining up points o f equal
strength. The result looked like a contour-map, and we hoped that the con
tour patterns marked rock-cut pits and gullies.
55
I Cadbury-Camelot seen from the air during the 1970 season of excavations.
The circuit of Bank 1 is clear around the whole site; Banks 2 and 3 are visible at the
south-east corner (compare Plate VII) ; but Bank 4 is shrouded by trees round the
whole perimeter. The apparent banks in the left foreground are cultivation
terraces, the so-called ‘Linches’.
II Early morning mists clearing to reveal the southern defences.
III Excavation of the south-west gate in 1970. The road surface of the late sixth
century a d has been uncovered, revealing evidence for the timberwork of the
Arthurian gate-tower.
IV, V Two stages in the excavation of a timber round-house in 1970. The

building had originally been detected as a geophysical anomaly in 1967. For the
geophysical plot, see Fig. 6. intersection of grid-lines K and G. For plans of the
area, showing both circular and rectangular buildings, see Fig. 11.
II
Reconnaissance t 966-1 967
With the ‘banjo’, however, the flickering needle was not measuring any
absolutes o f conductivity or magnetic field. Theoretically, the instrument
was tuned to a meter reading o f 25 over undisturbed rock, and rock-cut
features then registered as a lower reading, metal objects as a higher one.
But changes in the bed-rock, along with signal-drift and the variability o f
the operators combined to make the backgroûnd reading for any twenty-
metre square vary from below 10 to over 30. (It was for this reason, above
all, that various attempts to process the ‘banjo’ figures by computer all
proved unsuccessful. O nly in the final, 1970, season did we devise a new
method o f tuning and a new graduation for the meter-dial, which between
them ironed out minor fluctuations o f background reading and presented
the rock-cut features which interested us in the form o f positive readings.)
It was therefore necessary to examine every column o f readings in order
to establish the approximate background in each area. The strength o f
individual anomalies then appeared as the difference between the background
and the actual reading. But two other facts had to be considered. The ‘banjo’
was reading not a point in the ground, but a hemisphere, more or less the
shape o f the radio signal between the transmitter and the receiver. Secondly,
whereas our readings were at fixed half-metre intervals, anomalies were
likely to occur quite randomly. The hemisphere o f one reading might
overlap the edge o f a pit; that o f the next might be central to it; that o f a
third might just clip the further edge. So in any visual presentation, the
strength o f anomaly registered at each station needed to be spread over the
whole o f the hypothetical hemisphere.
We made many attempts to devise an effective technique for visualizing l :i$$. 6 ,8 A
anomalies. In the end m y Deputy Director, Chris Musson, produced a
series o f dot-density drawings, in which dots were scattered around each
reading-station. There was one dot for each point o f difference between
background and anomaly, and the dots were scattered randomly over the
whole o f the hemisphere that was being read. The procedure was lengthy
and tedious, for up to twenty thousand dots were needed for each twenty-
metre square. It also involved a certain intuitive feel and a great deal o f
artistry. The final plots, however, were strikingly effective. Examining them,
I had the impression that I was looking at an archaeological site from which
the top-soil had just been stripped, revealing a complex o f pits, gullies, and
other rock-cut features which only needed more precise definition by brush
and trowel.
The dot-density presentation was visually spectacular; but did it really
mean anything in either geophysical or archaeological terms? To answer
Reconnaissance ìç ó ô -iç ó y
this, Chris Musson and I went to O xford, where Dr A itken’s team had been
plotting their figures. We laid out a mosaic which represented our dot-
density version o f the Cadbury summit plateau - a strip 60 metres wide by
160 long. On this mosaic the O xford team then placed their contour plot.
The two matched in almost every detail. It was important for our future
surveys that the ‘banjo’ was thus vindicated. But for the present, what
mattered most was that we could be sure that the Cardiff and O xford plots
together represented the geophysical pattern o f the Cadbury summit. We
had here a preview o f the archaeological features, and an informed basis for
planning our excavations in 1967. These must be the subject for the next
chapter.
62
Ill Excavation 1967-1968
Policy and organization
The account o f our geophysical survey has taken me beyond the events
which sprang immediately from the reconnaissance excavation o f 1966.
At the end o f that season, after seeing the results, the Camelot Research
Committee decided that it was justified in promoting a three-year campaign
o f excavations, on a scale that matched the potential o f the site. From the
archaeological point o f view the Committee was influenced by our demon
stration that ancient levels were still intact over much o f the site despite
centuries o f ploughing; by our discovery that the defences had been rebuilt
in the post-Rom an centuries; by the recovery o f Arthurian-period pottery
in a potentially significant context; and by the increasing chronological
range o f finds. M oreover, the warmth o f interest that the excavations had
aroused encouraged the Committee to believe that a public appeal would
raise funds on an adequate scale.
The first function o f the Committee, then, was to find money. In practice,
this devolved on the officers who had a busy time writing to learned societies
and public bodies and organizing the distribution o f an appeal to private
individuals. A rough estimate suggested that we needed £ 15 ,0 0 0 for a
three-year campaign. It was particularly useful that we obtained two large
sums, from the Pilgrim Trust and the University o f Wales, which were
spread over the whole three years. Numerous other grants, both large and
small, were also received, and we hoped to increase these by donations on
the site and by the sale o f picture post-cards o f the dig and other literature.
In the early summer, however, we were still well short o f our financial
target for 1967.
Meanwhile, the President and I, unknown to each other, had been
negotiating for the sponsorship o f national newspapers. His negotiations
matured first, and so the Sunday Observer acquired exclusive rights to
information during the 1967 season, in return for covering twenty per cent
o f our budget. Presumably the Observer hoped for sensational ‘Arthurian’
revelations; but in fairness I should stress that they continued to make grants
63
Excavation 1Ç67-1Q68
in a w holly disinterested manner even after it had become obvious that there
are few sensations or revelations in British archaeology. I personally shall
always feel grateful for the firmness o f their support at a critical moment in
the planning o f the 1970 season. The Observers claim to exclusive inform
ation was resented by some scholars, who quite erroneously thought that
they were excluded. Less surprisingly, it caused hostility in the rest o f the
Press, and in later seasons rigorous ‘exclusivity’ was modified to ‘most
favoured treatment’. Some sensitive souls also found the Observer's treatment
o f Cadbury distastefully trivial. They might usefully have reflected on the
implication that the higher flights o f scholarship are too remote for the
readers o f even a mature and responsible newspaper.
Apart from fund-raising, the Com m ittee’s other function was to approve
the policy and programme o f excavation, and the detailed budgeting, put
before it by m yself as Director. H ow was that programme and budget
decided? I had determined the overall strategy o f the excavation shortly
after m y appointment as Director. Looking at the numerous hillforts which
had been excavated in southern Britain since the 1920s, I saw that they had
yielded plenty o f information about the construction and history ofh illfort
defences; a little about their gate arrangements; but almost nothing about
what went on inside the defences. On the evidence available from most
hillfort excavations, it was quite impossible to answer such obvious questions
as: was the fort permanently occupied? by what size o f population? at what
kind o f social level - peasants or warrior chiefs? was the fort a commercial,
industrial or religious centre? T o provide the evidence to answer these
questions seemed a worthwhile objective; and the implication was that,
although the defences and gates could not be ignored, our major effort
should be concentrated on the interior o f the fort.
With this policy there could be no disagreement, but the manner in which
it was carried out provoked some dissent both inside the Committee and
from outside. Granted that research should concentrate on the interior,
there were almost eighteen acres to choose from. We worked principally
Figs, g, to on the summit plateau. But the conventional view was that hillfort dwellers
would have avoided ‘windswept’ summits, and would have placed their
dwellings in a narrow zone in the lee o f the ramparts. This belief was held
because, although traces o f houses are not normally visible in southern
English hillforts, remains o f them had certainly been recovered at the inner
end o f cuttings across the ramparts. It could be refuted, however, from the
evidence o f the hillforts o f north Wales, where houses can still be seen today,
spreading randomly over the whole interior.
64
Excavation 1967-1968
At Cadbury, the air photos showed that storage pits covered the entire Plates 4. 5
hill-top, and in 1966 substantial post-holes were discovered on the very
summit. The geophysical survey started on the plateau because it was F:ig. 6
convenient to operate the instruments on level ground. Houses were
certainly indicated, and thereafter we exploited the indications. The vindica
tion o f this policy o f exploring the most level area o f the hill will appear in
Part II. But it is worth mentioning, as any hill-man knows, that the effects
o f wind on a hill are tricky. Sometimes air currents rise above the summit,
leaving a sheltered zone in what appears to be the most exposed area. This
is certainly the case at Cadbury, and the point is well appreciated by the
modem denizens o f the hill, a herd o f Devon cattle, which always gathers
on the summit on windy days.
So much for the overall policy. The more detailed planning for each
season, the balancing o f resources in money and manpower against the
archaeological problems, was carried out by a Council o f Supervisors. This
consisted o f the Director and Deputy Director, together with Site Super
visors, Finds Supervisor, and administrators, who met in C ardiff before
each campaign, and held regular and formal meetings throughout each
excavation season. Once a week during the dig, the Supervisors’ Council
was augmented into a Grand Council by the inclusion o f everyone who had
the slightest degree o f responsibility. M y role was simply to take the chair
for discussions which ranged with complete freedom. The only limitations
were those imposed by our actual resources o f money and manpower - and
in this field Chris Musson, as Deputy Director, kept a firm grip. There can
be no doubt that the interchange o f ideas and criticisms on the Supervisors’
Council and the Grand Council contributed largely both to the effectiveness
and to the sweet running o f the excavation.
The excavation of the defences, 1967
Our excavation programme for 1967 had two aspects: to follow up the Plates 14. 15. 27. 28. II
most promising geophysical indications on the plateau, and to cut a major
trench through the defences from top to bottom. There was little difficulty
in deciding where to locate this trench, for there were only two places, both
on the south side o f the hill, that gave clear lines through the trees. Cutting
D, varying from two to five metres in width, was laid out on one o f these Eig. 21
lines, from the inner face o f Ditch 1 across the three outer banks and the
ditches between them. If the surveying o f the defence profiles in 1966 had
resembled jungle warfare, the excavation o f Site D was often more like
7 Bank l : the stratification revealed on Site D in

19 6 7 -6 8 . T h e principal defensive features are:
002 possible post-Ethelredan b an k; 009, 020 tivo
phases o f Ethelredan bank separated by a spill o f
m ortar; 0 10 Ethelredan mortared w a ll; 5 0 4 ,5 0 $
Arthurian-period Stony Bank, Ram part E ; 5 0 6
probable refurbishing o f Ultimate Iron A g e defence,
Ram part D , on eve o f the R om an assault ; 5 0 7 , 5 1 2
tail o f Ram part D ; 5 1 5 paving at rear o f secondary
phase o f Ram part C ; 5 1 6 , 6 2 8 early phase o f
Ram part C ; 5 2 2 , 5 5 0 body o f Ram part B ; 5 5 0 B
front post o f Ram part B ; 6 9 5 rear post o f Ram part
B ; 5 2 4 body o f Ram part A ; 5 4 6 front post o f
Ram part A, with ledge fo r plank revetm ent;
5 4 1,6 9 4 rear posts o f Ram part A ; 5 5 6 humus
layer under earliest ram part; 5 5 9 stones o f possible
N eolithic bank. For reconstructions o f Ram parts A
and B , see Figs. 1 8 and 19
mountaineering than archaeology, so steep was the slope. Unfortunately

the results did not match the effort. We could see that the outer banks had
several distinct phases o f building, but the scarcity o f finds made it impossible
to put close dates to these phases.
Research in the innermost rampart, on the other hand, was strikingly
successful. Anticipating that the structural history o f Bank 1 would be
complex, we decided to take a quick preview o f it by cutting a section
parallel to the main trench by means o f a mechanical excavator. It was a
thrilling experience to have the history o f the defences exposed within a
couple o f days o f the start o f the excavation. As a result, we formed an unduly
favourable opinion o f the value o f such mechanical cuts; their limitations
became manifest in 1969. For the present, we could see that Bank 1 incorpor
ated at least five successive ramparts, rising to a height o f sixteen or seventeen
feet above the solid rock. And enough datable objects could be recovered
from the layers exposed in the sides o f the trench to show that there was a
66
distinctive rampart between the Ethelredan burh wall and the latest Iron
Age bank. This feature, christened the ‘ Stony Bank’, was a candidate for an
Arthurian defence.
The results o f the mechanical excavation were then followed up in detail Plate 73
by hand-digging a trench ten metres wide. The late or post-Rom an date o f Fit». 7
the Stony Bank was confirmed by the discovery o f Rom an building debris
in its core. Structural details o f the Stony Bank, and o f the overlying Late
Saxon wall, were clarified. But work on these two ramparts proved so com
plex, and therefore so slow, that little time was left in 1967 to explore the
underlying Iron Age defences, which were likely to be at least as com
plicated. Several alternative plans o f action were possible: to sacrifice details
in order to dig more rapidly through the Iron Age defences; to narrow our
cutting from ten metres to five or even less; or to postpone research on the
Iron Age until 1968. Pressure to sacrifice information to speed was resisted,
and the third policy was adopted. After reaching the top o f the ultimate
67
Iron Age defence, we sealed it o ff with plastic sheeting and closed the trench.
As a compensation, however, we sampled the post-iron Age defences in
Fig. 5 brief excavations on the other three sides o f the fort - Sites A, I and J. These
all produced evidence o f the Ethelredan mortared wall, showing that it had
a perimeter o f about twelve hundred yards, and establishing Cadanbyrig
as a medium-sized Late Saxon burh. Evidence for the Stony Bank was also
found on both the east and west o f the hill. On SiteJ, its date was carried into
the fifth century or later by a stratified coin o f Honorius, datable to a d
393-402. Even more important, on Site I a twenty-foot length o f dry-stone
Plate 81 wall was still in position, standing in places to a height o f four or five courses.
Gaps in the stonework showed where timber posts had decayed, and told
us much about its structure. We shall see in Part T w o that the discovery o f
the Stony Bank was a major event in Arthurian studies.
The prehistoric defences, 1968
The completion o f our ten-metre cutting through Bank i was obviously

a primary task in 1968. Because o f the large area involved, responsibility
was divided between two teams, one o f them concerned with the ramparts
proper, and the other with structures immediately behind the bank. Our
Plates 38, 39 work on Site A in 1966 had revealed drainage gullies and other traces o f
buildings behind Bank 1. This was, o f course, in agreement with the evidence
o f other hillfort excavations, and with the general theory that Iron Age
buildings should huddle in the shelter o f the defences. Consequently there
was some pressure from members o f the Camelot Research Committee,
and even on the Supervisors’ Council, for a full exploration o f this zone.
But our results in 1968 were totally discouraging. With meticulous care,
fragments o f buildings were uncovered; but not a single coherent plan
emerged. M oreover, the intensity o f human activity, principally represented
by black pits cutting into black soil, had left both structures and layers
chaotically disturbed.
In the rampart proper, remains o f structures were better defined: post-
Fig. 7 holes, rear walling, and paved rampart walks. But any trace o f an outer
revetment-wall eluded us for a long time. The problem here was that the
forward slope o f the rampart was a close-packed jum ble o f rubble, and it
was difficult to know whether this was collapsed walling, or rampart core
in position. It requires a degree o f confidence to hack into this sort o f tumble,
and an even greater degree o f discretion to know when to stop. In the end,
I stayed on the site one evening after everyone else had gone - so that there
68
was no one to sec my mistakes. After half-an-hour o f precision hacking, I Plate 29

had revealed the frail remains o f what had once been a very beautiful wall-
face. O ver the whole season we found traces o f four or five distinct phases
o f Iron Age rampart. Unfortunately the finds were few, so that it was not
easy to date these phases. Worse still, gaping holes and tunnels showed that
rabbits had burrowed right down to the earliest rampart, disturbing both
the finds and the stratification.
Our most unexpected discovery was an abundance o f Early Neolithic
flints and pottery, which came both from pits and from an old ground
surface well below the earliest Iron Age bank. And at the very edge o f the
slope, partly cut away by the construction o f the first Iron Age rampart,
was a concentration o f small rubble which hinted at a Neolithic bank. It
now seemed possible that we were going to find some kind o f Neolithic
enclosure, similar in size to the Iron Age fort.
The south-west entrance, 1968
Our thorough exploration o f the post-Rom an defences in 1967 enabled us

to examine the contemporary phases o f one o f the entrances in 1968. O f the
two principal gateways, the south-western, or Sutton Montis gate, was the
obvious choice. To dig the north-eastern entrance would have cut our life
line with South Cadbury village. M oreover, the Sutton Montis gate appeared
to have suffered less from erosion than the other one, and we already had a
little information about it from St George G ray’s work in 1 9 1 3 .21 In a small F i <j . 1
cutting at the inner end o f the passage, he had located some rough walling,
and a road surface which apparently incorporated mortar. He believed that
this work was Iron Age, but our discovery o f the Ethelredan mortared wall
in 1966 made it certain that what he had actually found was the Late Saxon
gate. We hoped to relocate this walling, and to expand outwards from
G ray’s cutting, but the collapse and loss o f stonework since 1913 made this
straightforward programme unworkable.
Our exploration o f the gate was further complicated by the discovery o f
a building-phase which we had not recognized in the ramparts in 1966 and
1967. We had reasonably expected that we would find the Ethelredan
mortared wall immediately below the turf, and we were encouraged by the
discovery o f stonework poking up through the grass. When we uncovered Plates 93. 94
more o f this, we found it was extremely massive: indeed, the comer stone
on the left o f the gate was the largest building stone that we found anywhere
on the site. But this stonework was not mortared, so it was difficult to sec
69
Excavation 1Ç67-IQ68
how it could be Ethelredan. Eventually, we found remains o f the burh wall

buried beneath the massive unmortared wall. And reconsidering the ram
part sections, we came to realize that a wall o f similar character had been cut
into the back o f the Late Saxon bank.
When we uncovered the Ethelredan gate, we found that its actual remains
were disappointingly slight, though the plan was clear enough. On the left
Plates 87-89 o f the entrance passage, three or four courses o f stonework were preserved,
together with the footing course o f the respond or pier for the gate itself.
F'X- 35 On the right, the walling had vanished almost completely. Between the
passage-walls was a layer o f soft mortar and rubble, which suggested the bed
for a paved passage-way, but o f actual paving there was not a trace. The
slightness o f what we found showed that the entrance had been very thor
oughly demolished, and it is probable that this had been done on the orders
o f King Cnut, when he removed the mint from Cadanbyrig and abandoned
the burh. This historical conclusion was some compensation for the poverty
o f the archaeological remains.
False clues in the interior, 1967
When, in M ay 1967, we had found the O xford and C ardiff geophysical

Fig. 36 surveys to be in complete agreement, we were encouraged to make predic
tions about archaeological features on the summit plateau. Apart from
great numbers o f blob-like anomalies, suggesting storage- or refuse-pits,
there were also four or more circles or part-circles which were likely to
indicate Iron Age round-houses. Even more interesting were three pairs o f
parallel lines, for it was reasonable to think that these marked close-set pits
or even continuous trenches for the timber walls o f rectangular buildings
which were likely to be Arthurian or Ethelredan. This seemed especially
probable in the case o f the most easterly pair, for transverse lines were also
visible, indicating, we thought, the two gables and an internal partition o f
a timber hall. This particular rectangle was immediately adjacent to a circle.
F/$j. 8 The excavation o f the two side-by-side would make a very convenient
unit to control, so here, in 1967, we laid out the triple cutting E F G.
If the agreement o f the C ardiff and O xford geophysical plots had been
Plate 8 exciting, the scene when E F G was stripped o f top soil was even more
thrilling. The correspondence between the dot-density plot and the visible
archaeological features was almost complete. We felt that we had assisted
at the birth o f a new era in archaeological exploration, the electronic age.
But our triumph was brief. Immediately after we had cleared the top soil,
70
8 Geophysical survey and excavation oj

area E F G in 1967
71
Excavation 1Ç 67-IÇ 6 8
Cadbury was swept by a torrential thunderstorm. The rain freshened up the

Plates 9, 41 contrasts in the soil, and revealed literally hundreds o f small features -
especially post-holes and gullies - which had not been visible before, and
which had certainly not been indicated by the geophysical survey. After
this, the 1967 season was a desperate race to examine and record all the visible
features within the time-limits o f the dig.
It was unnerving to uncover so many features which had not been picked
up by the geophysical survey, especially as some o f them were pits capable
o f holding substantial posts up to fifteen inches in diameter. We had expected
that some small features might be missed between two reading-stations,
even when these were only fifty centimetres apart; others might be blanketed
by stronger anomalies near by. But we now had to admit that the chances
o f predicting timber buildings were slighter than we had hoped. Further
dismay was caused when we found that even well-marked geophysical
anomalies might be w rongly interpreted in archaeological terms. This was
so in the case o f each o f the three ‘halls’. A trial cutting across one line o f the
western ‘hall’ in 1967 showed that this was not a wall-trench but a field
ditch. In 1968, part o f the central ‘hall’ was cleared, and its apparent wall-
trench was shown to be a chance alignment o f refuse-pits. The ‘hall’ in
cutting E F G proved the most curious o f the three.
Even before excavation started, it was obvious that the anomaly which
marked the more definite side o f the eastern ‘hall’ extended well beyond
the building, perhaps as a boundary fence. Excavation showed that it was
in fact another field ditch, evidently representing a fairly recent phase o f
agriculture, for plough scratches could still be seen running parallel to it in
the solid rock. As for the supposed transverse wall-trenches, the eastern
gable turned out to be a casual alignment o f pits, while the western gable
and the internal partition developed into a shallow zig-zag trench utterly
Plate 90 unlike anything which any o f us had seen before. Speculations about its
function, both serious and frivolous, developed freely, until one day some
one with a strong sense o f pattern suggested that we had uncovered two
arms o f a cross. Probing with metal rods, followed by three small but
precisely-sited cuttings, proved that this was correct. Our rectangle had
become a cruciform trench.
It was then possible to see that this cross-pattem had already been indicated
by the geophysical plot. But no-one would have dared to predict a cruciform
building on the summit o f Cadbury, whereas our speculations about a
rectangular hall were altogether reasonable. The fact remained that the
geophysical survey, even when misinterpreted in archaeological terms, had
72
Excavation 1Q67-IÇ68
led us to uncover a fascinating building plan, most probably the foundation I i$. 36
trench for a Late Saxon church.
Iron Age pits and buildings
The geophysical survey had certainly been successful in locating the larger
rock-cut pits. Most o f these had the organically-rich filling which was
expected to produce a strong magnetic anomaly. It seemed more surprising
that several Neolithic pits containing flints and pottery had also been detected,
despite the fact that their filling was free o f organic matter. The reason was
that these pits contained a red clay, rich in iron oxides, and it was this which
was causing a detectable anomaly. In addition to the flints and Neolithic
pottery, the pits excavated in 1967 and later, yielded a rich haul o f pottery, Plate 11
bone and metal objects. Even the top soil in cutting E F G was prolific,
despite centuries o f ploughing. Objects like a socketed bronze knife found
in 1967 strengthened our theories about a Late Bronze Age occupation; pins
o f continental ancestry added an exotic element to the earlier Iron Age
phases; decorative bronzes revealed the artistry o f later Iron Age metal Plates VIII, IX
workers.
So far as buildings were concerned, the geophysical survey had indicated Plates 40, 41
several circular rock-cut trenches which had something to do with Iron
Age round-houses, and we explored one o f these in cutting E F G. Un /•')(.. 8
fortunately, at the time we were left little wiser. N o floor level or hearths
were preserved inside the ring-ditch; there was no apparent entrance, and
no convincing evidence to show whether the trench had held wall-posts,
or had been a drainage gully outside the house. There was even a suspicion
that the ditch had been abandoned in an unfinished condition. There were
also several narrower curving gullies, which might have held light timber
walling, or might have been drip gullies beneath the eaves o f round-houses.
These represented further interesting structures which had not been indicated
by the geophysical survey.
This was why, when we were planning the 1968 campaign, we decided Fit», s
to follow up archaeological rather than geophysical indications. In the 1966
reconnaissance we had found traces o f buildings, including burned wattle-
and-daub which seemed to have come from a house wall, beside the big
ditch on Site B. In 1968 we therefore laid out an area-excavation to explore
these traces. The results were so exciting that the cutting was rapidly ex Plates 68. 69
panded. The burned wattlc-and-daub was in fart the remains o f Late Saxon
ovens. Beneath these were curving scoops in the bedrock, which marked
73
house platforms levelled o ff into the hillslope. If this interpretation was

Plates 4, 5 correct, then the ‘big ditch’ was a hollow -w ay or street, leading up from the
north-east entrance, with house-emplacements either side. The rock here
was a soft, even-surfaced sandstone, bright yellow in colour, in which
stake-holes only a couple o f inches in diameter showed up quite clearly.
Some o f the stake-holes marked an arc o f the wattle-walling o f a round
house which had been built in a very different manner from that in cutting
E F G. Finally, there were two rectangular buildings, small in size but
sophisticated in design, and laid out with regimented precision. These
immediately suggested that a R om an garrison had been established at Cad
bury just after the Conquest.
Arthurian possibilities, 1968
Our major cutting in the interior in 1968 was also based on archaeological
Plate 42 indications obtained in 1966. When we re-examined the plan o f Cutting C,
it was evident that the four largest post-holes formed a rectangle, about
Fig. 10, 6 sixteen feet by thirteen. In 1970 we came to realize that comparable structures
were common at Cadbury, but at the planning stage in 1968 we thought it
most probable that this rectangle was one element in a larger unit: just
possibly the central feature o f a circular house, more probably one bay o f a
large rectangular hall. Once again, we seemed to have an Arthurian or
Ethelredan building in our grasp. We cleared an area all round the rectangle
o f posts and when the top-soil had been removed the bed-rock was seen to
be honey-combed with the dark stains o f rock-cut pits. At this stage o f the
excavation, it was not clear which o f the pits had held posts and which were
for storage or refuse. Accepting as a w orking hypothesis that all o f them
might have held posts, it seemed possible to trace rows o f pits which in
corporated the original rectangle as one element in a large hall. But as work
progressed, first one and then another pit was eliminated, in the sense that it
produced no recognizable evidence for a post. B y the end o f the season, we
were left simply with a small rectangular building, closely surrounded with
pits.
Meanwhile, further east along the plateau, we were winning the first
Plate 82 unambiguous evidence for an Arthurian structure. Hope triumphing over
experience, we had laid out a small area cutting, Site L, across what was
Fig. 5 supposed to be one wall trench o f the central ‘hall’. As I have already said,
what the geophysical survey actually indicated was a chance alignment o f
rubbish pits. Running at a slight angle to this, however, and not really
74
distinguishable on the geophysical plot, was a row o f small posts set in a Eiji 30
narrow trench. Earth and gravel had been tamped around the posts to hold
them firm, and in this infilling were two fragments o f a Tintagel-type
wine-jar. As it happens, the fabric o f these jars is rather soft, so that when they
are broken the edges o f the sherds are rapidly worn smooth. But the two Plate XIII
sherds from the post-trench on Site L had sharp, unabraded edges. They
must have been tamped into the filling shortly after they were broken. In
other words, the post-trench is contemporary with Tintagel pottery, and
broadly Arthurian in date. Consistent with this, there was a relatively high
concentration o f such pottery scattered in the top soil o f Cutting L.
Having found part o f an Arthurian building, we had the urgent task o f
tracing its whole plan. A slight curve in the line o f posts suggested that they
marked either a curving gable wall, or possibly half one side - from gable to
doorway - o f a boat-shaped building, which would have been appropriate
for a Dark-Age hall. But very strenuous efforts failed to produce clear
traces o f the other walls o f the building. The most that could be said was that
their structure must have been quite different from the row o f small, close-
set posts which we had discovered. This was obviously a very tantalizing
note on which to end the 1968 season - but equally, the promise which it held
for future exploration was a great stimulus in planning our 1969 campaign.
75
IV Fulfilment 1969-1970
Policy and organization
When, late in 1968, the Supervisors’ Council considered the past season’s
work, it became obvious that research at Cadbury could not be confined
within the original three-year programme. The reasons were both archaeo
logical and financial. W ork on the south-west gate had already been put
behind schedule by the discovery o f a major post-Ethelredan phase; and
it was impossible to believe that the Arthurian gate and four or more Iron
Age precursors (to judge from the rampart sequence) could be examined
satisfactorily in a single season. On the summit plateau, if we explored a
major Arthurian building in 1969, we would need to search more widely
for ancillary buildings in a follow-up season. In general terms, however
much we might accomplish in 1969, it would still be necessary to dig for a
further season in order to tie up the loose ends.
The financial case for a 1970 season arose from the fact that I was about to
undertake a lecture tour in the United States in the Spring o f 1969. M y
actual earnings from lecture fees would, o f course, be available to help pay
for the 1969 season; but the contacts which I hoped to establish in the States
were unlikely to yield returns in hard cash before 1970. These reasons
seemed cogent to those o f us who were involved in the detailed planning
o f the dig. The landowners very readily assented to an extension o f the work
into 1970; and in due course, the Cam elot Research Committee also agreed.
Meanwhile, the work for the 1969 season was planned on the assumption
that it would be brought to completion by a final campaign in 1970. Early
in that year, a special appeal was launched to raise funds for the final season.
It provoked a most generous response, most notably from public bodies
like the British Academ y, the Pilgrim Trust, and the University o f Wales.
And, in complete vindication o f m y optimism, there was a grant o f five
thousand dollars from the National Geographic Society o f America, and
a lesser one from the American Philosophical Society.
T w o other important organizational changes were made in 1969 and
1970. In 1966, the decision to mount an excavation as well as a survey party
76
Fulfilment 1969-1970
g T h e f u ll extent o f excavation (solid black) and geophysical survey (stippled) at the end o f the 1 Q70
season
h a d b e e n t a k e n r a t h e r la t e , s o it w a s n e c e s s a r y t o a r r a n g e a c c o m m o d a t i o n -
b e d s, fo o d a n d h o t b a th s - at v e r y sh o r t n o t ic e . W e w e r e v e r y fo r t u n a te
t h a t o n e o f o u r S o m e r s e t c o m m i t t e e m e m b e r s , L . C . H a y w a r d , w a s a b le t o
o r g a n i z e t h is f o r u s a t C h i l t o n C a n t e l o S c h o o l , a b o u t s i x m ile s f r o m t h e d i g .
T h i s h a d m a n y a d v a n t a g e s , b u t it m e a n t t h a t p o t e n t i a l d i g g i n g t i m e w a s
lo s t in t r a v e l l i n g , a n d a ls o t h a t t h e d i g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n h a d n o d i r e c t c o n t r o l
o v e r o u r d o m e s tic c o m fo r t s .
W e t h e r e f o r e d e c id e d f o r o u r t w o fin a l s e a s o n s t o e s t a b li s h a f u l l y e q u i p p e d
c a m p at th e v e r y f o o t o f C a d b u r y . T h e d e c is io n w a s g r e e t e d w it h b o th
77
welcome and opposition in the village o f South Cadbury, and we gained

some interesting insights into the workings o f grass-roots democracy.
Eventually, through the good offices o f Mr and Mrs M ontgomery, we
found a superb site just below the northern defences, where it proved
possible to lay out a well-equipped camp. The weary digger, dropping down
to his tent or hut at the end o f the day, looked out across the Somerset levels,
and the romantics among us took spiritual refreshment from golden sunsets
over Glastonbury Tor. The capital cost o f the camp was high, but it was
more than repaid by the improvement in both morale and actual working
hours.
The second change concerned our personnel in 1970. In previous years
our man-power had been very high, with over a hundred people at work
at any one time. Sometimes, most notably in 1967, many o f our volunteers
were inexperienced, and supervisory skills had to be spread very thinly.
In 1970, however, the absolute necessity o f completing our research, and
o f doing so in good style, made it imperative to tighten up our whole
organization. We considered that a team half the size o f previous years, but
consisting almost entirely o f workers who had already proved themselves
at Cadbury, could be far more effective than a larger team in which skill
and commitment were both more diluted. The results completely justified
this view. The hazards and fortunes o f discovery made 1970 our most
complicated and most exciting season. The highly-tempered research team
which we had forged over the previous seasons proved itself fully competent
to cope with the hazards and to exploit the fortunes.
The exploration of the Arthurian hall, 1969
The first o f the fortunes was a legacy from 1968: the exploration and defini-
Plates 16, 17, 83, 84 tion o f the Arthurian building indicated by the wall-trench containing
Tintagel pottery. Immediately after this was discovered in 1968 we had
tried to locate other parts o f the building by means o f limited but carefully
sited cuttings. At the start o f the 1969 season, we continued this policy o f
predicting the building plan, and then testing our hypotheses by selective
excavation. But we were getting no result, and finally exasperation drove us
to radical action. What we needed was to see a broad pattern. The post
trench was certainly part o f a rectangular building: there must therefore be
walls parallel to it, and others at right angles. If we cleared the bed-rock in
a wide swathe at right angles to the trench, we must necessarily find other
walls.
78
I:u(filmait 1969-1970
So we used a mechanical excavator to strip the topsoil in a band five metres I ig. 3
wide and forty-five long. When the bed-rock was cleaned down, a row o f
post-holes appeared, in line with one end o f the post-trench, and at right
angles to it. This gave us one long wall, and incidentally demonstrated that
our post-trench was an internal partition. We now knew the length and
breadth o f the building, and could lay out a cutting adequate to reveal its
full plan. In point o f fact the cutting revealed an appalling complexity o f
rock-cut features. In addition to ill-defined pits and gullies, these included
the wall-trenches o f two round houses; an arc o f a ring-ditch; a ring o f
post-holes surrounding a hearth ; storage and refuse pits o f both Iron Age
and post-Rom an date; post-holes with Late Saxon pottery; and a medieval
field boundary. There were also post-holes in lines cither parallel to the
post-trench or at right angles to it, and therefore potentially associated with
it.
The reduction o f this chaos and complexity to order and simplicity was
a two-fold process. Firstly there was the elimination o f everything which
could be shown, by associated finds, to be o f a non-Arthurian date, and
everything which was structurally out o f character with the post-trench
and the lineable post-holes. Then more positively, there was the definition
o f the post-holes which certainly or probably belonged together, cither
because they were similar in width, depth, or general character, or because
they made sense in terms o f plan and structure. Obviously there is a great
deal o f hypothesis-framing or model-making involved here. It will always
be possible to dispute the attribution o f individual holes, but despite this the 30
general pattern o f the Arthurian building was clear. Its size, over sixty feet
by thirty, and its dominant position on the hill, show that it was the principal
building - the feasting hall, in fact - o f the Arthurian stronghold.
Temples and workshops
The expansion o f Site L to uncover the whole o f the Arthurian hall was only Plates 12, 13
one part o f the continued exploration o f the hill-top. B y the end o f the 1970
season we had examined about one fifth o f the summit plateau, the central
area o f the fort and the most convenient ground for building. I have already
explained the broad policy which underlay this. The detailed programme in ii$. s
1969 was determined by the needs o f Site L, and by the decision to seek more
information about the Late Bronze Age and earliest Iron Age phases o f the
settlement. In 1967, finds o f these periods had clustered most strongly to
wards the south o f Site E F G, so this was expanded yet further south in
79
js.______ í ______ r
JjO'
10 Principal structures revealed in the interior. 1 - 3 fie ld

ditches; 4 , 5 post-hole clusters, perhaps house-sites; 6 - 1 4
s ix - (and fo u r -) post buildings ; 6 and 9 are possibly shrines;
1 3 Arthurian-period hall ; 1 6 ancillary building ; 1 7 - 2 1 ring-
ditches o f Iron A g e houses; 2 2 , 2 3 palisades and post
trenches, not certainly fo r houses; 2 4 , 2 3 stake-built houses;
2 6 possible house-site; 2 7 porched shrine; 2 8 fence bounding
zone o f animal burials; 2 9 foundation trench o f Ethelredan
church ; 3 0 probable R om an military buildings; 3 1 hollou>-way
Plate 43 Cutting N . In 1970, we decided to fill the gap between Site L and the E F G N
area with Cuttings P and S, and to expand around N in Cutting T. The last
Fig. 9 trench also involved an act o f piety. The first geophysical anomaly that we
had interpreted in archaeological terms was a ring-ditch on the eastern
Plates 45, IV, V part o f the plateau. One o f our final acts in 1970 was to explore this anomaly
in the eastern half o f Site T. This proved to be one o f the anomalies which
gave a very precise prediction o f an archaeological feature.
Our most remarkable discovery on Site N occurred in an area where the
geophysical plot was blank. At the south-eastern comer o f the cutting we
80
Fulfilment 1 969-1970
u n co v e re d a w e ll- d e fin e d re c t a n g u la r w a ll-t r e n c h , w h ic h had h e ld th e Fig. 10, 27

w o o d e n u p r i g h t s o f a s m a ll s q u a r e b u i l d i n g w i t h a d e e p v e r a n d a h o n t h e
e a s t e r n s id e . L a r g e q u a n t i t i e s o f p o t t e r y , b e l o n g i n g t o t h e v e r y e n d o f t h e
Iro n A g e , h a d b e e n p a c k e d a r o u n d th e p o sts, so th e re w a s n o d o u b t o f th e
d a te o f th e b u ild in g . G r a n t e d an Ir o n A g e d a t e , t h e p la n w a s u n i q u e in
B r i t a i n . In it s e lf , it s u g g e s t e d a s h r in e , w i t h a n in n e r s a n c t u m re se rv e d fo r
p r ie s t s a n d a p o r c h w h e r e t h e p r o f a n e w o r s h i p p e r m i g h t m a k e h is o f f e r i n g s .
A p p r o p r i a t e l y e n o u g h , in a n a r r o w z o n e b e s id e t h e a p p r o a c h t o t h e s h r in e Plates 46, 48
w e u n c o v e r e d a b o u t t w e n t y b u r i a l s o f y o u n g d o m e s t i c a n i m a l s : a f e w p ig s .
81
Fulfilment 1 969-1970
Three groups o f Iron A g e features

are picked out: in light stipple, the
ring-ditch o f a round-house, and a
pair o f curving trenches possibly
connected with another round
house; in heavy stipple, large
storage-pits, some o f them later
than the abandonment o f the round
house; and top-left, the fence-lin e
bounding the zone o f animal burials.
T h e gap in the south-east peri
meter o f the ring-ditch probably
marks the house-entrance
T h e features picked out on plan B r ......... U ----- ----- - 0 " U CJ

have heat eliminatedfrom this plan.
? 0' o 0 •» O
T h e features which remain are: in o r
heavy stipple, Neolithic p its ; in
0 °o CQ) "'° °C>
outline, small or shallow pits and
post-holes; and in light stipple, ^ o ° 7 0
deeper pits capable o f holding sub
stantial posts fo r timber buildings. 0 0 Q
0
° 0 O(^P o ~ □ o o
°o ° . o
* ° oO
A Ŵ A -Q -: 0 o °
0
......9 .......
S 4 3 2 0
1
J___ ___ I___ L I J
l _________L.
Post-holes o f comparable depth,

diameter and character fa ll into
fo u r groups o f six , one o f fo u r, and
two pairs. O n this basis, five rec
tangular buildings may be inferred.
O verlappin g lay-outs show that
not all these structures can have
been standing at the same time. O n
the other hand, the m ulti-lobcd
post-pits o f the building on the
extreme right show that this had
been rebuilt several times, w hile
the pairing o f post-pits on the
south side o f the next building
shows that this too had been
rebuilt
some lambs, but principally new ly-bom calves. Presumably the burials
represented sacrifices in front o f the shrine. These discoveries added a new
dimension to our ideas about the function o f hillforts. It had long been
known that R om ano-Celtic temples were built within derelict forts in the
late third and fourth centuries a d , but this was the first positive indication
o f religious activity within a fort in the Iron Age.
Plates 47, 50, 63 North o f the zone o f animal burials, we found a surprising collection o f
ironwork, especially swords, daggers, and fittings from dagger-scabbards.
Some o f this weaponry had been disturbed by ploughing, so nothing could
be learned from its actual position. One group, however, lay in a shallow
pit, very similar to those which contained the animal burials, so this too may
have been an offering at the shrine. On the other hand, some o f the ironwork
looked like scrap, and this was even more true o f fragments o f bronze from
Plates 51, 52 the vicinity. These included half o f a bronze shield mount, decorated with
Fig. 22 elaborate Celtic scroll work. This is a major piece o f Celtic art in its own
right, and it gains added importance from being one o f the very few objects
o f fine metalwork to come from a hillfort. Nearby was a group o f furnaces,
Plate 55 which we interpreted as an armourer’s workshop on the evidence o f the
scrap bronze and iron. It may be that we have here two quite separate groups
o f metalwork, the one connected with ritual and the other with industrial
activities.
Houses, circular and rectangular
The exploration o f the summit plateau, and further work at Site B on the
northern slope, also produced valuable evidence about domestic activity.
One reason for exploring Site B was that stake-holes and other small features
showed up very clearly against the smooth surface o f the pale yellow
sandstone. An arc o f a stake- or wattle-built house had been discovered in
1968, but most o f its plan had been lost in the big ditch or hollow-way.
Plate 53 Fortunately in 1969 and 1970 we were able to reveal the entire plan o f a
wattle-walled house, which had been built on a platform scooped into the
Fig. 10, 25 hillside just to the east o f the hollow -w ay. The discovery o f this house-
platform was particularly surprising in view o f our conclusions in 1966.
Evidently after the house was finally abandoned, the scoop had silted up
with rain-washed soil to such an extent that there was not the least trace o f
it at the surface. On the air photographs and in the geophysical survey it
had merged into the large, irregular blob o f the big ditch. This explains
why we had not predicted the house-platform before we discovered it by
84
3 i S k e le t o n o f a y o u n g a d u lt m a le , fo u n d in a p it d u g in to th e re a r o f B a n k i o n
S it e I. T h e r e is n o e v id e n c e f o r th e c a u se o f d e a th , b u t th e lo c a t io n o f th e b u r ia l
s u g g e s t s th a t it m a y h a v e b e e n a d e d ic a t o r y s a c r ific e f o r th e U lt im a t e Ir o n A g e
d e fe n c e , R a m p a r t D (p p . 1 0 2 - 3 ) . S c a le o f ce n t im e t r e s
3 2 T h e f in a l sta g e in th e e x c a v a t io n o f th e s o u t h - w e s t g a te in 19 7 0 . A l l b u ilt w a lli n g h as b e e n r e m o v e d ,
l e a v i n g o n l y r o c k - c u t fe a tu re s . In th e b a c k g r o u n d to th e r i g h t o f th e u p p e r t w o - m e t r e p o le is th e f lo o r o f th e
e a rlie s t g u a r d - c h a m b e r (p . 1 3 0 ) . T h i c k b la c k st re a k s in th e sid e o f th e t r e n c h m a r k ash a n d c h a r c o a l l y i n g o n
th e u p p e r f lo o r s o f th a t g u a r d - c h a m b e r . T h e l o w e r r a n g i n g p o le sta n d s b e sid e th e h o l l o w - w a y w h ic h
d e v e lo p e d d u r in g th e I r o n A g e , in a m a s s iv e p it w h ic h h e ld o n e o f th e u p r ig h t s o f th e U lt im a t e I r o n A g e
g a te (p. 1 6 2 ) . T h e d iffe r e n c e in h e ig h t b e t w e e n th e e a r ly g u a r d - c h a m b e r f lo o r a n d th e U lt im a t e p a s s a g e - w a y
is a n in d ic a t io n o f th e a m o u n t o f tr a ffic t h r o u g h th e g a te in th e c o u rs e o f th e I r o n A g e . B e y o n d th e tr e n c h ,
th e p a ss a g e tu r n s s h a r p ly t o th e r i g h t d o w n th e t r e e - f i lle d g u l l y
3 3 , 3 4 L o o k i n g o u t t h r o u g h th e U l t im a t e I r o n A g e g a t e (Fig. 12). T o th e r i g h t o f th e p a ss a g e is th e g u a r d - >

c h a m b e r , c u t b a c k in to th e r o c k in o r d e r to c o m p e n s a t e f o r th e w e a r i n g d o w n o f th e p a s s a g e - w a y . T h e
b r o n z e fa c e - p la q u e w a s fo u n d o n th e g u a r d - c h a m b e r f lo o r (P la te X I I ) . T h e d o u b le le a v e d g a te w a s set a t th e
p o in t w h e r e th e p a ss a g e is n a r r o w e d b y an o ffs e t in th e w a lli n g o n th e le ft ( m o s t c le a r l y seen in th e l o w e r v i e w ) .
T h e sto n e c e n t r e - s t o p f o r th e g a t e can b e seen in th e p a ss a g e at th e n e a r e n d o f a p a ir o f lig h t c o lo u r e d p la n k s.
B e y o n d th e g a t e it se lf, th e w a lli n g ru n s o n to lin k u p w i t h th e h o r n - w o r k w h ic h can b e seen b e h in d th e
p h o t o g r a p h i c t o w e r . T h e la r g e p it b e h in d th e le f t - h a n d p a ss a g e w a ll h e ld th e d o o r - p o s t s o f th e m id d le -
p e r i o d g u a r d - c h a m b e r ; see P la t e 35
3 5 O n e o f th e p a ir e d g u a r d - c h a m b e r s o f th e m id d le p h a se o f th e s o u t h - w e s t g a te (p . 13 4 ) ,
th a t o n th e le f t - h a n d sid e l o o k i n g o u t. T h e f lo o r o f th e g u a r d - c h a m b e r is a lr e a d y p a r t ly c u t
d o w n in t o th e r o c k to c o m p e n s a t e f o r th e w e a r i n g o f th e h o l l o w - w a y , w h ic h lie s a c ro ss th e
b o t t o m o f th e p ic t u r e . T h e h o r iz o n t a l m e t r e - r o d lies o n th e a c tu a l f lo o r ; th e re a re h e a rth s o f
t w o p e r io d s in f r o n t o f it, a n d a h o a r d o f s lin g - s t o n e s to its r ig h t . T h e t w o v e r t ic a l p o le s stan d
in a l a r g e p it w h ic h h a d a t le a st t w o p h a se s o f u se. It h e ld p o sts f o r th e d o o r o f th e g u a r d -
c h a m b e r ; f o r th e g a t e i t s e lf ; a n d f o r th e t i m b e r r e v e t m e n t o f th e p a ss a g e . A n o t h e r r e v e t m e n t
p o s t s t o o d in th e r i g h t - h a n d p it
3 6 , 37 D e t a ils o f th e g a t e a r r a n g e m e n t s o f th e
U lt im a t e I r o n A g e g a te . T h e u p r i g h t stile o f th e
a c tu a l w o o d e n d o o r h a d a m a s s iv e ir o n sp ik e
d r iv e n in to it, a n d w a s th e n b o u n d w i t h an ir o n
c o lla r to p r e v e n t s p lit t in g . T h e s p ik e h a d a
s lig h t ly d o m e d h e a d , w h ic h tu r n e d o n a so lid
t i m b e r s ill- b e a m ly i n g p a r t ly a c ro ss th e p a ss a g e
a n d p a r t ly u n d e r th e p a ss a g e w a ll. T h e m e t r e -
r o d sta n d s in th e r o c k - c u t slo t f o r th e s ill- b e a m .
A s th e b e a m d e c a y e d , th e sp ik e a n d c o lla r
s u b s id e d to th e p o s it io n in w h ic h th e y w e r e
d is c o v e r e d . J u s t a b o v e th e m w a s f o u n d an ir o n
k e y , w h il e sp e a r -h e a d s , k n iv e s a n d fit t in g s o f
u n c e r ta in p u r p o s e la y o n th e p a ss a g e f lo o r to th e
le ft. T h e w h it e n in g o f th e r o c k to th e r i g h t o f
th e m e t r e - r o d m a r k s w h e r e th e lim e s t o n e
b lo c k s o f th e w a ll h a d b e e n b u r n e d to lim e in
th e f in a l c o n f la g r a t io n (p. 1 7 1 )
38 T h e w a ll- t r e n c h ( o r d r a in a g e - g u lly ) o f an Ir o n A g e r o u n d h o u s e d is c o v e r e d b e h in d
B a n k i o n S it e A in 19 6 6 (p p . 4 9 , 6 8 ). T h e g r e a t d e p th o f o v e r b u r d e n m a d e it im p r a c t ic
a b le to e x p lo r e th is f u r t h e r . T h e r a n g i n g p o le s a re six fe e t lo n g
3 9 F r a g m e n t a r y d r y sto n e w a lli n g ,
p e r h a p s f r o m an Ir o n A g e b u ild in g ,
u n c o v e r e d b e h in d B a n k i o n S it e A
(p . 4 9 ). S c a le o f in c h e s a n d c e n t i
m e tre s . T h e ro u n d e d sto n e in th e
m id d le c o u r s e is n o t a d is c a rd e d q u e r n ,
b u t a d isk o r d r u m o f c h a lk o f
u n k n o w n p u rp o se
4 0 T h e e x c a v a t io n o f th e r o u n d h o u s e o n S it e G in p r o g r e s s in 19 6 7 . (Fig. 10, 2 1 ; p . 7 3 ). T h e r in g - d it c h p r o b
a b ly h e ld th e t im b e r u p r ig h t s o f th e h o u s e w a ll. T h e p o s t - h o le s w it h in th e r in g - d it c h h a v e n o a p p a r e n t
c o n n e c t io n w i t h th e h o u s e . C o m p a r e P la t e s 9 a n d 4 1
4i T h e n o r t h e r n a n d e a st e rn p a rt s o f S ite s F a n d G a t th e e n d o f th e 19 6 7 se a so n .
I r o n A g e s t o r a g e p it s in th e f o r e g r o u n d ; fie ld b o u n d a r y - d it c h a n d I r o n A g e r i n g -
d itc h in th e b a c k g r o u n d . (S e e a ls o P la t e s 9, 4 0 a n d 9 0). A l l th e m a jo r r o c k - c u t
fe a tu re s h a d b e e n p r e d ic t e d f r o m g e o p h y s ic a l in d ic a tio n s , b u t th e s m a lle r p o s t -
h o le s h a d n o t (p p . 7 0 - 2 , Fig. 8). N o c o h e r e n t p a tt e r n s h a v e b e e n r e c o g n iz e d a m o n g
th e p o s t - h o le s
4 2 P its, p o s t - h o le s , a n d a fie ld d itc h o n S it e C in 19 6 8 . T h e s i x - p o s t sh r in e {Fig.>

10, 6) is in th e c e n t r e o f th e a re a , b u t c a n n o t b e d is tin g u is h e d in th is v i e w (p p . 1 3 6 ,
153)
4 3 T h e e x c a v a t io n o f S it e P in 19 7 0 . B e y o n d th e c e n t ra l r o u n d h o u s e (Fig. 10, 19 ) >
a re th e fa in t tr a c e s o f a n o t h e r (Fig. 10, 18 ) , a n d th e re is a c le a r e r e x a m p le to th e r i g h t
(Fig. 10, 1 7 ) . S e e a ls o P la t e 4 4 . T h e s o u t h e r n d e fe n c e s a re in th e b a c k g r o u n d
44 T h e p r in c ip a l r o u n d h o u s e o n S it e P (Fig. 10, 19 ) c o m p le t e ly e x c a v a t e d . In th is
c ase, th e r i n g - d i t c h p r o d u c e d c le a r e v id e n c e th a t it h a d c o n t a in e d u p r ig h t s in th e
f o r m o f sp lit t im b e r s , set sid e b y sid e to f o r m th e h o u s e w a l l (p . 1 3 5 ) . O u t s id e th e
r i n g - d i t c h , at a b o u t f o u r o ’ c lo c k f r o m th e c e n t re , a re p o s t - h o le s f o r a p o r c h . T h e
la r g e p its a r o u n d th e h o u s e a re s t o r a g e p its, p r i n c ip a lly o f th e L a t e I r o n A g e , w h il e
s o m e o f th e s m a ll h o le s h e ld th e p o st s o f s i x - p o s t r e c t a n g u la r st ru c tu r e s lik e Fig. 10, 8
45 S it e T in 1970. T h e p e n a n n u la r r o c k - c u t d itc h h a d b e e n p r e d ic t e d o n th e b a sis o f
th e fir st s ig n ific a n t g e o p h y s i c a l a n o m a ly to b e r e c o g n iz e d in 1967 (Fig. 6). E x c a v a
tio n c o n f i r m e d th e e x is t e n c e o f a r in g - d i t c h f o r a r o u n d h o u se w it h a t least t w o
b u ild in g p h a s e s ; a n d a ls o r e v e a le d n u m e r o u s s t o r a g e o r re fu s e p its, a n d p o s t - h o le s
f o r s e v e r a l f o u r - a n d s i x - p o s t r e c t a n g u la r b u ild in g s , m o s t o f w h ic h h a d n o t
a p p e a r e d as g e o p h y s i c a l a n o m a lie s . F o r in t e r p r e t a t iv e p la n s, see Fig. 1 1 ; see a ls o
P la t e s I V a n d V . In th e r i g h t b a c k g r o u n d a re p a r a lle l fe n c e lin e s (Fig. 10, 2 8 ),
d e m a r c a t in g th e a rea o f a n im a l- b u r ia ls
4 6 , 4 7 D e t a ils o f S it e
N . T h e l a y e r o f fin e
c o b b lin g , la id d u r in g
an e a r ly p h a se o f th e
Iro n A g e , has b een cu t
in t o b y th e a n im a l-
a n d w e a p o n - b u r i a ls o f
th e L a te Ir o n A g e (p p .
8 1 , 84, 16 4 ) . T h e a n i
m a ls w e r e p r i n c ip a lly
n e w ly - b o r n c a lv e s ,
but th e re w e re also
so m e sh e e p a n d p ig s .
F o r th e ir o n k n ife ,
d a g g e r , a n d th e s c a b
b a r d p la te w h ic h lie s
a c ro s s it in th r e e p ie c e s ,
see P la t e 5 0 . It is r e
m a r k a b le th a t th ese
o b je c t s , w h ic h lie ju s t
b e lo w th e t o p - s o il,
h a v e s u r v iv e d c e n t u r
ies o f p lo u g h in g
48 B u r ia l o f th e c o m p le t e c a rc a ss o f an o x im
m e d ia t e ly in f r o n t o f th e o r i g i n a l s ix - p o s t t im b e r
sh r in e {Fig. 10 , 9) w h ic h lies j u s t to th e r ig h t o f th e
s t a n d in g f ig u r e . T h e w a ll- t r e n c h o f th e la te r
p o r c h e d sh r in e is in th e b a c k g r o u n d (p p . 8 0 - 1 ,
163-4)
49 V e r t ic a l p h o t o g r a p h o f th e w a ll- t r e n c h o f th e
p o r c h e d sh r in e {Fig. 10, 2 7 ). O n e m e t r e g r id . T h e
tr e n c h w h ic h w o u ld h a v e h e ld th e w o o d e n w a lls o f
th e s h r in e , c o n t a in e d p o t t e r y d a t in g to th e last d e c a d e s
o f th e Ir o n A g e
5 0 I r o n o b je c t s f r o m th e w e a p o n - b u r i a ls o n S it e N (p. 84). R in g h a n d le s f r o m c a u ld r o n s , a le a f
s h a p e d s p e a r - h e a d , a k n if e , a d a g g e r b la d e , a n d s c a b b a r d p la te s , c h a p e s, a n d b in d in g s ; see P la t e 4 7
f o r s o m e o f th e se o b je c t s in situ. T h e d a g g e r is 1 5 ^ in s lo n g
5 i , 5 2 B r o n z e fr a g m e n t s c o m p r is in g a b o u t h a l f o f a m o u n t f r o m an I r o n A g e sh ie ld , w i t h a re p o u s s é o r n a m e n t o f
b o sse s a n d s c ro lls in th e L a T è n e (C e lt ic ) a r t s t y le (p p . 84, 1 5 4 ) . T h e p h o t o s s h o w th e fr a g m e n t as it w a s fo u n d ,
b a d l y d e fa c e d b y c o r r o s i o n ; a n d u n d e r tr e a t m e n t in th e B r it is h M u s e u m , an X - r a d i o g r a p h w h ic h r e v e a ls th e
d e c o r a t io n m o r e c le a r ly . O v e r a ll le n g t h o f th e f r a g m e n t 7 in s. F o r a re c o n s t r u c t io n o f th e sh ie ld see Fig. 22
5 3 N e a r - v e r t ic a l v i e w o f th e s t a k e - b u ilt r o u n d
h o u se set o n a p la t f o r m le v e lle d in to th e n o r t h e r n
slo p es o f th e h ill o n S it e B (Fig. 10, 2 5 ; p p . 84, 1 3 5 ) .
T h e r e a re f o u r o r m o r e c o n c e n t r ic r in g s o f st a k e -
h o le s, in d ic a t in g th a t th e h o u se h a d b e e n r e b u ilt
s e v e r a l t im e s o n th e sa m e site. It is n o t c e rt a in th a t
th e la r g e s t o r a g e p it s a re c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h th e
h o u se
5 4 O x - s k u l l la id o n a b e d o f s to n e s a t th e b o t t o m
o f a r o c k - c u t p it o n S it e C (p p . 7 4 , 1 3 6 , 1 5 3 )
5 5 T h e m e t a l - w o r k i n g a re a o n S it e N (p p . 84 , 15 6 ) . In th e f o r e g r o u n d , b e n e a th
th e o n e - m e t r e r o d , is a h e a r th o f l e v e l sla b s ; in th e r i g h t b a c k g r o u n d is a c o m p le x
o f h e a rth s o r fu r n a c e s s u r r o u n d e d b y v e r t ic a l slab s
Fulfilment 19 6 9 -19 7 0
excavation. It was nevertheless disturbing that such a major alteration o f

the bed-rock had merged so completely into the general slope o f the ground.
On the plateau we uncovered a number o f circular structures. On the
whole, the rock o f the plateau was too irregular to allow us to define features
as small as stake-holes, though in one area a faint curving groove in the rock
did mark the last vestige o f a round-house. Elsewhere a compacted spread Plates 46, 47
o f fine cobbling had, very surprisingly, escaped destruction by ploughing,
and arcs o f stake-holes could be detected both in the cobbling and below it.
But normally the Iron Age houses appeared as clear-cut gullies or trenches
in the solid rock. These had originally held timber walls, but very little
evidence was preserved to show either the size or arrangement o f the
timbers. Another disappointment was that, out o f all the houses located by
excavation, less than half had been indicated by the geophysical survey.
We had, o f course, confidently expected to find circular wooden houses
at Cadbury, because these are normal on British Iron Age sites. Indeed, in
recent decades the belief had grown up that, whereas their continental
ancestors had always built rectangular houses, the Iron Age Celts o f Britain
had built only circular ones. From the time when it was first formulated, it
was possible to show that this was a gross over-simplification. And from the
early 1960s, the realization had been grow ing that in some hill forts the only
residential accommodation had been in small oblong buildings, while
round-houses were lacking. At Cadbury, the six-post building found on Fig. to, 6
Site C in 1966 had appeared to be completely isolated; but in 1969, and to
an even greater extent in 1970, we were able to show that clusters o f post-
holes o f distinctive depths and character could be arranged into rectangular
four- and six-post patterns. As with the Arthurian hall, the elucidation o f
these structures out o f a great confusion o f pits and post-holes was as much
a matter o f elimination as o f establishing positive characteristics. Rectangular Fig. 11
six-posters were particularly common on Site T, where they appeared to be
earlier than a circular house, and probably earlier than the cobbling as well.
The rectangular building-trenches discovered on Site B in 1968 were quite Plate 69
a different matter. Our work in 1969.helped to emphasize their regular, even
regimented, lay-out. In terms o f finds, these buildings could be dated to the Fig. to, 30
very end o f the Iron Age, or to any later phase in the history o f Cadbury.
But it was difficult to believe that anyone other than Rom an soldiery would
have set out their buildings with such precision. So it was no surprise when
sixty feet away, just across the hollow-way, we found a Rom an field oven.
With it were various discarded bronzes which showed that a military unit Plates 70-72
had been repairing armour and other equipment damaged in battle.
IOI
Fulfilment 1Q 6Ç-1970
The defences in 1969 and 1970

The spectacular success o f the mechanical cut across the ramparts in 1967
Fig- 5 encouraged us in 1969 to excavate four more trenches by machine. T w o
o f these, A and I, were intended to carry pre-existing cuts down to bed
rock; J ’69 replaced J ’67, in what was thought to be a better position; and
K was located beside the south-west gate in order to preview the Iron Age
stratification there. While we knew that the cost o f hiring a digger and
dumpers would be high, we believed that the expense would be more than
justified by the additional evidence we would win about the construction
and history o f Bank 1. And we had two more specific problems in mind as
well. In 1968, we had found only two sherds o f pottery which were relevant
to the date o f the earliest Iron Age rampart. It was reasonable to hope that
four further cuttings might increase this evidence. Secondly, we wanted to
look on all sides o f the hill for further traces o f the Neolithic bank which
we had found at the head o f the slope in Trench D.
In fact, this programme ran into many difficulties. In Cutting A, the digger
had to be laid o ff because it was scooping out a pit containing interesting
Plate 3 i tim ber-work and pottery. On Site I, it was stopped, almost miraculously,
as its bucket scraped the skull o f a human skeleton. And apart from particular
incidents o f this kind, we were left with deep reservations about the value o f
machine cuttings across complicated ramparts like Bank 1 at Cadbury.
Mechanical digging necessarily destroys most o f the evidence in plan - and
this includes, for instance, defensive walls. Bearing in mind that all archaeo
logical excavation is a destructive technique, this degree o f destruction is
justified if the evidence can still be clearly seen in the sides o f the trench, and
can be interpreted there. But when a dry-stone wall is sliced through by the
digger, the stones which comprise it frequently drop out o f the face o f the
cutting. N othing in the w ay o f coherent structures is left behind, and rational
interpretation becomes almost impossible.
Despite these limitations, some interesting information was salvaged from
the mechanical cuts. A further phase was added to the history o f Cadbury
Plates 21, 22 by the discovery o f a large part o f a Late Neolithic pot at the very bottom
Fig- 14 o f Trench A. Close by was a stake-hole, hinting at a Late Neolithic house or
other structure. Unfortunately, it was impracticable to remove fifteen feet
o f overburden, in the form o f the Iron Age ramparts, in order to explore
this level extensively. In Cuttings A, I and J no trace was found o f a Neolithic
bank comparable with that suspected in D. In fact, no Early Neolithic
material o f any kind was found in these trenches. The mechanical cut in K
did yield a few sherds o f Early Neolithic pot, and some contemporary flints,
102
Fu i filment 19 6 9 -19 7 0 .
but there was not even a hint o f a bank associated with them. Consequently,
in my interim report on the 1969 season, I wrote o ff the idea o f an enclosed
or defended hill-top settlement in the Neolithic period. But the hypothesis
was revived in 1970, when we found beside the south-west gate a rock-cut
ditch, K618. This was over eight feet wide and four feet deep, and had a
red clay filling which we considered characteristically Neolithic.
For the Iron Age, the most interesting discovery was a human skeleton Plate 31
on Site I, for this was the only regular burial to be found in Iron Age Cadbury.
Even this can scarcely be counted as a normal burial. A young man, with no
signs o f physical defects, had been crammed head down into a small pit in
the back o f Bank 1. Another phase o f rampart-construction was then built
on top. The general character o f the burial suggested that it was a dedicatory
sacrifice intended to bless the later rampart.
Apart from its intrinsic interest, the skeleton was important because its
presence forced us to abandon the mechanical excavation o f the front half
o f Trench I. In the course o f completing the excavation by hand-digging,
we discovered clearly-defined lines o f stones running through the Arthurian-
period defence. These showed us where a framework o f heavy timbers had
rotted away. The frame had been constructed o f horizontal beams, running
both parallel to the rampart face and at right angles to it, which were slotted
in to front and rear rows o f upright posts. Similar evidence for wooden Plate 74
beams had been found in Cut D in 1967, but at that time they appeared to
be a purely local feature, and they were therefore interpreted as evidence for
a tower. N ow , however, we realized that elaborate timber framing was a
regular feature o f this phase o f Bank 1. So, piece by piece, a complete picture
o f the Arthurian defence was appearing.
The elusive Arthurian gate
At the south-west entrance, our programme for 1969 and 1970 was to explore
the Arthurian gate and the last o f its Iron Age precursors in 1969; to protect
the remains with plastic sheeting and turf during the winter; and to complete
the excavation o f the Iron Age gates in 1970. Bearing in mind other final
seasons on Iron Age gateways, notably that at Maiden Castle, Dorset, in
1937, I had no doubt that our last season would be protracted. But I was
determined that the exploration o f the gate should be completed satisfac
torily and in this I had the support o f a devoted team on the site itself.
Much o f the 1969 season was taken up with expanding the scale o f our Plates 87-89; Fig. 5
operations at the gate, which in 1968 had been largely confined to the en-
103
trance passage itself. One o f our particular problems was how the Ethelredan
Fig- 35 gate was placed in relation to the perimeter. At one stage o f the w ork it
seemed likely that the gate was set forward from the wall in a projecting
tower, and extensive clearance was needed to disprove this idea. A major
difficulty in working in the entrance was that some six feet o f soil had
accumulated since the Ethelredan period. The removal o f this was just a
hard slog, devoid o f any interest, but fortunately we were able to improve
both mechanical efficiency and morale by installing a small crane.
Towards the end o f the 1969 season, we came to believe that the building
o f the Ethelredan gate passage had destroyed most o f the evidence for the
Arthurian gate. On the right o f the passage, no pre-Ethelredan stonework
was preserved. On the left, there was a short row o f walling which had the
same character as the wall-face o f the Stony Bank which had been uncovered
on Site I in 1967; that is to say, R om an dressed stone was re-used in a timber-
Plate 76 framed dry-stone wall. There was no doubt that this was the Arthurian
wall-face, but there appeared to be no gate structure or road-way associated
with it. The walling broke o ff towards the passage-way, and the first
detectable road surface was some twenty inches below it. This well-laid
cobbling was attributed to the end o f the Iron Age, and we believed that the
Arthurian gate and road had both disappeared. The 1969 season ended on
this note o f disappointment.
In 1970 we began by rem oving the protective covers, and then cleaned
Plate 75 up the supposed Iron Age cobbling. Our first move into new ground was
a small exploratory cut across the road. Immediately we found, among the
cobbles, an iron axe-hammer o f Rom an or later date; and beneath them,
Plates 79, 80, XI a silver ring or buckle with Anglo-Saxon ornament o f the sixth century a d .
A drastic revision o f our previous ideas was forced upon us. The cobbled
road, far from belonging to the early first century a d , could hardly be earlier
than the late sixth century. H ow did the road relate with the supposed
Arthurian walling? Was there evidence for an Arthurian gate still to be
found?
After much painstaking dissection, we concluded that the sixth-century
gate had been a timber structure. Where the rampart butted against the gate,
Plates 77, 78, III it had been shored up with wooden planks ; and the decay o f these explained
w hy the walling appeared to be broken off. As for the difference in level
between the road-way and the walling, this was the result o f the road being
laid in a hollow -w ay formed during the Iron Age. In addition to the timber
planks shoring up the rampart ends, there were heavy timber sill-beams or
thresholds across the passage at the front and rear o f the gate. At either end
104
o f the thresholds, dark stains showed where stout comer posts had decayed.
We were able to follow these down, and to show that the uprights had been
deeply bedded, in three cases down to the solid rock. From this, we inferred
that the gate had risen to a good height as a look-out tower or fighting plat- /:ig. 29
form. Finally, by carefully peeling o ff the late sixth-century road, we were
able to show that this represented a refurbishing or repair to an earlier road.
It was a reasonable inference that the first road, the timber gate through
which it led, and the dry-stone and timber defensive wall, all belonged to
that late fifth- or early sixth-century occupation which was already known
from the occurrence o f Tintagel-type pottery. Here then, after all our early
disappointment, was the Arthurian gateway o f Cadbury-Cam elot.
Massacre and defence
The interest and excitement o f the 1970 season at the gate was far from
ended, however. The same trial cutting which had contained the silver ring
and the iron axe also produced, when it was deepened, brooches and weapons
o f the Ultimate Iron A ge; then fragments o f human skull; and then a human Plate 67
leg, complete from the toes to the head o f the femur, but with no body
attached to it. These were the first hints o f the richest and most macabre
archaeological deposit I have ever excavated. Down the length o f the
Ultimate Iron Age passage-way were scattered well over a hundred bronze Plates 65, 66
brooches - some o f them broken, but others still in w orking condition. Then Plates 36, 63 ; Fig. 26
there was a large collection o f iron pikes and javelins, indicating a battle
between native defenders and Rom an assailants. But the most striking object
was a bronze plaque, in a very frail condition, which was lying face down- Plate XII
wards under the wreckage o f the guardroom roof. The plaque had to be
strengthened with bandages and plastic resin before it could be lifted. When
it was turned over it revealed a face, human or divine, in a style that was an
ambiguous mixture o f Rom an realism and Celtic stylization.
As for the bodies, there were fragments o f about thirty men, women and Plate VI
children, in every imaginable state o f dismemberment, strewn along the
passage. So gruesome was the scene that some o f our volunteers refused to
work there. Curiously enough, only one bone showed any sign o f battle
injury. This was the ulna - one o f the bones o f the forearm - o f an adult,
which had been chipped perhaps in trying to ward o ff a sword blow. Apart
from this, there were no signs o f weapon cuts, and the fragmentary state o f
the bodies was not the result o f their being hacked to pieces. It seemed
probable that after a battle and massacre, the corpses o f the defenders had
105
1 2 The south-west gate on the eve of the Roman assault. 1 rubble of Bank t,front revetment missing ;
2 gravel tail to j wall of massive stones,front revetment missing; 4 stone-walledguard-chamber, partly
excavated out of the solid rock; 5 rubble infilling of earlier guard-chamber ; 6 timber beams supporting
the two-leaved gate, holefor door-stop between them ; 7 large pits holding uprightsfor barricades used
to block the entrance at the time of the assault; 8 link-walls between Banks 1 and 2; 9 butt-end oj
Ditch 1
been left unburied. They were then pulled to pieces by wolves and other
wild beasts. Some time later, the Rom an troops returned to destroy the
defences, and the tim ber-work o f the gate was burned down over the pitiful
remains.
When the last brooch and spearhead had been collected, and the last
Fig. 12 human torso had been photographed and removed, we had before us the
remains o f the south-west entrance as it had stood on the eve o f its over-
106
throw by the Rom ans: a stone-lined passage, with a single guard-chamber Plates 33. 34
on the left-hand side. A very remarkable feature was that there was no made
road through the entrance. The living rock itself formed the road surface,
and this was heavily rutted by cart-wheels. Moreover, during the centuries
o f Iron Age usage, the rock had been worn down by the passage o f feet,
hooves and wheels, until a hollow-way over six feet deep had been formed.
To cope with the progressive deepening o f this passage-way, successive
guard-chambers had been cut down into the rock beside the entrance.
N orm ally speaking, o f course, later structures Jie on top o f earlier ones, but
here, the stratification was completely topsy-turvy: the floor o f the earliest
guard-chamber was at about the level o f the eaves o f the latest one.
As a result, o f course, the intellectual task o f disentangling the history o f
the Iron Age gate was extremely complicated. The physical work o f explor
ation was heavy too. During the middle phases o f the gate’s history, there
had been a guard-chamber on either side o f the entrance, but as the passage
became progressively deeper it was decided to wall o ff one guard-chamber,
and fill it in with many tons o f rubble. All this, o f course, had to be removed
before the earlier phases could be examined. We were sustained, however,
by a continued sense o f excitement and achievement, for gateways o f this
scale and complexity have not often been explored in Britain. There was
an aesthetic stimulus, too. Everyone has heard o f the glowing colours o f the
desert city o f Petra. The bedrock o f the south-west comer o f Cadbury is a
golden-brown, turned crimson in places by the conflagration that had ended
the Iron Age. During a spell o f superb autumn weather, these colours were
warmed by the evening sunlight until Cadbury-Cam elot itself seemed a
‘rose-red city, half as old as time’.
The weather broke, though the spell lasted. As every archaeologist has
experienced, the time set aside for final surveying saw high winds and heavy
rain. But at last every rock-cut pit and gully was on the plan, and the final
melancholy operation o f back-filling could begin. Five strenuous seasons
o f fieldwork were at an end: equally arduous work in study and drawing-
office and laboratory lay ahead. It is time now for us to turn from exploration
to results.
107
Part Tw o: Results
V The earliest settlements:

Neolithic, Bronze Age, Earlier Iron Age
The enigmatic Neolithic phases
Part One, in describing how we explored Cadbury-Cam elot, will already

have given the reader some idea o f the richness and complexity o f our
discoveries. In Part T w o the results o f our explorations are summarized.
The best thread to guide us through the complexities is obviously a chrono
logical one, so I begin at the far end o f the long vista o f human activity on
Cadbury hill. It is unfortunate that this makes it necessary to start with the
most shadowy and enigmatic phases, but we may recognize that their very
obscurity is a product o f their remoteness in time.
This is not to say that actual objects o f the earliest period are all equally
Plate n difficult to recognize. On the contrary: the characteristic flint arrow-heads
o f the Early Neolithic have often been picked up by collectors when the site
has been under plough. Equally characteristic, and readily recognizable,
are the axe-heads which had been chipped out o f flint nodules or lumps o f
fine-grained igneous rocks, and then polished to a cutting edge. These axes
look clumsy when compared with the metal axes o f later cultures, but
modem experiments have shown that they are quite effective for cutting
down small trees, or ringing larger trees to kill them. Once the tree is dead,
it may be burned down, and a fruitful crop may be raised from the ashes.
This slash-and-bum agriculture was introduced to these islands by the first
farmers along with other aspects o f Neolithic culture. The axes from Cadbury
are evidence for forest clearance and farming, but not necessarily for a
settled occupation o f the hill.
The arrow-heads likewise are not evidence for settlement, but for the
hunting o f small game through the primeval forest, or across the cleared
fields. Even when we find the flint scrapers used for cleaning skins, we can
still infer nothing more than the activities o f a hunting party. But the sure
clue to more permanent occupation is provided when we find axes, arrow
heads, scrapers, and waste from their manufacture, all associated with Early
Neolithic pottery. For though there is equivocal evidence that such pottery
The Earliest Settlements
was traded, for instance from Cornwall to Wessex, it is not likely that it was
carried around by hunting parties. In the collections o f Mrs Harfield and
J. Stevens C ox, a considerable amount o f pottery was attributed to the N eo
lithic on the evidence o f the grits in the clay and the form o f the vessels.21
N ow , however, that the great variability o f Iron Age pottery from Cadbury
is fully appreciated, we might feel more doubtful about claiming a Neolithic
date for sherds collected from the surface.
There can be no similar doubt about the pottery found during the excava Fig. 13
tions, actually associated with arrow-heads and other flints, in pits with a
characteristic filling o f red clay. The vessels are principally open bowls,
hemispherical or deeper, with thin walls, and rims which have been thickened
for ease o f handling. Some bowls have tubular protrusions on the side,
probably to take a cord for hanging the vessel. It is difficult to believe, how
ever, that they were ever suspended over an open fire as stew-pots, for they
would have cracked apart with the heat. These suspension tubes - trumpet
lugs to give them their technical name - are seen again on pottery from sites
like Windmill Hill in Wiltshire, Maiden Castle in Dorset, and Hembury
in D evon.22 Along with other less distinctive features, they relate the
Cadbury vessels to a broad class o f Early Neolithic pottery well known in
southern and south-westem Britain.
Little can be said about the structural features o f the settlement which
used this pottery. In 1967 a straight-sided gully containing Neolithic material Fig. 8, C
was found on Site E. At its southern end was another Neolithic feature
which appeared to mark a right-angled return. It seemed very likely, on the
evidence then available, that we had one comer o f a fenced enclosure, or
even o f an actual building. But wider exploration in 1969 failed to produce
any comprehensible continuation o f these gullies. We are left, then, with the
pits, which occurred both on the summit plateau in E F G and P and more
rarely in N and T, and also under Bank 1 on Site D. The most obvious feature E tg . 7
distinguishing these pits from those o f the Iron Age was their filling. Whereas
the later pits normally had a black, dark brown or even greenish fill, obvi
ously enriched with organic matter, the Neolithic pits contained a clean red
or reddish brown clay. A similar red clay was preserved under the earliest
rampart, where it was clearly a product o f the natural weathering o f the
limestone bedrock. In other words, before human activity began at Cadbury,
the natural soil would have been this red clay, with a thin covering o f humus
or leaf mould from the primeval forest. The first inhabitants cut their pits
through the clay and into the solid rock, and subsequently filled more or
less clean clay back into the hole.
109
1 3 Restored examples 0/
N eolithic pottery of
W indm ill H ill type. The
largest bowl has trumpet-
lugs and is 6 3á ins deep
W h a t w a s t h e f u n c t i o n o f s u c h p i t s ? A g o o d e x a m p l e , r i c h in f in d s , w a s
Plates 18-20 t h e o n e r e c o r d e d as P i 5 4 . T h i s c o n t a i n e d s h e r d s f r o m s e v e r a l p o t t e r y b o w l s ;
a c o u p l e o f f lin t a r r o w - h e a d s , a n d a l a r g e n u m b e r o f w a s t e f l a k e s ; r i b s a n d
o th e r b o n e s fro m a n o x ; p a r t o f a r e d d e e r a n t l e r ; b u r n e d h a z e l n u t s h e lls ;
a n d a h u m a n l o w e r j a w . W e r e it n o t f o r t h e a r r o w - h e a d s , w h i c h w e r e c o m
p le t e , a n d t h e h u m a n j a w , t h is m i g h t l o o k l i k e d o m e s t i c r e f u s e . P it C 8 1 7
c o n t a i n e d o n l y p a r t o f a h u m a n s k u ll a n d c le a n r e d c l a y ; w h i l e a n o t h e r p it
c o n t a i n e d s i m p l y r e d c l a y a n d w a s t e f la k e s o f flin t . It is d i f f i c u l t t o p r o v i d e
a n y r a t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r s u c h p it s . N o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h e a r c h a e o l o g i s t
t a k e s r e f u g e in q u a s i - e x p l a n a t i o n s in t e r m s o f r i t u a l. T h e p it s h a d been
dug - a n d p r o m p t ly r e -fille d , i f w e m a y j u d g e fr o m t h e c le a n n e s s o f t h e
c la y - in o r d e r t o m a k e o f f e r i n g s t o s o m e E a r t h M o t h e r o r o t h e r d e i t y .
U n s a t i s f a c t o r y t h o u g h it is , t h is is t h e b e s t e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t c a n b e o f f e r e d .
W h a t w a s th e c h a r a c t e r o f th e s e t tle m e n t c o n t a in in g th e se m y s t e r io u s
p it s ? W i n d m i l l H i l l a n d H e m b u r y b e l o n g t o a c la s s o f s ite k n o w n as ‘ c a u s e
w a y e d c a m p s ’ . T h a t is t o s a y , a h i l l - t o p o r p r o m o n t o r y h a d b e e n e n c lo s e d
b y c o n c e n t r i c d it c h e s w h i c h in s t e a d o f b e i n g c o n t i n u o u s w e r e i n t e r r u p t e d
b y n u m e r o u s c a u s e w a y s . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s e e n c lo s u r e s is o b s c u r e , b u t
t h e y m a y h a v e b e e n s e a s o n a l m e e t i n g p la c e s , t h e site s o f f a ir s a n d r e l i g i o u s
n o
festivals. Whatever the true explanation o f Windmill Hill and Hembury,

there is no evidence from air photography or geophysical survey that the
summit o f the Cadbury hill had ever been the site for such interrupted
concentric ditches. Indeed, there is nothing to show that the Neolithic
settlement had been enclosed by any kind o f ditch or bank, for we shall
see in a moment that the ditch with ‘Neolithic’ red clay filling, K 618, which
we discovered in 1970, was actually a w ork o f the Bronze Age. In fact, on
the available evidence, Neolithic Cadbury consisted simply o f a bare hill
top with ‘ ritual’ pits scattered here and there. Unenclosed hill-top settle
ments o f Neolithic date have occasionally been explored in the past, notably
at Hazard Hill in D evon.23 There, as at Cadbury, no Neolithic buildings
could be recognized, nor could the purpose o f the settlement be determined.
The most we can say is that these are characteristically Neolithic enigmas.
Dating the Early Neolithic phase
So far nothing has been said about the date o f the Early Neolithic occupation.
A generation ago, this phase in the British archaeological sequence had to
be dated by dead reckoning backwards from the end o f the Neolithic and
beginning o f the Bronze Age. That event itself was fixed by comparing
British Early Bronze Age objects with similar pieces in western Europe,
which in turn were dated by comparisons in Central Europe and the Mediter
ranean, through to Egypt where a chronology in terms o f years was estab
lished on the basis o f the known dates o f the pharaohs. Accepting all these
comparisons, the Neolithic was thought to end about 1500 b c , and to begin
about 2000 b c , but it was recognized that there were many tenuous links
in the chain o f inference. Consequently, archaeologists were greatly pleased
when, in the late 1940s, the problem o f dating early sites was taken out o f
their hands by the development o f various scientific techniques. The best
known o f these, the radio-carbon or C arbon-14 technique, is now the basis
for our Neolithic chronology. But before we state the results o f C -14 dating
at Cadbury, it would be as well to set out for the lay reader some o f the
limitations inherent in the method.24
Radio-carbon dating is based on the observation that all living things
contain a minute quantity o f radio-active carbon, which is maintained
during the life-time o f the organism, but which decays very slowly on its
death. Assuming that the rate o f decay is constant, if the radio-activity still
remaining in an ancient animal bone or piece o f wood is measured, this
should indicate how long ago the animal died or the wood was cut from its
parent tree. The first limitation is that the method o f measuring the remain
ing radio-activity is a statistical one and the result is a statement o f probability,
not o f certainty. A Carbon -14 date for a British Iron Age site might be ex
pressed, for instance, in the form 450 b c ± 1 5 0 years. If this meant that the
date is probably 450 b c , and must certainly be within the bracket 600-300
bc,it could be helpful. In fact, because o f the statistical method, all that is
meant is that there is a 2 :1 chance that the date falls somewhere between
600-300 b c , and a 19 :1 chance that it lies between 750 and 150 b c . Closer
limits than ± 150 years are indeed possible, but there are reasons for doubting
whether they can be refined to less than ± 100 years. Since the cost o f a C - 14
test is not cheap, some workers in the Iron Age prefer to spend their limited
funds on more digging. N o C -14 samples were taken from Iron Age levels
at Cadbury.
With the Neolithic o f western Europe and the British Isles, however,
where other methods are lacking, radio-carbon dating comes into its own.
A large series o f dates is now available to show that the Early Neolithic o f
Britain began some centuries before 3000 b c . This is where the Cadbury
pottery and flints should belong. But here a second snag in the method
appears. The basic assumption has just been stated: ‘that the rate o f decay is
constant’. Here we archaeologists would do well to remind ourselves that
the physicists did not develop C -14 dating for our benefit - they wanted to
use datable archaeological material to test their theories about the decay o f
radio-carbon. And external checks have now shown that the rate o f decay
has not been constant. Something is seriously amiss with the method, and in
the Early Neolithic in particular C -14 dates may be as much as eight hundred
years too late. So the beginning o f the phase in Britain is, on current thinking,
to be dated back before 4000 b c .25 Let us not think, however, that the oracle
has spoken finally.
Bearing all this in mind, we can now look at the C -14 dates from Cadbury
itself. First o f all, we have dated material from the ritual pit which has already
been described, P i 54. A red-deer antler gave the date 2510 ± 1 2 0 b c ; in
other words, there is a 2 :1 chance that the date lies in the bracket 2630-2390
b c . Some burnt hazel nut shells were also examined, and for them the bracket
is 2870-2640. From the statistical point o f view these dates are not really
distinguishable. Applying the corrections which seem to be appropriate at
the time o f writing, w e may probably date pit P i 54, and the pottery, flints
and so on which it contained, to the period 3600-3400 b c . This agrees well
with radio-carbon dates for comparable pottery from other southern
English sites. It places Cadbury in a mature phase o f the Early Neolithic.
1 12
The Late Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age
The Early Neolithic settlement established no long-term occupation on the

hill. The early third millennium b c is a blank; but towards its mid-point
comes another Neolithic phase, even more shadowy than the first. Am ong
the worked flints found in 1966 were a few triangular flakes with an oblique
cutting edge. These are a form o f arrow-head, derived ultimately from the
chisel-ended or tranchet arrow-heads o f ancient hunting peoples, and known
therefore as ‘petit-tranchet derivatives’. At first sight, the form docs not suggest
a missile point, and this is probably why none had been recorded in the
surface collections from Cadbury. They are nonetheless quite characteristic
o f the Late Neolithic in the centuries around 2500 b c . Had they been lost in
the course o f hunting over pasture-land or scrub, or would we find con
temporary pottery and traces o f settlement? These questions were finally Plate 22; Fig. 14
answered in 1969, when we discovered a large part o f a Late Neolithic bowl
o f the R inyo-Clacton or ‘grooved-w are’ style. Beside it, a stake-hole hinted Plate 21
at some kind o f flimsy building. But as the discovery was made well below
the base o f the earliest rampart in Cutting A, and some fifteen feet below
the modem ground surface, we were not able to examine the Late Neolithic
phase any further. The earlier phases o f a settlement must often remain
unexplored simply because they are the most deeply buried.
After the Late Neolithic, Cadbury was again deserted. The only finds are
a barbed-and-tanged flint arrow-head which denotes hunting on the hill
some time before 2000 b c ; and an early form o f cast bronze axe, charac
teristic o f the Early Bronze Age around the beginning o f the second millen
nium. The next event is a rather curious radio-carbon date o f 92$ ± 9 0 b c ,
implying a true date which probably lies in the twelfth century b c . This came
from ox-bones which had been found in the lowest twelve inches o f the
red-clay filling o f the supposed Neolithic ditch, K618. The implication was
that the ditch had been standing open in the twelfth century b c, so it could
not possibly have been dug two millennia earlier. It is equally clear that the
red clay and the bones it contained were deposited in the ditch around this
time. When the first Iron Age rampart was built, K 618 was already silted up
to the general slope o f the ground, and a considerable depth o f humus had
formed over it.
In other words, it is impossible to regard K618 as the precursor o f the
14 Restored Late N eolithic
Iron Age defences. We only have evidence for it around 0.3 per cent o f
howl with R in y o -C la cto n or
the perimeter. M oreover, the radio-carbon date for its infilling is substan grooved-w are ornament. Depth
tially earlier than the archaeological date o f the next phase o f occupation. 4 '/, ins
113
In brief, K 618 is an isolated feature which has no significant place in the

history o f Cadbury as we understand it at present.
The beginnings of settled life
The clearest sign o f renewed activity on the hill takes us into an advanced
stage o f the Late Bronze Age, in the years after 800 b c . The evidence is
provided by metal objects, both gold and bronze, which were found scattered
Fig. 15 through the topsoil. The most spectacular was half a gold bracelet in the
form o f a penannular strip o f gold, with a half-round section, and outwardly
flattened terminals. Bracelets o f this ‘Covesea’ type, made rarely o f gold
and more com m only o f bronze, are known chiefly from north-eastern
England and east Scotland, though related types do occur widely throughout
the British Isles.26 The Covesea bracelets o f the north-east are regarded as a
foreign element, introduced to the area by trade or by the movement o f
peoples in the eighth century. If this is true o f the Cadbury example too,
then it anticipates other foreign influences which we shall see shortly.
Certainly the mere fact that the bracelet is o f gold reflects a degree o f wealth
in the Late Bronze Age community.
The humbler bronzes, on the other hand, all appear to be local, or at
15 G o ld bracelet o f C o v e -
least to be the products o f Irish or British bronzesmiths. They include
sea type, restored. D ia
meter 4 V* ins complete and fragmentary spearheads; knives with a hollow socket to take
a bone or wooden handle; and part o f a strengthening plate from the base o f
a large bucket or pail o f sheet bronze. Such miscellaneous collections o f
bronze, consisting partly o f scrap and broken objects, partly o f finished
products, are very common in the Late Bronze Age. It is assumed that the
scrap had been collected by travelling bronzesmiths who intended to melt
it down to make new knives, axes and so on. These hoards o f bronzes are
frequently found buried in such a way as to suggest that their original owner
had hidden them for safety, and had not returned to recover them. The
simplest explanation o f the Cadbury bronzes, and o f the fragmentary
Covesea bracelet too, is that they come from such a hoard, which had been
buried at no great depth, and subsequently had been disturbed and scattered
by ploughing. If this explanation were the whole story, we would have no
need to think o f an actual Late Bronze Age settlement at Cadbury.
In addition to the metal objects, however, we found some distinctive
Fig. 16 pottery vessels which could probably be attributed to the same period. I
use the word ‘attributed’ to show that here we are in the realms o f inference,
rather than o f established fact. The reason for this is that, although pottery
114
characteristic o f the Early and Middle Bronze Age is known from many
sites in southern England, pottery o f the Late Bronze Age has been recog
nized only very rarely. That from Cadbury consists principally o f large
storage jars, in a fabric which is heavily filled with calcite grits. The shapes
are simple bowls, barrels and pails. Some o f these jars are very thin-walled
for their size, and are smoothly finished, but the majority have rough
exteriors, with vertical fluting where the potter has drawn his fingers down
the outside, pulling the clay out to a splayed base. O nly one vessel has any
ornament: a row o f dimples made by pinching the soft clay between finger
and thumb.
In very broad terms, the date o f this pottery is indicated by the discovery
o f a characteristic bowl in Trench A above the R inyo-Clacton bowl o f the
Late Neolithic but below the earliest o f the Iron A ge ramparts. T o establish
its date more closely, we must compare it with the pottery o f other periods.
The shape o f the vessels and their fabric both show conclusively that they do
not belong in the Iron Age. On the other hand, some o f the shapes are at
least reminiscent o f the ‘ D everel-R im bury’ style which is characteristic o f
the Middle Bronze Age in southern England. One fragment may actually
come from a D everel-R im bury bucket-um, and another from a Deverel-
R im bury globular um. But as a group, the Cadbury pottery cannot be
assigned to the D everel-R im bury culture, in which the vessels are lavishly
decorated with finger-pinched and finger-impressed ornament; this, as we
have seen, is very rare at Cadbury. One possible hypothesis is that the pottery
we attribute to the Late Bronze Age represents a degeneration from the
classic D everel-R im bury style. In other words, between the twelfth century
b c when the classic style flourishes, and the eighth or seventh century - the
date suggested by the Cadbury metalwork - the forms o f vessels had changed
relatively little, but the finger-ornament had been abandoned.
An alternative hypothesis derives inspiration from the gold Covcsca
bracelet. In their main area o f distribution, north-east Britain, Covesca
bracelets are associated with pottery which does not fit into the local develop
ment o f pottery styles. In other words, this pottery is probably intrusive, as
the bracelets certainly are. While it cannot be compared in detail with that
from Cadbury, it certainly includes large, very simple jars which seem to
reflect similar technical and aesthetic standards. Do the gold bracelet and
the Late Bronze Age pottery from Cadbury represent a southern wave o f
the same tide o f invasion as the Covesea bracelets and associated pottery
denote in the north-east? If this could be established, it would bc an event o f
great importance, for it would mark the beginnings o f what was soon to
1 6 Restored vessels o f the Late Bro nze A g e. T h e ja r with finger-pinched ornament below the rim is
the one fo u n d in the o v e n -p it; see Plates 2 4 , 2 5 . T h e larger ja r is 13 '/« ins high
b e c o m e a flo o d o f C e lt ic in v a s io n s fr o m t h e c o n t i n e n t . B u t t h is h y p o t h e s i s
is n o t p r e s s e d h e r e , s i m p l y b e c a u s e a t p r e s e n t w e d o n o t k n o w e n o u g h a b o u t
th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e D e v e r e l - R i m b u r y s t y le o r a b o u t L a t e B r o n z e A g e
p o t t e r y f r o m o t h e r s ite s t o b e a b le t o j u d g e b e t w e e n t h e a lt e r n a t i v e s .
W h a t e v e r t h e u l t i m a t e i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h is L a t e B r o n z e A g e p o t t e r y , its
o c c u r r e n c e a t C a d b u r y c e r t a in ly a r g u e s fo r p e r m a n e n t o c c u p a t io n o f th e
h i l l - t o p . T h e r e is a ls o d e f i n i t e e v i d e n c e t o s h o w th a t th e o c c u p a t io n w a s
d o m e s t i c in c h a r a c t e r . A l o n g w i t h t h e p o t t e r y w e r e c l a y l o o m - w e i g h t s , f o r
te n s io n in g th e w a r p th r e a d s o f a v e r t ic a l lo o m . T h e i r c y lin d r ic a l sh a p e ca n
b e p a ra lle le d a t o th e r B r o n z e A g e v illa g e s . S o m e o f th e p o t t e r y o c c u r r e d
in r o c k - c u t p it s , w h i c h h a d b e e n d u g o r i g i n a l l y t o s t o r e g r a i n o r o t h e r f o o d ,
a n d h a d la t e r b e e n f i l l e d in w i t h r u b b i s h . O n e p i t , h o w e v e r , h a d b e e n a n
P la t e s 2 4 , 25 o v e n , n o t a l a r d e r . A p o t , p r o b a b l y c o n t a i n i n g s t e w , h a d b e e n p l a c e d in t h e
p it , a n d h o t a s h e s h a d t h e n b e e n p a c k e d a r o u n d it u n t i l t h e m e a l w a s c o o k e d .
Fig. 16 U n f o r t u n a t e ly fo r s o m e B r o n z e A g e h o u s e w ife , o n o n e o c c a s io n th e u p p e r
t h i r d o f t h e p o t h a d s p l it a w a y , l e a v i n g t h e b a s e , a n d a r u i n e d m e a l , s t ill in
th e p it.
A l t h o u g h w e c a n e s t a b li s h t h a t p e o p l e w e r e l i v i n g p e r m a n e n t l y o n t h e
C a d b u r y h ill d u r i n g t h e e i g h t h a n d s e v e n t h c e n t u r ie s b c , w e c a n s a y n o t h i n g
a t p r e s e n t a b o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i r h o u s e s . It u s e d t o b e t h o u g h t t h a t L a t e
B r o n z e A g e h o u s e s w e r e q u ite s m a ll c ir c u la r stru c tu r e s . O n th e se g r o u n d s
Fig. 8, B , C s o m e s h a l l o w g u l l i e s o n S i t e F , w i t h a r c s o f a b o u t s e v e n f o o t r a d iu s , w e r e
a t t r i b u t e d t o th is p e r i o d . B u t o u r w h o l e c o n c e p t o f B r o n z e A g e h o u s e s h a s
1 16
recently been challenged, and there is now no reason w hy these gullies

should indicate houses o f the seventh century b c rather than the early first
century a d .27 It is possible that a more refined study o f the distribution o f
Bronze Age finds, and especially o f the pits and ovens, may eventually make
it possible to point to the contemporary houses. In the present state o f
Cadbury studies, the most we can say is that the characteristic pottery is
concentrated in a small area o f the summit plateau. This restricted distribu
tion suggests that the settlement itself was no more than a hamlet o f three or
four houses, occupied by a handful o f families.
What is certain is that the hamlet was not fortified. There is no evidence,
whether from air-photography, geophysical survey, or excavation, that it
was ever enclosed by a defensive stockade. And it is quite certain that the
earliest rampart and ditch o f the hillfort are works o f later centuries al
together. If their purpose was not defence, w hy did Late Bronze A ge men
choose to live on the top o f a hill? The answer probably lies in a climatic
deterioration, which brought colder and wetter weather to the British
Isles in the first millennium b c . This would have forced men to forsake the
lowlands o f Somerset and seek better drained lands, both for farming and
for habitation, on the surrounding hills. At Cadbury their first act was to
bum o ff the scrub and timber which had grown up since the days o f the
Neolithic farmers. The Bronze Age vessel from Site A lay in a level black
with the charcoal from this burning. From what we know o f other Bronze
Age settlements the land immediately around the village would then have
been tilled. On the other hand, the depth o f the humus which had been
preserved under the earliest rampart shows that for decades or even centuries
before the rampart was built the margins o f the hill-top had not been culti
vated. This outlying area, and the actual hill-slopes, were doubtless used for
grazing cattle and sheep.
The fact that this hill-top settlement was undefended has wider implica
tions which deserve a brief discussion. It has usually been considered in the
past that the construction o f hillforts in southern Britain did not begin
before the Iron A ge: the earliest ones may have been built in the fifth century
b c , but the majority were works o f the third century or later. Recently,
however, some doubts have been cast on this chronology by the recognition
that hillforts were being built well before the fifth century on the continent,
and probably - on the evidence o f radio-carbon dating - in Scotland and
Wales as w ell.28 Since metalwork o f the Late Bronze Age has occasionally
been found in other hillforts, such as Traprain Law in eastern Scotland, the
question arose whether, in default o f C -14 dates, the metalwork proved a
1 17
Bronze Age date for the foundation o f these forts too. The Cadbury evidence
shows that this need not necessarily be the case. Unless Bronze Age metal
work is found in a definite relationship with the ramparts, its presence in a
hillfort may be purely coincidental.
The beginning of the Iron Age
Sometime in the late seventh or sixth century bc the Cadbury hamlet

passed from a Late Bronze to an Iron Age cultural phase. It must be stressed
at once that this transition is a shadowy one not merely at Cadbury but in
British archaeology as a whole, and consequently there has been a great deal
o f discussion and even controversy about its character. Part o f this has
tended to be an arid debate about terminology. If, for instance, a site produces
pottery which is clearly ancestral to regular Iron Age forms, but without
associated iron tools and weapons, can it legitimately be called Iron Age?
Or again, if a settlement has normal Late Bronze Age implements, but
untypical pottery, is it still to be classed as Bronze Age? These terminological
problems are best left in the hands o f the pedants who delight in them.
There are, however, deeper issues involved as well. They turn essentially
on the question whether it was immigrants or natives who played the major
part in fashioning the cultures o f the British Iron Age. Related to this is the
question when the Celtic language - the speech o f the ancient Britons, the
ancestor o f modem Gaelic, Cornish and Welsh - was introduced from
western Europe to these islands, and whether it was brought by large-scale
folk-migration or by small groups o f warrior chiefs. It is quite certain that
the use o f iron weapons and tools, and the craft o f smelting and forging
iron, were introduced from the area o f the Hallstatt culture - the first iron
using culture o f western and west-central Europe. It is equally certain that
when the inhabitants o f the Hallstatt area first appeared in historical records,
they were Celtic peoples. Was the use o f iron brought to Britain, along with
Celtic speech and other aspects o f Celtic culture, by a mass-movement o f
land-hungry peasants; by noble warriors with attendant blacksmiths; or
simply by a few enterprising traders and craftsmen?
Previous discussions o f the strength o f the immigrant elements in the Iron
Age, and o f the relative roles o f natives and invaders, have concentrated on
two aspects o f culture: houses and pottery. It has been claimed that whereas
the houses o f Hallstatt Europe were invariably rectangular, those o f Iron
Age Britain were equally invariably circular. Since the houses o f the British
Bronze A ge were also circular, the Iron Age round-house must reflect the
c o n t i n u i t y o f n a t i v e t r a d i t i o n s . S e c o n d l y , t h e e a r li e s t p o t t e r y o f t h e B r i t i s h
I r o n A g e is f r e q u e n t l y d e c o r a t e d w i t h f i n g e r - t i p o r f i n g e r - n a i l i m p r e s s i o n s .
S i m i l a r o r n a m e n t is v e r y c o m m o n in t h e B r o n z e A g e t o o , e s p e c i a l l y o n
D e v e r e l - R i m b u r y p o t t e r y . G r a n t e d t h a t t h e s h a p e s o f t h e v e s s e ls d i f f e r f r o m
th e e a r lie r p e r io d t o t h e la t e r , a n d t h e o r n a m e n t is d i f f e r e n t l y a r r a n g e d ,
n e v e r t h e l e s s it s e e m e d l i k e l y t h a t t h e B r o n z e A g e o r n a m e n t w a s a n c e s t r a l
to th a t o f th e Iro n A g e . H e r e , th e n , w a s a n o t h e r c le m e n t o f n a t iv e c o n t in u it y .
A t t h is p o i n t , t h e r e a d e r w h o is n o t a l r e a d y f a m i l i a r w i t h t h is d e b a t e , o r
a lr e a d y c o m m it t e d to a p a r t ic u la r p o s it io n in it , s h o u l d be w arn ed th a t
n e it h e r o f t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s o f t h e p r e v i o u s p a r a g r a p h w i ll sta n d u p to
c r itic a l e x a m in a t io n . T h is w a r n in g w i ll b e a m p lifie d w it h c o n c r e te e x a m p le s
in a m o m e n t ; b u t a n o t h e r w a r n i n g is a ls o n e c e s s a r y . M u c h o f t h e d e b a t e h a s
b e e n c o n d u c t e d so f a r in t e r m s o f o l d , a n d o f t e n u n r e l i a b l e , e x c a v a t i o n s a n d
d i s c o v e r i e s . W h a t is n o w n e e d e d is c lo s e a n d c r i t i c a l a t t e n t io n t o t h e o b s e r v
a b le c o u r s e o f e v e n t s o n i n d i v i d u a l s ite s w h e r e b o t h B r o n z e a n d I r o n A g e
m a t e r i a l is p r e s e n t . W h a t f o l l o w s is a n a c c o u n t o f d e v e l o p m e n t s a t C a d b u r y
C a s t l e , w h i c h c l a i m s v a l i d i t y f o r t h is s ite a lo n e .
I b e g i n w i t h t h e p o t t e r y . T h e w h o l e s e q u e n c e o f p o t t e r y in t h e I r o n A g e
at C a d b u r y can b e d iv id e d in to fiv e fa ir ly w e ll- d e fin e d p h ases. E a c h o f
th e s e c a n b e p a r a l l e l e d o n o t h e r B r i t i s h I r o n A g e s ite s , b u t t h e f u ll s e q u e n c e
is n o t a t p r e s e n t k n o w n a n y w h e r e e ls e . T h e f i v e p h a s e s c a n c o n v e n i e n t l y b e
d e s ig n a te d I n i t ia l, E a r ly , M id d le , L a te an d U lt im a te . A t p re se n t w e a re F / j j.1 7
c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h t h e I n i t ia l p o t t e r y . T h e r e is n o t a lo t o f t h is , b u t it s
c h a r a c t e r is t i c s a r e c le a r . It c o n s is t s o f l a r g e j a r s o r b o w l s w i t h fa ir ly p r o
n o u n c e d s h o u l d e r s . O r n a m e n t is l i m i t e d t o f i n g e r - t i p im p r e s s i o n s o n t h e
s h o u l d e r , o n t h e r i m , a n d a ls o , m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a ll, o n a n a p p l i e d b a n d
o r c o r d o n o f c l a y r u n n i n g r o u n d t h e n e c k o f t h e v e s s e l.
N o w w e have already seen that finger-tip ornament is common on the

D everel-R im bury pottery o f the Bronze Age, and there too it occurs
characteristically on applied bands or cordons. So at first sight our Initial
pottery reflects native ceramic traditions. This view is, however, quite
untenable. The finger-ornamented jars o f the classic D everel-R im bury
culture belong not to the centuries immediately before the Iron Age, but
to the twelfth and eleventh centuries b c : in fact, to the Middle Bronze Age.
And however long the style may have continued, w e have already seen that
Fig. 16 Late Bronze Age pottery at Cadbury itself was almost entirely unoma-
mented. Out o f a good number o f Late Bronze Age vessels, only one has
finger-pinched ornament, and that is not on an applied cordon. In other
words, our Initial pottery reflects not the continuity o f native traits, but a
complete break in the sequence.
On the other hand, when we look more widely, we find that finger-tip
decoration on the rims and shoulders o f jars, and even on neck-cordons, is
very common in the Late Bronze A ge o f western Europe. This is especially
true o f the so-called Um field cultures o f France. M oreover, jars with finger-
impressed neck-cordons, quite comparable with the Cadbury examples,
occur in the Hallstatt Iron A ge o f southern Germ any.29 There is a good
case here that the Initial Iron Age pottery o f Cadbury owes nothing at all
to native forbears, but has been introduced from outside, most probably
from the continent. When we consider that, throughout most o f the Iron
Age, pottery-making was essentially a domestic craft or cottage industry,
it is evident that the appearance o f new types o f pottery implies the migration
o f the peasants who made and used it.
This conclusion leads us naturally to consider other exotic elements which
occur in the Initial Iron Age at Cadbury. The most obvious are two bronze
Plate 23 razors, one fragmentary and the other almost complete. These have parallels
in the Hallstatt C phase o f western Europe, especially in northern France,
southern Germany and the Low Countries.30 They are rare in Britain, but
they occur at Staple H ow e in Yorkshire along with finger-impressed neck-
cordon pottery and some simple iron objects.31 There is also a minor con
centration in Somerset and Glamorgan, where the most important example,
that from Llyn Fawr, was found with a Hallstatt C iron sword, a spearhead
and a sickle, all betokening the beginning o f the British Iron A g e.32 The
Llyn Fawr sword was associated with Hallstatt C horse harness which had
probably originated in southern Germ any: the whole assemblage allows
us to infer a noble Celtic warrior establishing himself in western Britain in
the late seventh or sixth century. At Cadbury the trappings o f aristocracy
120
have not been found, though it is worth pointing out that Hallstatt C razors
frequently occur in warrior graves in Burgundy. It is therefore possible
that the peasantry, represented by the pottery, had migrated under the
leadership o f a military nobility.
So far we have examined only the exotic or immigrant elements o f the
Initial Iron Age, and we have therefore been led to emphasize its dis
continuity with the Late Bronze Age. But when we consider the actual
form o f the settlement in each period, there is one remarkable similarity:
these successive hill-top settlements were both undefended. The pottery
sequence at Cadbury had already passed from the Initial into the Early
phase before the earliest rampart was built. As in the Late Bronze Age, so
in the Initial Iron Age there is no evidence to show that the hamlet or village
was enclosed by a defensive stockade.
Indeed, apart from its pottery and bronzes and its absence o f defences we
know very little about the Initial Iron Age occupation. We have not recog
nized any storage pits or refuse pits containing material o f the period. This
may be because the use o f such pits, common in the Late Bronze Age, had
been given up, only to be resumed in later centuries. This is unlikely, and it
is more probable that the contemporary pits lay outside the area o f our
excavations. This in turn might mean that, through the hazards o f discovery,
we had not located the main focus o f Initial occupation. We could judge
whether or not this was so if we could identify the contemporary houses,
but we cannot do this with any certainty. It is true that on Site T we located /•'/<». it
a six-post rectangular house which was earlier than a spread o f cobbling
which itself had been laid down quite early in the Iron Age. But ‘early’ here
is only a relative term. With seven hundred years o f Iron Age occupation
to account for, it would be rash to say that even the earliest o f the six-post
houses must belong to the Initial phase.
The mention o f rectangular houses reintroduces one topic o f the debate
with which this section began. The claim that all Iron Age continental *
houses were rectangular has always appeared to be a gross over-simplifica
tion. Greek travellers, for instance, refer to the dome-like dwellings o f the
Celtic peoples o f northern France. We can now see that the parallel general
ization, that all British Iron Age houses were circular, is equally untrue.
Scattered through early excavation reports are occasional examples o f
rectangular houses, to which the supporters o f the generalization turned a
blind eye. But they can less easily ignore the evidence o f recent excavations,
carried out at the highest level o f competence.33 Both four- and six-post
rectangular buildings are now widely known from Iron Age sites through-
I2 I
1 8 Reconstruction o f Ratnpart A . For some o f the evidence on which this is based, see F ig . 7, features
5 2 4 , 5 4 1 , 5 4 6 , 694
o u t so u th e rn E n g la n d . M u c h m o r e r e s e a r c h is n e e d e d , h o w e v e r , b o t h in
B r it a in and on th e c o n t in e n t , b e fo re we can asse rt th a t su c h b u ild in g s
r e p r e s e n t a n i n t r u s i v e e l e m e n t in t h e B r i t i s h I r o n A g e . A t C a d b u r y , t h e c a s e
f o r i m m i g r a t i o n r e s t s , as w e h a v e s e e n , o n t h e p o t t e r y a n d t h e b r o n z e s .
The first defences
A s e c o n d p e r i o d o f c o n t i n e n t a l i n f l u e n c e , t h e H a l l s t a t t D p h a s e , is r e p r e s e n t e d
P la t e s 1 1 , 2 3 a t C a d b u r y b y s e v e r a l v e r y d i s t i n c t i v e p in s m a d e o f b e n t w i r e , t h e s o - c a l l e d
‘ s w a n ’ s n e c k ’ p in s . O n t h e c o n t i n e n t , a d a t e in t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y bc w o u ld
b e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r th e s e . In t h e C a d b u r y I r o n A g e s e q u e n c e , t h e y b e l o n g
Fig. 1 7 in t h e s e c o n d p h a s e , t h e E a r l y I r o n A g e . T h e p o t t e r y is n o w d o m i n a t e d b y
co a rse ja r s a n d la rg e b o w ls w it h a w e ll-m a r k e d s h o u l d e r . T h e r e is o f t e n
f i n g e r - t i p o r n a m e n t o n t h e s h o u l d e r it s e lf , b u t t h e n e c k - c o r d o n h a s v a n i s h e d .
F in e r b o w ls w it h a n g u l a r s id e s o r n a m e n t e d w i t h f a i n t l y in c is e d d i a g o n a l
lin e s a r e le ss c o m m o n . T h e f i n e b o w l s m a y r e p r e s e n t a f u r t h e r c o n t i n e n t a l
i n f l u e n c e , b u t t h e c o a r s e r v e s s e ls c o u l d b e a n i n s u l a r d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m th e
I n i t ia l j a r s .
B y the Hallstatt D phase, fortifications were proliferating in Celtic

Europe; and this is the date too o f the first defence at Cadbury. Some o f
122
1 9 Reconstruction of Rampart B. For the evidence on which this is based, see Fig. 7,features 522, 5jo,
5jo B, 6çj. Oblique projection
the continental Hallstatt forts appear to be the strongholds o f princes, whose

rich burials are found in the neighbourhood.34 But no comparable burials
have been found in Britain, and it is quite uncertain whether the stimulus
to fort-building came from a warrior aristocracy, or from peasant commun
ities who found themselves pressed by other groups o f land-hungry farmers.
The size o f the first Cadbury fort, about twenty acres, favours the idea that
it was built for a large but low ly social unit, not as a warrior-chiefs private
defence. The actual evidence for the date o f the first rampart is provided by
a few sherds o f pottery: in Cutting D, a rim from a neck-cordon jar was
certainly found beneath it, while in Cut A vessels o f both the Initial and Early
phases probably came from below the rampart.
The structure o f the first defence, Ram part A, was fully explored in Plate 30
Cutting D. The body o f the rampart was a bank o f clay and small rubble F ig s . 7 , 1 8
or gravel. At the front o f this was a row o f holes which had held posts up
to six inches across. Immediately behind the posts, a ledge had been cut in
the ground, obviously to seat a horizontal timber. From this we can infer
that the upright posts had been backed by horizontal shoring, giving an
almost vertical face to the rampart. Five feet behind the front posts was a
second row, and there was slight evidence that the two rows had been tied
together by transverse horizontal beams. Ram part A was thus a timber
123
VI The south-west gate in 1970. The visible walling is that of the Ultimate Iron
Age gate. In the passage-way, the massacre level is being explored.
VII The south-eastern defences seen from the air.
VIII, IX Front and back views of a Celtic bronze pendant embellished with white
paste or coral studs. Diameter 1 '/2 ins.
X Examples of inlaid metal-work. A link from a Roman harness-set, in bronze

inlaid with silver, length 2 V* ins. Half of an iron neck-ring, inlaid with brass, found
in the massacre level at the south-west gate. Note the tang which engages in a socket
in the other half of the ring.
XI Silver ring or buckle with Germanic animal ornament of the sixth century
ad found beneath the relaid road surface of the Arthurian gate. Tinned bronze disk
,
ornamented with a repoussé horse in a style similar to that of the Celtic coins.
XII Bronze plaque, ornamented with a human or divine face in a mixed Celtic
and romanizing style. Found face downwards in the ruins of the Ultimate Iron Age
guard-chamber at the south-west gate. Height 5 '/«ins.
XIII Imported pottery of the late fifth and early sixth centuries. Top row: rim
and body sherds from Class A bowls - note the cross-stamp on the right (compare
Fig. 27). Middle rows: body sherds, and a handle fragment, from wine-jars of
Class Bi. Bottom row: two body sherds from Class Bii wine-jars; sherd from a
Class Biv wine-jar; rim from a Class D bowl (compare Fig. 27).
XIV Gilt-bronze button brooch of Pagan Saxon type, ornamented with a

helmeted head. Diameter 2 jin.
XV Late Saxon pottery: an unusual ornamented piece, and characteristic

examples of the heavily-gritted fabrics. The largest sherd is 3 Vt ins across.
J
structure, filled in with clay and rubble. We do not know how the timber-
work was fastened together, but continental evidence shows that the Celts
were already masters o f the techniques o f carpentry jointing.
In front o f the front timbers, and probably separated from them by a more
or less level ledge or berm, was a rock-cut ditch. The bank material had been
quarried from the ditch, and from its character we can infer that the ditch
was not very deep; certainly it had not penetrated through the topmost
weathered levels into really solid rock. This arrangement o f bank, timber
wall, berm and ditch comprised the whole o f the first defensive scheme. The
line o f the rampart was set at the point where the relatively gentle slopes Eig. 21
o f the upper part o f the hill dropped steeply aw ay: it was sited to take the
maximum advantage o f the natural strength o f the hill. Because o f the shape Eig. 4
o f the hill, with its pronounced axial ridge, the trace o f the rampart does not
follow a contour line, as Iron A ge ramparts often do. Instead, it climbs about
fifty feet over the ridge at either end.
The circuit o f the bank was a little over twelve hundred yards. From this
fact, something o f the effort required to build Ram part A may be calculated.
About nine hundred stout posts would have been needed for the front o f
the bank, together with a run o f at least seventy thousand feet o f planking
for the shoring and breastwork. The rear posts and cross ties would have
added yet more. So there was a major operation involved in cutting and
dressing the timber, before any defences could be assembled. Compared
with this side o f the w ork the digging o f the ditch and throwing up o f the
bank was a simple, unskilled job. It is quite evident that considerable com
munal effort and a strong organization were both involved. Unfortunately,
in these remote times we can have no real evidence as to how the necessary
labour services were exacted and organized; but we may believe that the
motives which impelled men to such efforts were very powerful.
We do not know how long Ram part A remained in existence. The front
posts would eventually have rotted at ground level, but there is no con
vincing evidence to show how soon this would have happened. In Cut D
there was no sign that timbers had ever been renewed. On the other hand,
there are hints that the first rampart was already derelict and grassed over
before Ram part B was erected on top o f its ruins. The pottery which is
contemporary with the building o f the second rampart is transitional
between the Early and Middle phases in the Cadbury sequence.
Ram part B was altogether a more substantial affair. For a start, the ditch Eigs. 7, 1 9
was now dug down into very solid rock, which' on the south side o f the hill
provided great blocks and slabs o f Inferior Oolitic limestone for the body o f
129
the bank. These slabs were roughly laid to give a fairly level top to the bank,
Plates 29, 30 in fact a crude rampart walk. At the front there was a row o f posts which were
considerably stouter than those o f Ram part A, but this time they did not
support timber shoring. Instead, the core o f the bank was masked by a skin
o f Lias limestone slabs, imported from some miles away. The appearance o f
this rampart must have been striking, but structurally-speaking it was not
very sound. The timber uprights contributed weakness rather than strength
to the wall face. The facing itself was not keyed back into the core, so that
from the start it must have tended to slip. Finally the Lias, which originally
had split into regular slabs very convenient for building, then continued to
split into thinner and smaller pieces. Ram part B was evidently a showy rather
than a sound defensive work.
It is from this phase that we have our first evidence for the Iron Age gate
Plate 32 arrangements. I have already explained that the progressive wearing down
o f the entrance passage had left the earlier guard-chambers standing above
the level o f the ultimate road-way. A small area o f the highest guard-chamber
floor had survived the erosion o f the road and the cutting down o f subsequent
guard-chambers. It was bounded by a curving rock-cut trench, in which
the ghost o f a plank wall could still be discerned. A doorway, flanked by
sturdy posts, opened not into the passage-way, but into the interior o f the
fort. The implication o f this is that the guardroom was set not beside the
passage but at its inner end, backing onto the rampart. Patches o f burned
clay and scatters o f charcoal from hearths show that the guard-chamber
had been lived in, and a series o f occupation-floors had accumulated as a
result. The uppermost o f these contained a quantity o f pottery which can
be placed very firm ly in the Middle Iron Age. That period, and the suc
ceeding Late Iron Age, are the subject o f the next chapter.
130
VI The Iron Age town
In the last chapter, we saw the occupation o f Cadbury grow from an un
fortified hamlet o f the Late Bronze Age to a defended village o f peasant
farmers in the Early Iron Age. The subsequent Middle and Late phases o f
the Iron Age saw a great intensification and diversification o f human activity
on the hill-top. In the archaeological record this is reflected by a much
greater range o f finds, and these in vastly greater quantities. Within the
defences, storage pits and timber round-houses proliferated. B y this stage,
the settlement can no longer be considered as a village, still less as a hamlet.
In terms o f the density o f population implied by the number o f houses, it
is reasonable to describe it as a town. This would also agree with the develop
ment o f both industry and commerce. This chapter, then, is devoted to the
details o f the evidence on which these broad statements are based.
Developments in pottery
In terms o f pottery and other finds, the Middle Iron Age at Cadbury was
extremely dull. As the pottery was washed and given a preliminary sorting
on the site, we tended to place in the ‘M iddle’ phase anything which lacked
the well defined characteristics o f the other phases in our sequence. In other
words, the Middle Iron Age appeared as a rag-bag for nondescript material.
But when the excavations were over, as we studied the groups o f finds l :i$. 20
associated together in refuse pits, or in stratified deposits in the ramparts, it
became clear that Middle Iron Age pottery had a character o f its own, even
if it had to be defined in negative terms. It appeared to have developed out
o f the Early pottery by a process o f simplification, and above all by the
abandonment o f even the most rudimentary type o f decoration, the row
o f finger impressions. The most characteristic form was a small to medium
sized jar or bowl with an S-shapcd profile. The clay was heavily backed with
particles o f fossil shell obtained from the local Jurassic limestone. The finish
13
20 Restored vessels o f the M id dle and Late Iron A g e phases. A common type o f M iddle j a r ; a saucepan
pot ; a large storage j a r ; a boivl with incised decoration; and a simple bead-rim bowl. Th e large ja r
is 1 2 'A ins high
o f vessels was generally poor, but there was a tendency to smooth or even
burnish the exterior.
Fig. 20 B y contrast with these simple vessels, the pottery o f the Late phase exhibits
a wide range o f form and decoration. Indeed, when the analysis is completed,
it will probably reveal that there are several sub-phases, and that numerous
outside influences had affected the development o f Late pottery at Cadbury.
A continuing tradition is represented by large, rather coarse storage jars,
which have their roots in the Initial and Early phases. Innovation, on the
other hand, is seen in smaller jars, with a simple curved profile, which are
normally finished with a highly burnished exterior. These jars frequently
have a distinctive ‘beaded’ rim, and variations o f this rim are then found on
both bowls and jars over a period o f some centuries. Another well-marked
form is a deep straight-sided bowl, known as a ‘sauce-pan pot’, though it is
doubtful whether it could have been used on an open fire.
But the most important development is in ornament. A ny group o f Late
pottery will contain, alongside a majority o f undecorated sherds, a few
which have a distinctive ornament o f incised lines or grooves, or more
rarely o f grooves and pits. R o w s o f triangles, picked out with either diagonal
or criss-cross hatching, form one common motif, but scrolls, waves and other
curvilinear designs are equally important. Sometimes the curves are compass
drawn. At their best, the designs are based on those o f contemporary Celtic
132
The Iron Age Town
metalwork, and it is certain that continental artistic influences derived from

the La Tène art-style are at work. It is also clear that Cadbury stands towards
the eastern boundary o f an aesthetic province which includes the whole o f
south-western Britain. Within this province, the Somerset lake-villages o f
Glastonbury and Meare were important manufacturing centres, as well as
leaders in design. The most sophisticated Late vessels at Cadbury had
probably been traded from Glastonbury, though the majority o f the pottery
had been made on the spot, often to disgustingly debased designs.
The close dating o f these developments in pottery awaits a great deal o f
research and publication throughout the south-west. Very tentatively, we
might suggest that the Late style was becoming established about 200 b c .
It may have continued to the end o f the pre-Christian era, though new
influences appeared by the middle o f the first century b c . The Middle phase
at Cadbury might cover the fourth and third centuries. But the lay reader -
and the archaeological pedant - should be warned that in this period, dates
are nothing more than ideas in the mind o f another archaeologist.
Developments in defence
It is evident from the rampart cuttings - especially A, D and K - that Bank 1

was reconstructed several times during the Middle and Late Iron Age. It F ig - 7
is difficult to be more precise than this, because ramparts have been lost by
collapse and erosion on the steep slopes, or have been mutilated by later
defence-building. There is evidence in Trench D for rear-walls or revetments
to sentry walks, but no trace at all o f front revetments or facing walls. This
may mean simply that the revetments o f Ramparts C and D have collapsed
downhill. On the other hand, it could mean that Cadbury, like contemporary
Maiden Castle, had adopted the so-called ‘glacis-fronted’ rampart, with a
long even slope from the bottom o f the ditch to the crest o f the bank : an
ideal killing ground. But given the major geological difference between
Maiden Castle on chalk and Cadbury on a limestone which provides good Plates 15. 28
building slabs, this is unlikely.
It was during the Late period that the outer defences o f Cadbury were Fiç. 21
built. This can be asserted partly by comparison with other southern English
hillforts, partly on internal evidence. Bank 4 had been constructed, had
grassed over, and had then been refurbished by the end o f the Iron Age.
If we assign the refurbishing to the Ultimate phase, perhaps in the generation
before the Rom an Conquest, then the original Bank 4 was built in the Late
Iron Age. And a massive w ork it was, with a basal width o f over twenty feet.
133
The Iron A ge Town
21 O utline profile o f the Iron A g e ditches as revealed by the excavation o f Site D
and a height o f twelve feet or so above an internal rock-cut ditch. The inner,
or scarp, slope o f that ditch rose at an angle o f almost fifty degrees for a slope
distance o f twenty feet, before easing o ff to a mere thirty-five degrees
towards Bank 3. This seems to have been a relatively feeble obstacle, but
behind it was Ditch 2, with a scarp which in places rose at nearly eighty
degrees - a minor rock-climbing problem. The main objective o f the
multiple defences at Cadbury was evidently to improve on nature by
producing even steeper scarp slopes. The banks were little more than a by
product o f throwing downhill the rubble produced by scarping and ditching.
There is some evidence for the lay-out o f the south-west gateway in the
Plate 35 Late Iron Age. Its main feature was a pair o f oval guard-chambers, opening
directly into the passage-way. T o cope with the developing hollow-way,
the guard-chamber floors had been sunk into the solid rock, and the walls
were then carried up in dry stonework. Pairs o f massive post-pits marked
the doorways from the chambers to the passage, and linked up with equally
massive pits along the roadway itself. These had held posts for the main gates,
and may also have supported a sentry-walk or fighting platform over the
entrance. B y comparing the Cadbury remains with other paired guard-
chamber lay-outs, w e can speculate that there may have been as many as
four double-leaved gates set one behind another along the passage-way:
clearly a very formidable defensive scheme.35 There is some shadowy evi
dence that the lay-out o f the Middle period gate was similar to this, but the
left-hand guard-chamber has almost completely vanished as a result o f
erosion.
134
The Iron A ge Town
The Iron Age town
Within the defences, the most obvious feature o f the Iron Age town was /•'/?. 10
the circular houses, which we infer from rock-cut trenches or from the dark
stains o f stake-holes. The complete plan o f a stake-built house and part o f Plates 53, 69
another were uncovered on Site B, where the yellow sandstone revealed
the pattern o f stake-holes particularly clearly. One was about thirty, and
the other about thirty-five feet in diameter with floor areas respectively o f
seven hundred and one thousand square feet. For the smaller house, a level
emplacement had been prepared by cutting into the sloping hillside to a
depth o f three feet or so. A narrow trench was then dug to take the base o f
the wall, and stakes were driven into the soft bedrock along its line. The stakes
themselves were two to four inches in diameter, and were set between six
and twelve inches apart. In and out o f these uprights horizontal withies
would be woven, to make a rigid structure like a large basket. By the time
that the wattle had been plastered with a daub o f clay and cow-dung, and a
thatch ro o f had been added, a substantial house would have been in existence.
In the case o f the rock-cut trenches o f the summit plateau, the structural Plates 40, 44, 45
interpretation is less certain. Some o f the ring-trenches were both narrow
and shallow, and it is very probable that these had held wattle walls o f the
kind which were so clear on Site B. But most o f those which we uncovered
were from two to five feet wide and up to three feet deep. T w o were
certainly complete rings, but two others were penannular, one o f them
(on Site T) having a gap o f about thirteen feet between the ditch ends. This Plates 45, IV. V
seems much too wide for a door-w ay, and it is therefore unlikely in this case /:ŷ». /1
that the trench had held the house-wall: it was probably a drainage gully,
taking the water from the eaves. On the other hand, a house in the middle o f
Site P apparently had post-holes for a porch outside the ditch, so here the
ditch must have held the wall itself. There is indeed good evidence that this
was in the form o f split logs or planks placed side by side. But the kind o f
inference which the archaeologist normally expects to make from soil
stains, position o f packing stones and so on was only rarely possible at
Cadbury, where the ring-ditches usually contained an undifferentiated fill
o f gravelly soil.36
But if evidence for the superstructure o f these buildings has escaped us in
most cases, there are still useful facts to be established about them. For a
start: it was customary for a house to be rebuilt several times on the same
spot, perhaps with a very slight shift o f its centre or o f part o f its wall line.
We can infer this from multiple arcs o f stake-holes on Site B, or clear signs
135
The Iron A ge Town
o f re-cutting in the profiles o f the ring-ditches on Sites E F G, P and T. This

suggests continuity o f occupation or ownership over a long period. Secondly,
the houses are mostly in the same size range, around thirty to forty feet in
diameter, seven to twelve hundred square feet in area. This marks them o ff
on the one hand from the much smaller houses which have normally been
found in hillforts, and on the other from the distinctly larger Iron Age houses
which have been discovered outside true hillforts.37 Size must reflect an
equation between the number o f inhabitants per hut and the degree o f
com fort; and the comfort which the inhabitants expected may be related
to their social status. I shall have more to say about status later, but on the
matter o f numbers we might guess that each house was occupied by ten to
twenty persons, and perhaps some livestock.38
Apart from the houses, the most obvious feature o f Iron Age Cadbury is
Figs. 6, 8 the rock-cut pits, which appear so strongly on the air-photographs and in
the geophysical survey. Excavation showed that these varied in shape,
diameter and depth; but the tendency was for them to be as cylindrical as
local rock conditions would allow. Exceptionally they might be up to eight
or even ten feet across, and six feet deep, but a good average would be six
feet in diameter and four feet deep. The main function o f the pits was prob
ably to store grain, either in sacks and baskets, or poured loose into the pit,
which would then have been covered with a basketry lid and made water
tight with a clay seal. A normal Cadbury pit might have held about eighty
bushels o f threshed grain (but considerably less if the grain was stored in the
husk). This might have been sufficient to feed a family o f eight - men,
women and children - for a year; so perhaps the occupants o f a round-house
would have needed tw o grain pits.39
In course o f time, we believe, these grain stores became sour, and an
attempt was made to cleanse them by burning straw and brushwood in the
bottom. M any o f the Cadbury pits had their sides fire-reddened in this way.
But eventually, no amount o f burning was o f any use, and the pits had to
be abandoned. They were then filled in, partly with stone dug from new
pits which were to replace them, partly with domestic refuse. Consequently,
many o f the pits are a rich source for pottery, and more rarely objects o f
bone and metal. But this explanation will not fit all the pits which we
Plates 42, 54 observed. Some contained one or more animal skulls placed in such positions
that it was difficult to believe that they had been shot in as rubbish. All the
skulls, o f horses and cattle, were set the right w ay up, and one was even laid
on a bed o f stones. In fact, they gave every impression o f having been deliber
ately buried as part o f some ritual. A ritual purpose also seems likely for
136
56 Bone awls, needles, and a bobbin (p. 153). The
longest awl is 6$ ins
57 Obverse and reverse of three Celtic coins. The re- >
verse is based on a horse-and-chariot design, while the
obverse bears an ear of barley or the head of Apollo
{Fig. 25). The top coin is the gold stater o f Antethos o f
the Dobunnic tribe; the others are Durotrigian issues
(pp. 166-7)
58 Bone and antler weaving-combs or skin-scrapers, a
very characteristic domestic implement throughout
the British Iron Age (p. 153). The right-hand scraper is
5 ins long
t; BL ' B B
5 9 , 6 o H o a r d o f ir o n o b je c t s b u r ie d in th e b a c k o f B a n k i in a la te p h a se o f th e I r o n A g e (p p . 1 5 3 - 4 ) :
k n i f e ; s a w (see a lso P la t e 6 1 ) ; b in d in g o r f e r r u l e ; a x e ; th r e e s ic k le s (see P la t e 6 1 ) ; t w o k n iv e s c o r r o d e d
t o g e t h e r ; c u r r e n c y b a r. T h e a x e a n d p a r t o f th e c u r r e n c y b a r a re seen b e l o w a ft e r c o n s e r v a t io n . C l a y
s lin g - b u lle t s a re r u s te d o n to th e s a w a n d o n e o f th e s ic k le s . T h e o v e r a ll le n g t h o f th e c u r r e n c y b a r is
2 1 in s
6 i , 6 2 D o m e s t ic a n d c r a ft im p le m e n t s o f ir o n : a s a w w i t h t w o riv e t s to fa ste n th e w o o d e n
h a n d le ; w o o l- s h e a r s ; t w o sic k le s w it h s o c k e ts f o r th e h a n d le ; th r e e k n iv e s . T h e s a w is 12% in s
lo n g , th e la r g e s t k n if e is 7% in s (p p . 1 5 3 - 4 )
63 Ir o n w e a p o n s : a sh ie ld
b o ss a n d t w o sp e a r -h e a d s
f r o m th e m a ss a c re le v e l
a t th e s o u t h - w e s t g a te
(p p . 10 5 , 1 7 0 ) ; t w o d a g
g e r s f r o m th e w e a p o n -
b u r ia ls o n S it e N (p. 84,
see a ls o P la t e 4 7 ). T h e
la r g e r d a g g e r is 15 ^ in s
lo n g o v e r a ll
6 4 J o i n t e d n e c k - r in g o r
to r e o f ir o n f r o m th e
m a ss a c re le v e l (p. 1 7 0 ) ;
a n d p a r t o f a se c o n d in
la id w i t h b ra ss (see P la te
X ) . A b o u t h a l f a c tu a l
size
6 5 , 66 B r o n z e b r o o c h e s o f th e d o lp h in , fid d le , th istle a n d p e n a n n u la r v a r ie tie s , a ll e x c e p t th e fid d le
fr o m th e m a ss a c re le v e l at th e s o u t h - w e s t g a t e (p p . 1 0 5 , 1 6 8 - 9 , Fig. 2 5 ). A ll a c tu a l size. T h e b r o o c h ,
below, h as b e e n o p e n e d o u t to s h o w th e in t r ic a c y o f th e s p r in g a t t a c h m e n t a n d m e c h a n is m ; it is
r e p r o d u c e d a t a b o u t t w i c e a c tu a l size
67 T h e fir s t e v i d e n c e o f th e m a s s a c re a t th e s o u t h - w e s t g a t e ; th e le g o f a y o u n g p e rs o n ,
c o m p le t e f r o m h ip to t o e , f o u n d b e n e a th th e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d ro a d s (p . 10 5 ) . W it h it c an
b e seen an ir o n s p e a r - h e a d ; a b r o n z e b o w b r o o c h a n d a p e n a n n u la r b r o o c h ; a n d n u m e r o u s
fra g m e n ts o f p o tte ry
68 T h e fir s t st a g e in th e a re a e x c a v a t io n o f S it e B in 19 6 8 (p p . 7 3 - 4 ) . A p a r t f r o m
s lig h t r e m a in s o f a c a p p in g o f h a r d e r , p a le r lim e s t o n e (to p r ig h t ) , th e b e d - r o c k o n
S it e B w a s a lig h t y e l l o w sa n d s to n e , w h ic h s h o w e d v e r y c le a r l y w h e r e w o o d e n
st ru c tu r e s , in c lu d in g sta k e s o f o n l y t w o o r th r e e in c h e s in d ia m e t e r , h a d d e c a y e d
(P la te 5 3 ). A s s o o n as th e b e d - r o c k h a d b e e n s c ra p e d c le a n , t w o p a r a lle l d a r k stre a k s
a p p e a r e d , m a r k i n g th e w a ll- t r e n c h e s o f a r e c t a n g u la r b u ild in g . F o r th e fu lle r
d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e a re a , see P la t e 69
69 T h e w i d e r e x p lo r a t io n o f S it e B in 19 6 8 r e v e a le d b o t h c ir c u la r a n d r e c t a n g u la r b u ild in g s . In
th e f o r e g r o u n d , th e b e d - r o c k is d ip p in g in t o th e ‘ B i g D i t c h ’ (Fig. 10, 3 1 ) , fir s t d e te c te d as a
p r o m in e n t c r o p - m a r k o n th e 19 5 5 a ir - p h o t o g r a p h s (P la te s 4 a n d 5), e x a m in e d b y m e a n s o f a
n a r r o w tr e n c h in 1 9 6 6 (p . 5 0 ), a n d s u b s e q u e n t ly id e n t if ie d as a h o l l o w - w a y le a d in g f r o m th e
n o r t h - e a s t g a t e u p to th e s u m m it p la te a u (p p . 7 3 - 4 ) . T h e e d g e s o f th e B i g D it c h w e r e s c a llo p e d
b y e m p la c e m e n t s le v e lle d in to th e r o c k f o r b u ild in g c ir c u la r h o u se s (Fig. 10, 2 5 ; P la t e 5 3 ) ; th e
n e a r e r t w o - m e t r e p o le lie s o n th e f lo o r o f o n e o f th e se e m p la c e m e n t s . O n th e fla t g r o u n d b e h in d
a n d to th e le f t o f th e n e a r e r p o le a re tr a c e s o f an a rc o f s t a k e - h o le s f r o m a r o u n d h o u s e (Fig. 10, 2 4 ;
p p . 84 , 1 3 5 ) . S u b s e q u e n t to th is, a g r o u p o f r e c t a n g u la r b u ild in g s w a s e r e c t e d ; t w o o f th e m c a n
b e seen h e re , a n d a th ir d w a s tr a c e d to th e n o r t h (rig h t ) in 19 6 9 (Fig. 10, 3 0 ; p. i o i ) . T h e r e g u la r i t y
o f la y o u t o f th ese b u ild in g s , th e p re s e n c e o f a R o m a n fie ld o v e n j u s t a c ro ss th e h o llo w - w a y , a n d
t h e d is c o v e r y o f m u c h R o m a n m ilit a r y e q u ip m e n t o n S it e B (P la te 7 0 - 2 ) a ll c o m b in e to s u g g e s t
th a t th e se a re R o m a n m ilit a r y b u ild in g s (p. 17 2 )
7 0 - 7 2 Ite m s o f R o m a n m ilit a r y e q u ip m e n t ,
all o f b r o n z e : o n e h a l f o f a h in g e f r o m a
c u ir a s s ; a lin k f r o m a h a rn e ss set, in la id
w it h s ilv e r (see also P la te X ) ; a m o u n t f r o m
th e ‘ a p r o n ’ w h ic h p r o t e c t e d th e l e g i o n a r y ’ s
a b d o m e n ; a h in g e f r o m o n e o f th e stra p s
u sed to fasten a r m o u r ; a n d a b in d in g strip
f r o m th e e d g e o f a l e g io n a r y s h ie ld ; all
a b o u t 4 /5 th s a c tu a l size. T h e life -s iz e m o d e l
b y H . R u s se ll R o b in s o n s h o w s th ese v a r io u s
f it t in g s ( e x c e p t f o r th e h a rn e s s -lin k ) a c t u
a lly in use, w i t h a c lo s e - u p to c la r if y p o in ts
o f d e ta il (p p . 5 1 , 1 0 1 , 17 2 )
73 T h e latest s t r u c tu r a l p h a se s o f B a n k I as r e v e a le d in C u t t in g D in 19 6 7 (p. 6 7 ). T h e v e r t ic a l t w o - m e t r e
p o le sta n d s a g a in s t th e in n e r fa c e o f th e m o r t a r e d p e r i m e t e r w a ll o f th e E t h e lr e d a n burh. ( F o r th e o u t e r
fa c e o f th is w a ll, as p r e s e r v e d o n S it e A , see P la t e 86). A th in sp r e a d o f m o r t a r , sp ilt w h il e th e w a ll w a s
b e in g b u ilt , lie s b e h in d it ; tr a c e s o f th is c a n b e seen b e n e a th th e h o r iz o n t a l p o le . T h e m o r t a r sp r e a d w a s
c o v e r e d b y an e a r t h e n b a n k , r e t a in e d a t th e r e a r b y th e m o r t a r e d w a ll seen b e h in d th e h o r iz o n t a l p o le .
T h i s m o r t a r e d r e a r - r e v e t m e n t w a s f o u n d n o w h e r e else a r o u n d th e p e r im e t e r , s u g g e s t in g th a t th e
c o n s t r u c t io n o f t h e burh d e fe n c e s h a d n e v e r b e e n c o m p le t e d (p. 19 8 ). I m m e d ia t e ly to th e r i g h t o f th e
E t h e lr e d a n r e a r - r e v e t m e n t , a t a s l ig h t ly h ig h e r le v e l, a re r e m a in s o f a p o s t - E t h e lr e d a n r e v e t m e n t o f d r y
s t o n e w o r k , p e r h a p s c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h th e w a ll o f b ig y e l l o w sto n e s at th e s o u t h - w e s t g a t e (p. 2 0 2 ,
P la t e s 9 3 , 9 4 ).
In th e e a st e rn ( le ft-h a n d ) h a l f o f th e t r e n c h , E t h e lr e d a n a n d la t e r s t ru c tu r e s h a v e b e e n r e m o v e d to r e v e a l
th e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d d e fe n c e , R a m p a r t E , th e S t o n y B a n k (p p . 1 7 4 - 6 ) . T h e r o u g h ly - r e v e t t e d r e a r o f
th is h a s b e e n u n c o v e r e d ( c o m p a r e P la t e 7 4 ), w h il e a t th e e x t r e m e r i g h t o f th e tT en ch is a n e a te r stre tc h
o f s e c o n d a r y r e v e t m e n t f o r R a m p a r t E . T h e l o w e s t p a r t o f th e t r e n c h h as j u s t r e a c h e d I r o n A g e le v e ls .
T h e r i g h t - h a n d sid e o f th e t r e n c h is th e s e c tio n w h ic h is d r a w n as Fig. 7.
T h e h ill in th e b a c k g r o u n d g iv e s an im p r e s s io n o f w h a t th e C a d b u r y h ill w o u ld h a v e lo o k e d lik e b e f o r e
th e c o n s t r u c t io n o f th e d e fe n c e s .
-if t p
74 T h e c o r e a n d re a r r e v e t m e n t o f th e S t o n y B a n k , R a m p a r t E , as r e v e a le d in C u t t in g D , s h o w in g
e v id e n c e f o r th e t im b e r f r a m e w o r k a g a in s t w h ic h th e sto n e s h a d b e e n p ile d . T h e t w o - m e t r e r a n g i n g
p o le lies p a r a lle l to a lo n g it u d in a l t im b e r - s lo t , its tip lies a g a in s t a tr a n s v e r s e s lo t, a n d a b la c k s h a d o w
m a r k s a v e r t ic a l o n e (p p . 103, 176). T h i s is th e k in d o f e v id e n c e o n w h ic h th e r e c o n s t r u c t io n o f th e
A r t h u r ia n d e fe n c e s (Fig. 29) is b a se d
75 T h e s o u t h - w e s t g a te at th e sta rt o f th e 19 7 0 se a so n , l o o k in g in w a r d s (p. 10 4 ) .
In th e c e n t r e b a c k g r o u n d is th e r o a d s u r fa c e o f th e la te s ix th c e n t u r y A D , w it h th e
t im b e r slo ts o f th e A r t h u r ia n g a te j u s t v is ib le as d a r k stre a k s a c ro ss it ( c o m p a r e
P la te s 7 7 , 78 ). T o th e le ft o f th e p a s s a g e - w a y is th e A r t h u r ia n w a lli n g seen in
c lo s e - u p in P la t e 7 6 . In f r o n t o f th is is a stre tc h o f E th e lr e d a n w a lli n g . F o r th e p la n
o f th ese p h a se s see Fig. 33
76 T h e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d w a lli n g a t th e s o u t h - w e s t g a te . H a m m e r - d r e s s e d slab s
o f lias lie u p o n la r g e r o u g h b lo c k s o f Ju r a s s ic lim e s t o n e . T w o v e r t ic a l t im b e r slo ts
a re in d ic a te d b y th e o n e - m e t r e r o d s . In th e b a c k g r o u n d , th e in v e r t e d b u c k e t a n d
th e fin d s tr a y s re st o n th e s i x t h - c e n t u r y r o a d
< 7 7 . 78 An early stage in the exploration o f the
Arthurian gateway, looking across the passage
way and outwards down the passage-way (pp.
104-5). The road surface is that of the late sixth
century AD. The gaps where the sill-beams o f a
timber gate-tower have decayed are well-
defined. Both Arthurian and Ethelredan walling
is in place. For a plan see Fig. 35
79, 80 The first stage in the removal o f the late-
sixth-century road surface uncovered an iron
axe-hammer and a circular buckle or brooch,
seen here in the positions in which they were
found (p. 104). Scale o f centimetres. The buckle,
one inch diameter, is o f silver, with a bronze
pin, now broken. It is ornamented on both
faces with disintegrated animal ornament in the
sixth-century Germanic or Anglo-Saxon style.
Beneath the level with the buckle and axe was
an earlier road surface which could also be
related to the timber gate-tower (Figs 29 and
35)
8 1 T h e fa c e o f th e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d R a m p a r t E (th e S t o n y B a n k ) w h e r e it w a s
b e st p r e s e r v e d in C u t t i n g I. T h e m e t r e p o le s m a r k e m p la c e m e n t s f o r v e r t ic a l
t im b e r s (p. 6 8 ). A l t h o u g h th e s la b b y r o c k is v e r y su ita b le f o r b u ild in g d r y st o n e
w a lli n g , it is e v i d e n t th a t th e fr o n t r e v e t m e n t o f R a m p a r t E w a s v e r y s h o d d ily
b u ilt
The Iron A ge Town
certain pits on Sites B and P which contained complete pots and undamaged
grindstones.
The pits with skull burials were especially common on Site C , at the very
summit o f the hill. There they cluster around a small rectangular building
marked by four, or more probably six, posts. The plan suggests a simple Plates 42, 54
gable-ended building, sixteen by thirteen feet, raised on four comer posts,
with its ridge-tree resting on the intermediate posts. This was the first
rectangular building to be recognized at Iron A ge Cadbury. Bearing in
mind the scarcity o f such structures in the British Iron A ge as it appeared in
1968, and taking account o f the skull-pits in the vicinity, we interpreted this
at the time as a shrine. I still find this explanation plausible because o f the
pits. On the other hand it would be unreasonable to extend it to cover the Fig. 11
group o f six-post buildings which we disentangled from a confusion o f
post-holes at the eastern end o f Site T. They at least should be residential,
and even if some o f them belong to an early phase in the site’s history, some
may be as late as the Middle Iron Age.
Iron Age crafts and commerce
The leading craft-product o f the Iron Age, pottery, has already been des
cribed. In terms o f the available information, the next most important was
textiles. The chief evidence is provided by large clay loomweights, which in
this period are triangular. There are also bone bobbins and shuttles for hold- Plates 56, 58
ing woollen thread. Another implement which is traditionally assigned to
the weaving industry is the long-handled, short-edged comb o f bone or
antler. It is thought that these ‘weaving-com bs’ were used to pack down the
weft threads on a vertical loom. There is, o f course, no direct evidence for
this in the Iron Age, and the anthropological parallels are ambiguous. The
Navaho Indians certainly do use rather similar wooden combs for closing
up the w eft; but the Dakotah Indians use exactly comparable bone combs for
scraping the fat from animal skins. It is interesting here to recall that the
densest distribution o f ‘weaving-com bs’ is in those inland regions whose
inhabitants, according to Julius Caesar, were clothed in skins: interiores . . .
pellihus sum vestiti.40
Other crafts are well-exemplified by a hoard o f iron objects, o f the Late Plates 59. 61
phase, which was found buried in the back o f Bank 1 in Cutting D. This
displays the skill o f the blacksmith and the range o f his products in the first
century b c . The masterpiece is a large felling axe, o f a size such as a forester
might use today. The carpenter is represented by a saw blade, and the farmer
153
The Iron A ge Town
by a bill-hook or slasher and three sickles. In its ironwork the hoard symbol
izes peaceful and productive pursuits; and it is perhaps in this light we should
Plate 59 interpret the baked clay sling bolts which had corroded on to the saw and
one o f the sickles. These are usually taken to be the principal armament o f
the Late Iron A ge; but we should occasionally remember that David was a
simple herdsman before he became a w arrior.41
One other object in the hoard deserves particular mention - a bar o f iron,
parallel-sided for most o f its length, but pinched in at one end. This is an
example o f a class o f object which is common in the first century b c in the
western h alf o f southern England: the currency bar.42 These are iron bars o f
more or less standard shape, normally just over thirty inches long and weigh
ing rather over twenty ounces. They appear to correspond with the iron
rods o f definite weight which, so Caesar says, were used for money by the
Britons o f his day.43 It is clear from the archaeological evidence that the bars
were recognized as tokens o f wealth, for they were frequently deposited in
hoards. And even if we do not think o f them as money in our sense o f the
term, we may reasonably regard them as standard units in a barter system.
W e have already recognized hints o f trade in the Glastonbury pottery at
Cadbury. The currency bars - for there are fragments o f others from the
site as well - show the beginnings o f commerce.
Fine metalworking
The iron hoard from Trench D represents the general level o f competence
which was at the service o f the peasant farmer, but an altogether higher
Plates $1, 52 level is reflected by a fragmentary bronze shield fitting from Site N . This had
Fig. 22 originally been mounted on a Celtic shield, covering the boss which pro
tected the hand grip, and extending lengthwise over a stiffening rib.44 It is
o f thin sheet bronze, ornamented in relief with designs which were first
hammered up from the back and then sharpened up on the front with a
small chisel-like tool known as a tracer. The pattern consists o f multi
dimensional curves in the high style o f British Celtic art, with here and there
a suggestion o f animal forms - a puffin-like head with a large staring eye,
for instance. Even in its sadly damaged state, this is a very notable addition
to the repertory o f Celtic art applied to military gear; and it gains added
importance from being one o f the very few pieces discovered in a hillfort.
It is not the only noteworthy piece o f Celtic art to be found at Cadbury.
T w o other objects may be singled out for mention here. From a pit on Site
C came a bronze pendant, a ring with part o f its circumference narrowed
154
The Iron A ge Town
22 The decorated bronze

shield-mount shown in posi
tion on the wooden boss o f a
characteristic Iron Age
shield. T h e boss protects the
hand-grip, as can be seen in
the section and rear view o f
the grip (see Plates 5 1 , 5 2 )
down to take a loop o f leather or cloth. The centre o f the ring is embellished Plates VIII. IX
in relief with two birds’ heads, with bulging eyes made o f coral or paste,
and up-turned bills which point towards a third boss. On the flat back o f the
pendant, the same basic design is outlined in engraved or chased lines.
Secondly, in unstratified debris in front o f the south-west gate w e found a
bronze disk which had evidently been cut, rather crudely, from a larger Plate XI
object o f sheet metal. Artfully curved to conform to the circle was a very
stylized animal - most probably a horse - with dumpy head, sinuous body,
a pair o f stick-like legs, and a long flowing tail. The legs can be compared Fig. 25
with those o f the horse-designs on the gold and silver coins o f the last century
o f the British Iron Age, but the composition here is more sophisticated than
that on the normal run o f coins. We can only wonder what the original
object, from which our disk was cut, had been like.
There is some evidence to show that fine objects o f this kind were being
produced by armourers and other craftsmen at Cadbury itself. The shield
boss had been broken anciently, and had come to be buried where we found
it as scrap. Another obvious piece o f scrap was a shield fitting which had been
twisted violently to wrench it away from the nails which had fastened it.
These, and other pieces o f scrap bronze and iron had been collected together
155
The Iron A ge Town
Plate $5 for re-working, and then deposited beside a group o f furnaces on Site N.
Scattered over the same area we found a number o f bronze-workers’ tools:
punches, tracers and scribers o f both bronze and iron. Taken altogether,
these imply the existence o f a workshop on the Cadbury hill. This is the
first time that such evidence has been found within a hillfort, and it is
obviously o f importance when we try to assess the fort in sociological terms.
The status and function of the Iron Age town
In outlining the basic policy o f the Cadbury-Cam elot excavations in

Chapter Three, I have already mentioned some o f the obvious questions
about the character and purpose o f hillforts which we hoped to answer.45
The first concerned the permanency o f occupation. In theory there are '
three basic possibilities: a fort may have been occupied only as a place o f
refuge at a time o f tribal w arfare; or it may have been used seasonally -
perhaps in the summer season o f upland grazing and cattle-raiding as I
believe was the case with some upland forts in Wales; or it may have been
inhabited as continuously as any Rom an or medieval town. The evidence
o f substantial buildings at Cadbury rules out straight away the hypothesis
o f a temporary refuge. In itself it does not necessarily disprove the possibility
o f seasonal use. In the Himalaya today, for instance, the summer houses o f
m igratory transhuming peoples are both permanent and more or less as
substantial as their winter houses. But there is no reason to imagine that the
Celtic farmers o f southern Britain had any need to practise transhumance :
a sufficient range o f terrain for the practice o f mixed farming was close at
hand. All the weight o f evidence at Cadbury - the large and permanent
buildings, the storage pits, the practice o f both domestic industries and more
specialized crafts - point to the permanent occupation o f the Late Iron Age
town.
What was the status o f the inhabitants in terms o f rank and wealth? In
the past there has been a tendency to think o f hillforts as the equivalent o f
barons’ castles. Personally, I thought that this was an unhappy concept,
because it introduced anachronistic and utterly inappropriate medieval
ideas into early Celtic society. M oreover, there was nothing to support it in
the available archaeological evidence, apart from the defences themselves.
On the contrary, the absence o f prestige finds and activities - fine metalwork
in particular - from hillforts argued that the social level o f their inhabitants
was lowly. This view is now impossible to maintain in the face o f the
Cadbury evidence. It is true that the discovery o f the weapons and bronze
156
The Iron Age To urn
finery o f warrior aristocrats does not o f itself prove the presence o f such
warriors on a site where both the bronzes and the weapons appear as scrap. Plates 50-52
All we really have evidence for is armourers and high-class craftsmen. In
post-Rom an Celtic society, however, we know that such craftsmen worked
at the courts o f princes and chieftains; and if we can project back over six
or seven centuries, the Cadbury armourers and bronze-smiths similarly
imply the existence o f noble patrons.
Was it the warrior nobility who lived in the large round-houses in the
centre o f the fort? And are the houses which have been uncovered around
the periphery o f other forts significantly smaller, simply because they were
the dwellings o f peasants or serfs, the dependants o f the nobility? It is
perhaps consistent with this theory that an arc o f drainage gully found im Plate 38
mediately behind the rampart in Cutting A may have enclosed a house as
small as thirteen feet in dimeter. On the other hand, in hillforts where houses
are still visible today, such as Hod Hill in Dorset, and several forts in Caer
narvonshire,46 there are no marked differences in size - certainly none which
might suggest differences in social status. And one o f the two houses un /•/<». 10, 24
covered on the northern slopes (Site B) at Cadbury was nearly as large as
those in the centre o f the fort. On present evidence it would be very unwise
to equate house size and social status, whether at Cadbury or elsewhere.
Another o f our hopes had been to estimate the Iron Age population o f
the fort. This expectation had been fostered by the apparent ease with which /•'/.?. 6
the geophysical survey indicated round-houses. We confidently expected to
say ‘There are x circular anomalies, and therefore x round-houses: if we
allow ten persons to a house, the population was io x ; if twenty persons,
then 20 X ; and so on’. On this basis, we could at least have stated the limits
o f the population. But as the geophysical survey proceeded, it became
obvious that the detection o f irregularities decreased as we moved away
from the summit, and the peripheral zone was completely blanketed by
deep hill-wash. At the same time, the extensive excavation o f the plateau Cf. I:i$s. 6, 10
showed that, even under optimum conditions, only about half o f the
buildings uncovered by excavation had been indicated by geophysical
anomalies. As a result, we have no means, short o f total excavation, o f
establishing how many houses there were at Cadbury. An analysis o f the
excavated storage pits, extended by a count o f the unexcavated pits revealed
by air-photography or geophysical survey, might in the long-term provide
a basis for calculating the total food-storage capacity o f the fort. On this
we might build a shaky estimate o f the population. But at present, there is
no honest basis for calculating its size.
157
The Iron Age Town
T w o other features o f the Iron Age town deserve mention here. Firstly,
it was a centre for industry and trade. The industry included both fine
m etal-working for the nobility, and also the cottage industries o f the potter,
the weaver and the blacksmith. Trade is implied by the occurrence o f bronze
on the site, and by sophisticated pottery in the best Glastonbury style. The
currency bars indicate an organized system o f barter, and anticipate the true
coinage which we shall see in the next chapter. Secondly the town was a
religious centre. Here again the evidence o f the six-post shrine and the
associated skull-burials will be reinforced in Chapter Seven. It had long been
suspected that Iron A ge forts had served a ritual purpose: the pro o f came
from extensive excavations in the central area, which revealed that the focal
point o f the whole settlement was religious.
158
V II Celtic climax and downfall
The end of the Iron Age: historical evidence
The most striking event in the Iron Age history o f Cadbury is represented
in the archaeological evidence by the bodies found at the south-west gate.
With them was a large number o f weapons, and the whole scene suggested
a battle at the gate, followed by a massacre o f men, women and children.
From our knowledge o f other hillforts in southern England, it was reasonable
to suggest that the defenders were the native Celtic peoples, and their assail
ants the invading Rom ans.47 T o be more precise, it seemed that Cadbury
had been stormed by the Rom an army, at a date not far removed from the
invasion o f AD 43. Those inhabitants who had not fallen to R om an spears
and swords were driven out o f the fort, and the hill-top was then de
militarized by pulling down the defences and burning the gates. Evidence
from Site B showed that a small task force had encamped briefly on the hill
in order to carry out this destruction, and had taken the opportunity to
repair equipment which had been damaged in battle. These events put an
end to Celtic life and culture in about a d 45, and a firm line could be drawn
across the history o f the site at that point.
The key to the chronology which 1 have just outlined lies in the writings
o f the Latin biographer Suetonius, who composed a series o f Lives o f the
Emperors early in the second century a d . One o f his subjects was Vespasian,
emperor from a d 69 to 79, who in the years after a d 43 had commanded
the Second Augustan Legion on the left wing o f the Rom an advance
across southern Britain. Suetonius tells us that Vespasian ‘ fought thirty-
battles, conquered two warlike tribes, and captured more than twenty-
towns’ - the Latin word is oppida - ‘as well as the Isle o f W ight’.48 Clear
archaeological evidence from the Dorset hillforts o f Maiden Castle and
Hod Hill shows that these were two o f the oppida.49 There is also general
agreement that the Durotriges, the people o f Dorset and parts o f Wiltshire
and Somerset, were one o f the two tribes. Cadbury Castle is one o f some 2
fifteen or twenty large hillforts in the territory o f the Durotriges, so it has
an obvious claim to be yet another o f the twenty oppida which Vespasian
captured.50
>59
Celtic Climax and Downfall
This historical hypothesis is very attractive, but from the moment we

began to uncover the massacre at the gate there were difficulties in reconciling
it with the whole o f the archaeological evidence. A long with the bodies
Fig. 26 and the weapons were well over a hundred brooches o f bronze, o f many
varied types. All o f them had been developed, either in Britain or on the
continent from Celtic types o f brooch; but some varieties had only previ
ously been found in circumstances which suggested a date after a d 43.
This dating was not beyond question, for at the key sites, Camulodunum-
Colchester and Hod Hill, the Rom an occupation had been preceded by
native Celtic activity.51 M oreover, continental evidence suggested that
these brooches should really be dated earlier than British scholars have
normally allow ed.52 On balance, the evidence o f the brooches was too
ambiguous to prove one date rather than another for the massacre.
What tipped the scales decisively was the evidence o f the pottery. In the
course o f the excavations, during our examination o f the finds, we had been
struck by the scarcity o f R om an vessels characteristic o f the first and second
centuries a d , and we had concluded that early Rom an activity had been
restricted to a very brief Conquest phase. (Incidentally, the coins supported
this hypothesis. The only early coins were two very worn silver coins o f
Plate 11 the Rom an Republic, and two bronze ones o f the Emperor Claudius
datable a d 42-54, both in mint condition, and both appropriate to the
Conquest period.53) The most useful pottery for dating evidence is a glossy
Fig. 23 red table-ware, manufactured in Gaul and known to archaeologists as
‘Samian’ ware. Fairly rapid changes in shape, ornament and fabric make it
possible to date Samian with some precision. When the Cadbury Samian
had been studied in detail, we were surprised to learn that the reign o f
N ero (a d 54-68) was more strongly represented than that o f his predecessor
Claudius. M oreover, the Samian vessels used on Site B by the Rom an
troops engaged in destroying the Cadbury defences and repairing their own
equipment did not date, as we expected, to the 40s; they were not earlier
than the 70s.54
In other words, if the Rom an activity on Site B was to be connected with
that at the gate, then the massacre had occurred about thirty years later than
w e had originally assumed. This, o f course, would fit the conventional
dating o f the brooches. Was there any other evidence to confirm it? A very
close examination o f the pottery found in the same level as the brooches and
the bodies showed that most o f it was perfectly normal native Durotrigian ;
but there were also fragments in a fine pale grey ware, microscopically
distinguishable from Durotrigian wares, and undoubtedly early Rom an in
160
S herd s/ aecaae Celtic C/iwtix iJiid Downfill
3 Cadbury Castle
2
40 60 80 100
South Cadbury
5 -----------
4
3 -
2 ■
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 AD
2 ) Relative chronology o f Sam ian pottery from C adbury C astle and South Cadbury village. T h e
histograms show the average number o f sherds per decade. Statistical presentation by P . J . Ashm ore
from information supplied by G. D annell
date. At this stage in the development o f our ideas, we came to realize that
almost every large group o f Durotrigian pottery which we had found con
tained a few uncharacteristic pieces which were either certainly or probably
Rom an.
The conclusions from the evidence, so far as w c have studied it, are these.
The Celtic culture o f Cadbury was not brought to an abrupt end about
ad 44. It continued to flourish fora generation or so, accepting a few material
objects trom the Rom ans, but basically unchanged from its native ways.
The real break comes in the 70s. Until then, we can regard Durotrigian
culture as a unity, albeit one that develops with the passage o f time. This is
how I propose to deal with it in the sections which follow.
The ultimate phase in the defences
It is necessary first to retrace our steps from the end o f the Ultimate, or
Durotrigian, phase at Cadbury to its beginning. Beneath the stonework o f
the final Iron Age gateway was a thin dark layer, which appeared to be
humus. On the right-hand side o f the gate, this layer ran up from the passage-
w ay towards the crest o f the rampart in a gentle slope. I f it is correctly

interpreted as humus, then it implies that immediately before the stones o f
the Ultimate entrance were laid, there was here a grassy bank. This in turn
implies a phase o f neglect, even o f complete dereliction, at the gate. Can we
go further and argue that the residents o f an inhabited fort would never
have allowed a key-point in their defences to lapse into this condition? And
is the corollary that the fortified town had been abandoned for a spell
before the last gate was built? We shall see shortly that the Ultimate phase
saw a marked changed in pottery, in houses, and in the use o f storage pits,
so there is a cumulative case that late in the first century b c Cadbury had
been abandoned. We do not know the reasons for the abandonment, but
the fort was re-occupied early in the first century a d by people whose
material culture differed strongly from that o f the Late Iron Age occupants.
There is considerable evidence that the defences were reconstructed when
the fort was re-occupied. The pottery found on the very bottom o f Ditch i
was o f the Ultimate phase, which implies that earlier silt and rubbish had
been cleaned out o f the ditch. Beyond this, we can infer that the ditch was
deepened as well, because the rock which was quarried from it was then
used to build a massive wall at the front o f the pre-existing bank. N o doubt
the wall originally had a sheer outer face, but this was later thrown down
into the ditch, and only the rear stonework was preserved. A t the same time
Banks 3 and 4 were both heightened, which implies, o f course, re-cutting
in Ditches 2 and 3. Even from such shattered remains as the Rom an working
party left intact, it was clear that the last major defence-work o f the Iron
A ge was extremely formidable.
The contemporary gateway was also characterized by the use o f excep-
Platcs 33, 34, 36, 37 tionally large stones. On the right-hand side, the attempt to cope with the
wearing down o f the road was finally abandoned, and the guard-chamber
on that side was walled o ff and filled in solid with rubble. On top o f this
Fig. 12 was laid a platform o f great slabs, which may have been a base for a look-out
platform or tower. The left-hand guard-chamber was retained, in the form
o f a semi-circular hollow scooped out o f the solid rock, faced with a skin
o f dry stonework, and roofed with a light covering o f wicker-work. Down
the passage from the guard-chamber was the single gate. This had two leaves
o f uneven size, turning on sturdy timber posts: the one wide enough to
admit carts and chariots, the other only sufficient for pedestrians and led
animals. From the gate, the stonework o f the entrance passage ran forward
so as to link the inner bank with Bank 2, which was extended as a hom w ork
to cover the direct approach to the entrance.
The Durotrigian town

It seems likely that traders’ booths and stalls stood just inside the town gate,
to catch the attention o f rustics and their wives as they brought their goods
to market. This, at least, is the most reasonable explanation for the scores o f
bronze brooches which were scattered down the length o f the entrance -
that they had come from a trinket-stall, which had been overthrown in the
course o f the final struggle at the gate. But we know nothing for certain
about houses in the town itself. Whenever there is evidence from stratifica
tion or associated finds, the round-houses all belong to the Middle and Late
phases, while the six-posters on Site T may be earlier still.
If we ask what a house o f the Ultimate Iron Age might have been like in
this part o f Britain, the best evidence is provided by the contemporary
homestead o f Tollard R o yal in north Dorset.55 There the single house was
clearly defined by a cluster o f post-holes, irregularly spaced and o f varying
size and depth, forming a rough circle seventeen feet in diameter. It is not
certain whether these mark the wall-line, or an inner ring o f ro o f supports.
What is certain is that at Cadbury it would have been impossible to distin
guish sets o f post-holes as irregular as these amid the overall complexity.
It is just possible that two clusters o f this kind were definable on Site C in /•/?. 10, 4, 5
1968, but neither o f them produced finds appropriate to the Ultimate phase.
The simple truth is that we have no evidence for the character o f the dwellings
in the first century a d .
Another phenomenon at this time is the scarcity o f storage pits. It is true
that many pits have Ultimate pottery in their topmost layer, but this merely
indicates that they still existed as shallow depressions in which rubbish
might accumulate. O nly a very small number produce Ultimate pottery
throughout their filling. I have already commented on the scarcity o f pits
in the Early phase, and I suggested that we had not located the main focus
o f the Early settlement. But this hypothesis is unnecessary in the Ultimate
phase. The storage pits at Maiden Castle had all been filled in by this time,
so we are faced with a general phenomenon. A probable explanation is that
very large pottery store jars had become available, and these must have been
far more convenient than the pits.
Despite the absence o f identifiable houses, one building can certainly be Plates 48. 49
attributed to the Ultimate phase, namely the porched shrine which stands /:ijj. 10, 27
at the mid-point o f the axial ridge. The quantity o f Ultimate pottery which
had been tamped down into the wall trench leaves no room for doubt
about the cultural phase to which it belongs, but two particular fragments
o f pot and an iron arrow-head suggest that the date is after rather than before
>4 Restored ressels o f the Ultimate Iron A g e phase. ^ head-rim howl o f the type found in the
M aiden Castle war cemetery ; a jar with countersunk handles; a sophisticated cordonned h o w l; and
a simple head-rim howl. Th e jar is ç ins high
ad 43. The inner room o f the shrine was about eight feet square. On the east
was a doorw ay just over three feet wide, opening on to a porch or verandah
nearly four feet deep. It is possible that the porched shrine replaced a simpler
and less substantial building a few feet further east. If this is correct, the
earlier shrine may go back before ad 43. Immediately outside it a full-grown
cow had been buried. Beyond this again, conforming to the axis o f the
Plate 45 porched shrine, and bounded on the south by a wooden fence, was the zone
with burials o f young animals. To the north o f the axial line were the
supposed weapon-burials, mostly disturbed by ploughing. If these are
correctly interpreted, we may see here the offerings o f peasant and o f warrior
either side o f a processional approach to the shrine.
Crafts and Commerce
The pottery o f the Ultimate Iron Age phase at Cadbury is distinguished by

I'tg. 24 technical competence and aesthetic dullness. It includes bowls with bead-
rims, developed from the varied bead-rim bowls o f the Late Iron Age by a
process o f simplification and standardization. Then there are larger bowls,
with a highly polished black surface, ornamented with horizontal ridges or
164
Celtic (Uimax and Downfall
cordons. Both the bead-rim and the cordoned bowls often stand on foot-
rings. Medium-sized jars may have either bead-rims or upright necks, and
they frequently have thick loop handles which are partly countersunk into
the body o f the jar. The jars commonly have simple lattice ornament on the
body. Most o f this pottery is hard-fired and thin-walled. The fossil shell
filler o f earlier pottery has now given way to sand-gritted fabric. Finally,
most pieces were finished, if not actually thrown, on a fast potter’s wheel.
Taken as a whole, this Ultimate pottery compares well with that de
posited, about a d 44, in the well-known War Cemetery at Maiden Castle.S6
It is usually regarded as characteristic o f the tribe o f the Durotriges, but I
have reservations about the equation o f tribe and ceramic group in this
particular instance. It is generally considered that the technically less sophisti
cated pottery o f earlier generations had been made in the home by the
wom en-folk, and in that case it probably did represent tribal taste and culture
quite faithfully. But when the fast wheel was introduced, potting ceased to
be a domestic craft and became a specialized industry, removed from the
home and divorced from the tribe. It is worth noticing here that the skill o f
Durotrigian potters was so highly regarded by the conquering Rom ans
that they exploited it to meet both military and civilian needs. The pottery
found on Hadrian’s Wall from a d 122 is directly descended from that
current in Dorset a century earlier. For these reasons, we cannot say whether
the Ultimate pottery at Cadbury implies that the site fell within the political
boundaries o f the Durotriges, or whether the town was at the receiving end
o f a vigorous trade from more southerly areas.
We have already seen that after the Rom an conquest and occupation o f
southern England, new types o f pottery became available at Cadbury. The
most obvious was the Samian table-ware, for its glossy red surface must
have been conspicuous against the predominant blacks and greys o f Duro
trigian pottery. But the total quantity available to the inhabitants o f Cadbury
was minute : in our five seasons o f excavation we found fragments o f less
than a dozen Samian vessels o f this period. Another interesting introduction
was that o f cream or pink coloured jugs in an exceptionally hard fabric, for
these had been manufactured in kilns set up at Corfc Mullen (near W im -
bome Minster, Dorset) immediately after the Conquest:57 the Rom ans
were obviously exploiting and developing the existing talents o f the Duro
trigian potters. Yet another innovation was that o f very large, heavy storage
jars. These novelties formed only a very small component in the Ultimate
Iron Age pottery at Cadbury: by and large, the vessels available to an
ordinary household changed little in the generation after a d 43.
25 C o in series show ing the development and

derivation o f Celtic coinage from the gold stater o f
Ph ilip I I o f M acedon ( 3 5 9 - 3 3 6 B C ) . H is stater
has the head o f A p o llo (obverse) and a racing
chariot with the legend O l A I I i n O Y (reverse).
T h e design is copied and breaks up, but is still
recognisable, on a go ld stater o f the Parisii o f G a u l;
it then becomes a very degenerate copy on a stater o f
the British Durotriges. T h e last coin is an exam ple
o f a Durotrigian stater o f this type fo u n d at C adbury
(see Plate 5 7 )
T h e o c c u r r e n c e o f in d u s tr ia lly - p r o d u c e d p o t t e r y th r o u g h o u t th e U lt im a te
p h a s e is , o f c o u r s e , e v i d e n c e f o r t r a d e . B e y o n d t h is , a n in c r e a s e in c o m m e r c i a l
Plates i i , 57 a c t i v i t y is d e m o n s t r a t e d b y t h e C e l t i c c o i n s f r o m C a d b u r y . F o r th e m o s t
Fig. l p a r t , t h e c o i n s a r e o f t y p e s f o u n d w i d e l y in t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h e D u r o t r i g e s ,
so o n c e a g a in t h e y r a is e th e q u e s tio n w h e t h e r th e ir p re s e n c e at C a d b u r y
d e n o te s th e e x t e n t o f D u r o t r ig ia n p o lit ic a l in flu e n c e , o r w h e t h e r t h e y a re
m e r e l y e v i d e n c e f o r s o m e k i n d o f c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y . E v e n in c o m m e r c i a l
t e r m s , t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e is a m b i g u o u s , b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e n o b r o n z e c o i n s t o
p r o v i d e s m a l l d e n o m i n a t i o n s . T h i s s t a t e m e n t is a t v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e t r a d i
tio n a l a c c o u n t o f D u r o t r ig ia n c o i n a g e , w h i c h is t h a t in t h e p r e - R o m a n
p e r io d th e tr ib e h a d s t r u c k b o th s ilv e r a n d b r o n z e c o in s . A t fir s t s ig h t w e
h a d e x a m p le s o f b o th m e ta ls a t C a d b u r y : b u t c h e m ic a l tr e a tm e n t s h o w e d
t h a t a ll b u t o n e o f t h e a p p a r e n t b r o n z e c o i n s w e r e i n f a c t o f s i l v e r , o f v a r y i n g
d e g r e e s o f p u r i t y . T h e e x c e p t i o n w a s c e r t a i n l y b r o n z e , b u t it a p p e a r e d t o b e
a c o r e f o r a g o l d - p l a t e d f o r g e r y . It is c o n s e q u e n t l y d i f f i c u l t t o b e l i e v e t h a t
th e c o i n s r e p r e s e n t a t r u e m o n e y e c o n o m y . 58
Fig. 25 T h e D u r o t r i g i a n c o i n s a r e b a r b a r o u s a f f a ir s , w h i c h h a v e t r a v e l l e d a l o n g
r o a d o f d e g e n e r a t i o n f r o m t h e p r o t o t y p e g o l d s t a t e r o f P h i l i p II o f M a c e d o n .
A m o n g th e D u r o t r ig e s , th e h e a d o f A p o l lo , w h ic h sh o u ld fo r m th e o b v e r s e ,
1 66
has become a meaningless scatter o f dots. On the reverse, the chariot and
horses have also disintegrated into lines, representing the horses’ legs, and
blobs for everything else. In complete contrast is a gold stater, inscribed
A N T E 0 R IG , ‘ King Antethos’. Antethos was a ruler o f the Dobunni, a
tribe which inhabited the Cotswolds and the Lower Severn valley in the
decades before the R om an Conquest.59 Cadbury lies close to the southern
boundary o f the distribution o f Dobunnic coins, and in a similar relationship
to the northern boundary o f those o f the Durotriges, so it is not surprising
that coins o f both tribes have been found on the site. The Antethos coin
bears a stylized ear o f grain, looking rather like a Christmas tree, on the
obverse. On the reverse is a horse, stylized in the Celtic manner, but none
theless both recognizable and lively. Beneath its belly is one wheel o f the
original chariot.
Native Durotrigian coins probably continued to circulate after a d 43,
especially in the form o f cast bronze issues, which provided small change for
minor commercial transactions. None o f these cast coins have been found
at Cadbury, however, and their absence, together with the scarcity o f early
Rom an coins, shows that money played very little part in the economy o f
the site in the mid-first century. It is even possible that the two Claudian
bronze coins which we found had been lost by troops o f the military working
party in the 70s, though their near-mint condition tells against this suggestion.
Metalwork and art
For the most part, the Durotrigian metalwork found at Cadbury came from
the massacre and destruction levels at the south-west gate. Consequently
it represents the kind o f metalwork that was current among native com
munities during the first generation o f the Rom an occupation o f southern
England. Any piece is therefore likely to reflect, in greater or lesser degree,
the taste o f the conquerors, rather than a purely Celtic style. The artistic
ambiguity which results is well demonstrated by the bronze plaque which
was found on the floor o f the guard-chamber o f the Ultimate gate, beneath
a layer o f burned and collapsed roofing.
The plaque was a sheet o f very thin bronze, beaten out from behind to Plate XII
produce a human face in relief. I say human, but it is at least as likely that it
is intended to represent a divine or demonic personage. About this descrip
tion there can be no disagreement, nor can it be disputed that the plaque
was in the possession o f the Celtic inhabitants o f Cadbury at the time o f the
Rom an assault: its stratified position guarantees that. But when we try to
167
assess its cultural and aesthetic background, argument is rife. One school o f
opinion, impressed by the general scarcity o f human representations in
Celtic art, and by the lively realism o f some aspects o f our piece, regards it
as classical in inspiration and Rom an in workmanship. Some would even
identify it with Medusa. Another school points to the stylistic features which
can be paralleled in such Celtic figurai art as we possess: the frontality, the
character o f the eyes, the stylization o f the curls. The explanation probably
lies in taking an element o f truth from each, and seeing the plaque as the
work o f a Celtic craftsman, who was heavily influenced by R om an models.
It might have been made in Gaul, or even in Britain, where examples o f
Rom an representational art were already beginning to appear in the decades
before the invasion o f a d 43. But whatever its artistic source, it is agreed
that the plaque had ornamented a wooden chest or casket. And if we inter
pret it, despite its genial appearance, as a demon-mask, then it gave magical
protection to whatever precious goods the chest contained.60
Plates 11, 65, 66 The bronze brooches which were found in such abundance at the south
west gate, and in smaller numbers in the Ultimate phase o f Bank 1, also
reflect the development o f Celtic taste under Rom an influences. Some o f
Fig. 26a them were simple penannular or hoop brooches, and there can be no doubt
about the Celtic origins o f these. But the larger number were bow or
Fig. 26b safety-pin brooches. M any o f these have their pins sprung with wire coils
in the ancient Celtic manner, whilst others, more advanced, have hinged
pins. The bow is normally decorated with cast grooves and ridges, and is
then further embellished by punching or engraving in the grooves to produce
w ave or zig-zag patterns. Some patterns are so fine that today they can only
be analysed under a lens, but this does not im ply that the ancient jeweller
used a lens - only that he was interested in producing surface effects by
minute and delicate movements o f his tools.
The bow brooches all derive from types which were current in Celtic
Europe, and probably in Britain too, before the beginning o f the Christian
era. W e have already noticed, however, that some o f the more developed
forms have normally been found on sites like Colchester or Hod Hill where
the Rom an presence is stronger than the Celtic. Fortunately the evidence
for their relative date and associations is fairly clear at Cadbury. When the
Ultimate rampart was built some decades before a d 43, several brooches
were dropped and became incorporated in the bank along with purely
Fig. 26c, d Durotrigian pottery. These brooches all have straight-sided, slightly tapered
bows. Immediately before the Rom an assault in the 70s, the rampart was
hastily refurbished. M ore brooches were incorporated in it, and with them
168
2 6 Bronze brooches o f the Ultimate Iron A g e. a simple penannular; b safety-pin or bow-brooch with
sprung pin ; c, d hinged brooches typical o f the last decades o f the pre-R o m an Iron A g e , but continuing
in use fo r some decades after the R om an invasion o f A D 4 3 ; e, f, g types introduced around the middle
o f the first century A D , and characteristic o f the massacre level at the south-west gate ; h an unusually
elaborate brooch, with a hollow conical head o f tinned bronze, c-h are all decorated with various form s
o f chased and punched ornament, d is 2 % ins long
w a s b o t h D u r o t r i g i a n p o t t e r y a n d a ls o R o m a n p o t t e r y i n c l u d i n g S a m i a n .
T h e b ro o c h e s fro m t h is l e v e l i n c l u d e d s o m e w i t h w i n g s o n t h e b o w - a Fig. 26e

c h a r a c te r is tic o f th e b ro o ch e s fro m H od H ill. The b ro o ch e s fro m th e
m a ssa cre at th e g a te in c lu d e b o th s t r a ig h t- t a p e r e d and w in g e d b o w s,

showing that the pre-Rom an type had not been driven o ff the market by
later Rom anized fashions.
Another major class o f metalwork is represented by the iron weapons
Plate 63 which were found along with the brooches and corpses. Indeed, it is the
weapons which provide the principal evidence for a battle at the gate. The
commonest are large leaf-shaped spear blades, which probably served as
the heads o f pikes. They form a well-known type among the pre-Rom an
Britons. M ore unusual are two spears with small flat heads and long thin
shanks. These could possibly be feeble imitations o f the pilum used by Rom an
legionaries - a javelin with a shaft which was designed to bend or break on
striking an enemy shield. There are also two bowl-shaped shield bosses.
Although we might expect both the attackers and the defenders to have lost
weapons, none which we found could be assigned to Rom an legionaries.
On the other hand, any o f them might have been used by Rom an auxiliary
troops, for these could have included Celtic horsemen recruited in Gaul,
and using weapons very similar to those o f their cousins in Britain. Another
attribute o f the Celtic warrior is the metal neck-ring or tore. These are
frequently o f bronze or even gold, but in the gateway we found two ex
piates 64, X amples o f iron. One o f these is remarkable as being the earliest instance in
Britain o f the use o f brass for an ornamental inlay.
The Roman assault
The fate o f the native Britons at the hands o f Vespasian’s legion varied from
one oppidum to another. At Maiden Castle there was a battle involving both
an artillery bombardment and hand-to-hand fighting. On their defeat, the
inhabitants were left to bury their dead amid the outworks o f the east
entrance. After some lapse o f time, the gates and the walling o f the passage
w ay were dismantled, and the inhabitants were removed to the new low
land town o f Durnovaria - Dorchester. At Hod Hill there is evidence for an
artillery bombardment, but none for close combat or massacre. Neverthe
less, the inhabitants were immediately turned out o f the fort, and a Rom an
garrison was planted in their place in a regularly laid out auxiliary fort.
Cadbury, by contrast, was evidently by-passed in the mid-40s. The
inhabitants continued to live in their ancestral manner, taking very little
from the Rom ans: a little Gaulish table-ware, some fine jugs from the Corfe
Mullen kiln, perhaps a few coins, and the latest fashions in brooches. Some
o f them seem to have moved down the hill to found the first settlement in
F‘S- 3 South Cadbury itself, for an independent excavation directed by M r John
170
Laidlaw showed that rectangular timber buildings were being erected there Plate i
in the 50s. Life certainly continued within the defences; intensive traffic
through the south-west gate is demonstrated by the wearing down o f the
road surface. And it was probably during the generation after the invasion
that the porched shrine replaced a simpler shrine on the summit ridge.
W hy was the peaceful continuity o f native life so violently shattered in
the 70s? The question is not at all easy to answer within the framework o f
our current knowledge o f early Rom ano-British history. If we could date
the Rom an assault to the early 60s, we could see it as a local reflection o f the
great revolt o f Queen Boudicca, and the severe repression which followed it.
But the Rom an activity on Site B is dated to the 70s (or even later) by the
Samian pottery found there, so the Boudiccan rising is ruled out. In the late
60s and 70s the focus o f military activity in Britain shifted northwards, and
at the same time the natives were encouraged to settle in newly founded
towns as part o f a policy o f civilizing them. For instance, the Rom an
garrison evacuated the fort at Dorchester, and the inhabitants o f Maiden
Castle were then moved down to establish a town there. Is it possible that
the people o f Cadbury Castle resisted an attempt to civilize them, and had
to be forcibly transplanted? There is this at least in favour o f the hypothesis,
that the evidence suggests police action - albeit o f a brutal kind - rather than
a full-scale military campaign.
Whatever the reason for the Rom an assault, it is clear that the natives
were forewarned and had made preparations to resist it. I have already
mentioned that Bank 1 had been refurbished. This was done by scraping up
soil from inside the defences, and piling it on top o f the existing rampart. F ig - 7
At the south-west entrance, three large pits were dug outside the gate itself. Fiji- 12
Clear traces o f burning showed that posts had been standing in the pits at
the time o f the attack, and it is likely that they supported an arrangement o f
barricades across the passage-way. Needless to say, these crude emergency
measures were unavailing against superior Rom an discipline and weaponry.
Some o f the inhabitants were slain at the gate, and their bodies were left to
rot where they had fallen. Otheis were removed to the lowlands, either to
the settlements at Catsgore and Ilchester, seven miles away, or simply to
South Cadbury, where there is a marked intensification o f activity from this Fiji 23
time on.
Subsequently the Rom an police party returned to Cadbury to complete Plate 36
its work by burning the timberwork o f the gate and pulling down the stone
work o f the entrance-passage and the defences. The thoroughness o f their
demolition is revealed by the disappearance o f the Ultimate revetment o f
171
Bank 1 and the corresponding occurrence o f masses o f stone thrown down

into Ditch i . In the interior, traces o f the working party were recovered in
profusion around an area o f burned clay, probably the base o f a field oven,
Plates 70-72 on Site B. Numerous fragmentary bronzes from armour suggest that the
troops were having to repair equipment which had been damaged in their
police action. There were ornamental disks, probably from helmets;
bindings from shields; buckles from leather equipment; hinge-plates from
leather or metal cuirasses; and most spectacular o f all, bronze links from a
Plate X harness-suite, inlaid in silver.
It is possible that the w orking-party was living in tents, but more likely
Plate 69 that it had been housed in the small rectangular buildings that we discovered
on the western side o f Site B. Within the limits o f our excavation, we traced
Fiji>. 10, 30 three o f these, set in a row beside the hollow-way, but it is quite likely that
there were others downhill from the ones which we found. They were
each about twenty feet long by thirteen feet wide, and they were separated
one from another by a thirteen-foot gap. It was this regularity o f lay-out
which suggested that these were R om an military buildings, despite the lack
o f exact parallels on known R om an forts. Although the huts were erected
on a slope, nothing had been done to dig out level emplacements for them.
On the other hand, structural details suggested that they had raised - and
therefore level - wooden floors. Finally, whether we accept these as the
barracks o f the R om an working party, or think o f it as occupying a tented
camp, there is no evidence at all that it was protected by defences o f a
R om an military pattern. This seems consistent with the hypothesis that we
are dealing with police action rather than with a military campaign.
Cadbury during the Roman period
After the forcible removal o f its inhabitants, the Cadbury hill-top was
probably given over to agriculture. The only datable material which spans
the next two centuries consists o f five scraps o f Samian, which had probably
come in with manure from the middens o f the settlement at the foot o f the
Fig. 23 hill. That settlement continued to flourish through the remainder o f the
first and much o f the second century. M r Laidlaw’s research showed that
there were at least two structural periods in the buildings there. Unfortun
ately, however, the area available for excavation between modem cottages
was so limited that it was not possible to work out the plans o f these buildings.
B y the end o f the second century, to judge from the pottery and coins,
activity at South Cadbury was tapering off. Some time in the later third
72
century, however, coins and pottery begin to occur once more on the
hill-top. T o the handful o f late Rom an coins which we found must be
added the hundreds which have been ploughed up and dispersed over the
centuries. The most likely cause o f this renewed activity is the construction
o f a pagan temple, if, that is, we can judge from the evidence o f other hill-
forts which have yielded Late Rom an material. The most spectacular
temple discovered by excavation is the one at Lydney in Gloucestershire,
where a building o f classical plan was dedicated to the Celtic god Nodcns.
But more typical are the simpler buildings at Maiden Castle in Dorset and
Brcan Down in Somerset. These arc Rom ano-Celtic temples in the strict
sense o f the term: a small square shrine surrounded on all sides by a verandah.
Here the ancestral Celtic gods were worshipped, their names coupled with
those o f the O lym pic pantheon; and here devout pilgrims made offerings o f
votive figures, bronze trinkets, and coins.61
At Cadbury there is, in fact, no direct evidence for such a temple. But the
inference that one had existed is very reasonably based on the Late Rom an
coins, which could well have been offerings. The gilt-bronze letter ‘A ’ can be Plate io
paralleled at various temple sites, so it too is a pointer. M oreover, the post-
Rom an defence, Ram part E, contains roofing tiles o f pot and stone, and Plate 76
both hammer-dressed and sawn stones, all o f which had been removed from
some sophisticated R om an building. Bearing in mind the evidence for Iron
Age shrines, we may believe that Cadbury had retained its sanctity over the
centuries.
Even so, it must appear remarkable that no trace o f a temple-building,
or even o f its robbed-out foundations, was found whether by excavation or
air-photography or geophysical prospecting. A possible explanation is
provided by a consideration o f the Brean Down temple. There the founda
tions were laid directly on the solid rock, not in a rock-cut foundation trench.
The hard Oolitic limestone o f the Cadbury plateau would have made an
ideal bedding for such foundations. And once the superstructure had been
robbed to provide material for the next defence work, the subsequent
centuries o f ploughing and quarrying would have obliterated all remaining
traces. In the sixteenth century Leland could write that ‘ yn dyverse places
men may se fundations and rudera o f walles’ ; but by the early eighteenth,
to judge from Stukeley’s account, these had vanished.62 We can almost
see the presumed R om ano-Celtic temple disappearing over the intervening
years.
173
V III Camelot and Cadanbyrig
Dating evidence in the late fifth and sixth centuries

The latest coin that has any bearing on the Late Rom an use o f Cadbury is
one o f Honorius, datable a d 393-402. In fact the coin series at other R om ano-
Celtic temples usually ends before this, and it seems therefore that the pagan
temples had been deserted by the end o f the fourth century in face o f official
support for Christianity. The Honorian coin is also the latest datable object
stratified beneath the first post-Rom an phase o f rampart building, the so-
called Stony Bank or Ram part E. On its evidence, therefore, Ram part E
could date as early as a d 400. If this were so, it would belong not in the
Arthurian period but in a shadowy phase o f very late Rom an re-fortification
which has been recognized at the hillfort o f the Breiddin in M ontgom ery
shire, and perhaps also at Cadbury-Congresbury in north Somerset.63 At
Plates 79, 80, XI the other extreme o f the dating range, we have the silver ring or buckle which
lay beneath the later road o f the south-west gateway through the Stony
Bank defences. N o close parallel is known for the form o f this buckle, but
there can be little doubt that its disintegrated animal ornament belongs in
the last third o f the sixth century. Therefore, the roadway through the gate
was resurfaced about the 570s. But there is no evidence that the timber
gate-tower itself needed any repairs at that time, and it is certain that its main
uprights were not renewed. We do not know how long earthfast timbers o f
this kind might last, but it is difficult to believe that it could be more than
a century. If this is correct, and if the evidence o f the silver buckle has been
properly assessed, then a date nearer a d 500 than 400 seems reasonable for
the original Ram part E defensive scheme.
This date makes it necessary to bring the imported Tintagel-type pottery
Plate XIII into the discussion. Three classes o f this pottery were found at Cadbury
Castle.64 Class A consists o f rather fine red bowls, with wall-sided rims
Fig. 27 which are often decorated with rouletting. The bases have a shallow foot-
ring, and sometimes bear stamped crosses on the interior. A source in the
east Mediterranean is certain, but cannot be precisely located within an arc
174
Camelot and Cadanbyrig
2 7 Restored pottery vessels o f the late fifth and early sixth centuries A D ; a red dish with rouletted rim
importedfrom the eastern Mediterranean (class A ) ; a cross-stamp from the base o f a class A dish ; and a
grey bowl with bands o f rouletted ornament, brought to C adbury from the Bordeaux region (class D ) .
Th e class A dish is 11 ins in diameter
fro m G r e e c e t o E g y p t . S t r a t i f i e d d e p o s it s in G r e e c e p r o v i d e d a t e s w h i c h
c a n b e a p p lie d to th e B r it is h e x a m p le s ; a n d D r J o h n H a y e s , w h o h a s s tu d ie d
t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n e v i d e n c e , w o u l d p la c e t h e C a d b u r y p ie c e s in t h e p e r i o d
f r o m a d 4 6 0 / 7 0 t o 5 1 0 / 2 0 . C l a s s B c o n s is t s o f a v a r i e t y o f l a r g e j a r s , u s e d t o Fig. 28
i m p o r t w i n e , o i l , o r e v e n d r y g o o d s . O n e s u b - c la s s w a s p e r h a p s m a d e o n
t h e B l a c k S e a c o a s t o f R o m a n i a , b u t in g e n e r a l o n l y a v a g u e s o u r c e in t h e
ea ste rn M e d it e r r a n e a n c a n b e in d ic a te d . S o m e o f th e C a d b u r y e x a m p le s
b e l o n g t o a s u b - c la s s w h i c h is d a t a b l e t o t h e f i f t h r a t h e r t h a n t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y ,
b u t it is u n l i k e l y t h a t th e s e w e r e i m p o r t e d b e f o r e t h e 4 6 0 s o r 4 7 0 s , b e c a u s e t h e
w e s t e r n M e d i t e r r a n e a n h a d b e e n c lo s e d t o t r a f f ic a r o u n d t h e m i d d l e o f t h e
cen tu ry b y V a n d a l p ir a c y . F in a lly , C la s s D i n c lu d e s v a r i o u s b o w l s in a Fig. 27

d i s t i n c t i v e g r e y f a b r i c w i t h a b l u e - b l a c k w a s h . It w a s i m p o r t e d f r o m th e
B o r d e a u x r e g i o n , b u t s it e e v i d e n c e in G a u l t e lls u s o n l y t h a t it b e l o n g s in t h e
f if t h o r s i x t h c e n t u r ie s .
In g e n e r a l t e r m s , t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f t h is i m p o r t e d p o t t e r y i m p l i e s t h a t t h e
C a d b u ry h ill- t o p w a s re -o c c u p ie d fro m about a d 4 70 b y a c o m m u n ity
w e a l t h y e n o u g h t o t a k e p a r t in t h e t r a d e w h i c h it d e m o n s t r a t e s . O f m o r e
p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e , a f r a g m e n t f r o m a C l a s s B w i n e - j a r w a s f o u n d in o r
u n d e r R a m p a r t E , f i n a l l y c l i n c h i n g a d a t e in t h e la t e f if t h o r e a r l y s i x t h
c e n t u r y f o r it s c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h e o n l y o t h e r f i r m l y - s t r a t i f i e d T i n t a g e l - t y p e
p o t t e r y w a s in t h e w a l l - t r e n c h o f t h e t i m b e r h a ll w h i c h w i l l b e d e s c r ib e d
sh o r tly . S lig h t th o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e is, it is j u s t e n o u g h t o e s t a b li s h t h a t

aro u n d a d 500, C a d b u ry w a s o n c e a g a in a fo r t ifie d p la c e , w i t h a la r g e
t i m b e r h a ll as it s c e n t r a l b u i l d i n g .
The defences and gate

W h a t w a s th e c h a r a c te r o f th e n e w d e fe n c e s ? F o r a sta rt, o f c o u r s e , C a d b u r y
e n jo y e d s o m e p r o t e c tio n fr o m t h e n a t u r a l s t e e p n e s s o f th e h ill, a n d e v e n
m o r e f r o m t h e f o u r o r f i v e lin e s o f I r o n A g e b a n k s a n d d it c h e s . It is t r u e th a t
t h e d it c h e s w e r e p a r t l y s ilt e d u p , a n d t h e b a n k s e r o d e d - b u t even to d a y
t h e y w o u l d p r e s e n t f o r m i d a b l e o b s t a c le s t o a n a t t a c k i n g f o r c e . D e s p i t e th is,
t h e y w e r e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y a w h o l l y n e w w o r k , r a is e d o n t h e d e c a y e d t o p
o f th e in n e r m o s t Ir o n A g e r a m p a r t .
T h e e ss e n tia l fe a tu r e o f th e fif t h - a n d s ix t h - c e n t u r y d e fe n c e w a s a t im b e r
fra m e w o rk co n stru c te d o f b e a m s a b o u t s i x in c h e s s q u a r e . W e can o n ly
in f e r t h e s e b e a m s f r o m t h e h o le s a n d s lo t s w h i c h t h e y le f t in t h e b o d y o f t h e
r a m p a r t as t h e y d e c a y e d , a n d t h e e v i d e n c e is n e c e s s a r i l y p a t c h y . It s h o w s ,
h o w e v e r , th a t th e re w e r e v e r t ic a l t im b e r s at th e f r o n t o f th e r a m p a r t , w h ic h
w e r e p r o b a b ly c a r r ie d u p to a b r e a s t w o r k o f p la n k s o r w i c k e r w o r k . O t h e r
v e r t i c a l t i m b e r s w e r e se t in t h e b o d y o f t h e b a n k , a n d w e r e t ie d t o t h e f r o n t
t im b e rs b y t r a n s v e r s e h o r i z o n t a l b e a m s . L in e s o f s t o n e s r u n n i n g p a r a lle l
w ith th e r a m p a r t fa c e im p ly th e e x is te n c e o f lo n g it u d in a l tie s as w e l l .
R e l a t i v e l y f e w o f th e v e r t i c a l t i m b e r s w e r e e a r t h f a s t , so t h e f r a m e w o r k t o o k
its r i g i d i t y f r o m p e g g e d j o i n t s , a n d it s s t a b i l i t y f r o m th e e a rth a n d r u b b le
w h i c h h a d b e e n p i l e d w i t h i n it. T h e w h o l e s c h e m e w a s f in i s h e d o f f w i t h a
p o o r ly c o n s tr u c te d fa c in g o f d r y s t o n e w o r k . R o m a n d re ss e d sto n e a n d b u ild
i n g d e b r i s w a s u s e d l a v i s h l y in b o t h t h e f a c i n g - w a l l a n d t h e r a m p a r t c o r e .
T h e p la n o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y s o u t h - w e s t g a t e w a s a ls o r e c o v e r e d . Its
m a in s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e w a s a s q u a r e ( o r m o r e p r o p e r l y a p a r a l l e l o g r a m ) o f
f o u r p o s t s . T h e p it s f o r th e s e w e r e d u g d o w n t h r o u g h t h e d e b r is o f t h e I r o n
A g e g a te to a d e p th o f o v e r th r e e fe e t, a n d th e p o sts th e m s e lv e s w e r e s ix to
e i g h t in c h e s t h i c k . A c r o s s t h e f r o n t a n d r e a r o f t h e g a t e w a s a t i m b e r t h r e s h o l d
a ls o a b o u t e i g h t in c h e s w i d e , w h i l e t h e r a m p a r t e n d s w e r e s h o r e d u p a t
e i t h e r s id e o f th e g a t e w i t h s t u r d y p la n k s . T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e f o r t h e a c t u a l
d o o r a r r a n g e m e n t s , b u t it is r e a s o n a b l e t o i n f e r a n o u t e r a n d a n in n e r g a t e ,
each o f tw o f i v e - f o o t le a v e s . A b o v e t h e h e a d o f t h e d o o r w e n e c e s s a r i l y
e n te r in to a w o r ld o f s p e c u la t io n . T h e sto u tn e s s o f th e c o r n e r p o sts, a n d th e
d e p t h t o w h i c h t h e y w e r e b e d d e d , i m p l y t h a t t h e y w e r e in t e n d e d t o s u p p o r t
a w e i g h t y s u p e r s t r u c t u r e . T h is c o u ld h a v e b e e n a b r id g e c a r r y in g th e r a m
2 8 Exam ples from Egypt o f
p a rt w a lk a c r o s s t h e g a t e p a s s a g e , b u t b e a r i n g in m i n d t h e t i m b e r g a t e -
amphorae which w ould be
classed as Bio and B ii in the to w ers o f R o m a n f o r t s , it is p e r f e c t l y r e a s o n a b l e t o i m a g i n e t h e C a d b u r y
British Isles. No restorable g a t e c a r r i e d u p as a n e l e v a t e d f i g h t i n g - p l a t f o r m , r e a c h e d b y a l a d d e r f r o m
amphorae have yet been fo u nd
t h e s e n t r y w a l k . 65
in Britain or Ireland. Scale i :8
M e n t i o n o f p o s s ib le R o m a n a n a l o g i e s p r o m p t s a n a n a ly s is o f t h e a n c e s t r y
o f t h is d e f e n s i v e s c h e m e . A l t h o u g h R om an m a s o n r y w a s r e - u s e d in t h e
r a m p a r t , t h e m a n n e r o f it s u s e w a s c o m p l e t e l y u n - R o m a n : as d r y , n o t
m o r t a r e d s t o n e w o r k . In f a c t , t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f w o o d a n d d r y s t o n e w o r k
s e e m s t o l o o k b a c k t o a C e l t i c a n c e s t r y , a n d in a p p e a r a n c e t h e r e c a n h a v e
Fig. 19 b e e n l it t le d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n R a m p a r t B - t h e s e c o n d p h a s e o f t h e I r o n A g e
176
defences - and Ram part E in the late fifth century ad. But it is impossible
to see how a knowledge o f Celtic techniques o f fortification could have been
transmitted over the intervening centuries; and it is more likely that the
post-Rom an scheme at Cadbury was thought out from scratch by builders
who were ignorant alike o f Celtic fortification and o f Rom an mortared
masonry. At broadly this time on the continent, people were returning to
hill-tops which had originally been occupied in the Iron Age, and were
defending themselves against barbarian attacks by means o f ramparts o f
timber and stone.66 In each case we see like causes producing like effects.
The gateway, on the other hand, definitely suggests Rom an analogues.
It is true that the timber gates o f Rom an legionary fortresses and auxiliary
forts were frequently far more elaborate, with a double passage-way
flanked by guard-chambers carried up as towers. But there was also a simpler
form, with a single passage-way, no flanking chambers and a tower rising
directly over the passage. These simple gates were often six-post structures -
that is to say, with three posts either side o f an elongated passage - and this
type lasted throughout the first millennium to appear finally in the gate-
towers o f Norman earth-and-timber castles.67 In some cases a shorter
passage had only four main posts, with an extra pair inserted for the gate
hanging.68 This four-post type is the inspiration o f the Cadbury gate. It is
true that the known examples come from the first century a d ; but a six-post
gate-tower was built at Richborough in the late third century, and timber
gates o f unknown form were being maintained at Forden Gaer into the fourth
century. So a direct Rom an ancestry is not impossible for the Cadbury gate.
The hall
Within the defences, only one building can be definitely assigned to the late
fifth or sixth century: the timber hall located on Site L in 1968 and explored Plates 82-4, XIII
in 1969. I have already explained how this was dated by the freshly-broken
sherds o f a Class B wine-jar which had been tamped down into the filling
o f a wall trench. The trench itself had held a light screen or partition, which
was placed one third o f the w ay along a building with parallel sides and
slightly bowed ends. The main frame o f the building consisted o f upright
posts set at about ten foot centres. The post-holes did not penetrate very far
below the present surface o f the rock, which implies either that the level o f
the bedrock has been lowered by weathering, and especially by ploughing ;
or more probably that the whole structure depended on a braced timber
framework rather than on earthfast posts. This would suggest similar
177
2Ç Reconstruction o f the Arthurian-period rampart and south-west gate-tower. For some o f the
evidence on which this is based, see F ig .
c a r p e n t r y t e c h n i q u e s t o t h o s e e m p l o y e d in t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y r a m p a r t , a n d
it is in t e r e s t i n g t h a t in n e i t h e r c a s e w e r e i r o n n a i ls u s e d . T h e s h a l l o w n e s s o f
t h e m a in t i m b e r s a ls o e x p l a i n s w h y o n ly s lig h t tra c e s w e r e fo u n d of a
n o r t h e r n r o w o f r o o f s u p p o r t s , a n d e v e n le s s o f a s o u t h e r n r o w .
Fig. jo A p la u s ib le r e c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e b u ild in g w o u ld s u g g e s t an in fi llin g o f
w a t t le a n d d a u b f o r th e w a lls , a n d a th a t c h e d r o o f . T h e r e w a s p r o b a b ly a
d o o r in e a c h o f t h e l o n g w a l l s , b e s id e t h e s c r e e n . A n o p e n c e n t r a l h e a r t h is
l i k e l y in t h e l a r g e r r o o m , b u t t h e e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n p l o u g h e d a w a y . T w o
p o in t s m a y b e e m p h a s i z e d a b o u t t h e b u i l d i n g . F i r s t l y , it s t a n d s in a d o m i n a n t
p o s i t i o n o n t h e a x i a l r i d g e a t t h e c e n t r e o f t h e s u m m i t p la t e a u as d e f i n e d b y
t h e f i v e h u n d r e d f e e t c o n t o u r . T h i s in i t s e l f w o u l d le a d u s t o b e l i e v e t h a t it
w a s t h e p r i n c i p a l b u i l d i n g o f t h e A r t h u r i a n - p e r i o d f o r t . S e c o n d l y , t h e s iz e ,
s i x t y - t h r e e f e e t l o n g b y t h i r t y - f o u r f e e t w i d e , p u t s it w i t h i n t h e s i z e - r a n g e
Fig. j i o f m e d i e v a l h a lls . It is s m a l l e r t h a n t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y h a ll a t C a s t l e D o r e in
C o r n w a l l , o r t h e s e v e n t h - c e n t u r y r o y a l h a lls a t Y e a v e r i n g in N o r t h u m b r i a .
B u t t h e t e n t h - c e n t u r y r o y a l h a ll a t C h e d d a r , S o m e r s e t , w a s o n l y s i x t y b y
t h i r t y f e e t . E v e n i f w e i n t e r p r e t t h e s m a l l e r r o o m , b e h in d t h e p a r t i t i o n , as a
178
jo Reconstruction o f the Arthurian-period feasting hall. C u taw ay elevation, plan and two sections.
O n the plan, definite post-holes are shown in solid black; open circles indicate inferred posts. In the
elevation and sections all minor structural elements and details o f jointing have been omitted
179
Camelot and Cadatibyrig
private chamber, and think that the hall proper consisted only o f the larger
room, it is still close in size to some O xbridge college halls.69 On the evidence
o f early Welsh and English poetry, we can reasonably see this as the feasting
hall o f a king or war-leader o f the Arthurian period.
The status of Cadbury-Camelot
This account o f the defences, gate-tower and hall exhausts our information
about Cadbury in the decades around ad 500. But from other sources we
can postulate further evidence which we might have expected, and ask why
it was not found. For a start, Welsh legal documents list the buildings which
ought to form part o f prince’s court. In addition to the hall and private
chamber, they are: a kitchen, a chapel, a barn, a kiln-house for drying grain,
a stable, a porch and a p rivy.70 A few yards north-east o f the hall we did
Plate 85 indeed find the wall-trenches o f a building about fifteen feet long by five
Fig. to, 16 feet wide, which could have been a kitchen, but there is nothing to show
that it belongs to this period.
Secondly, other excavated sites have been much richer in artefacts o f the
late fifth and sixth centuries, and in evidence for both domestic and industrial
activity. The richest o f the published excavations was at the small princely
stronghold o f Dinas Powys in Glam organ.71 This yielded both a greater
quantity and a wider range o f imported pottery than Cadbury. Am ong the
iron objects from Cadbury, only two knives could certainly be attributed to
this period, whereas at Dinas Powys we found nineteen knives or fragments
o f blades, as well as awls, a drill-bit, a file, fish-hooks, a bucket handle, and
miscellaneous clamps, cleats and nails. At Dinas Powys, moreover, num
erous crucibles provided evidence for jewel-m aking, an activity appropriate
to a prince’s court, while quantities o f scrap bronze and glass provided raw
material for the jeweller. Humbler crafts included leather-, textile, and bone-
w orking. None o f these activities was represented at Cadbury, or if it was,
the evidence for the fifth and sixth centuries could not be isolated from that
o f both earlier and later periods.
At first sight, this would seem to tell against Cadbury being either im
portant or heavily occupied. But we have to bear in mind the hazards and
chances o f discovery in a form o f exploration where the researcher is w orking
blind. At Dinas Powys, the total area o f the site was small, and about a
quarter o f the interior was totally excavated. Moreover, the sixth-century
rubbish dumps were located, and proved to be a bountiful source o f finds.
At Cadbury, by contrast, the middens o f this period were not found; and
31 C om parative floor areas o f medieval halls, t Castle

D ore, C o rn w a ll, palace o f the kings o f D um nonia (the
porch is shaded); 2 Cheddar, Somerset, tenth century royal
h a ll; 3 C ad h ury-C a m elo t ( chamber shaded); 4 Tilled a,
north G erm an y, eleventh century feasting hall oj the
Germ an emperors (after P. G rim m , in Medieval
Archaeology 12 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , pp. 8 3 -10 0 ); 5 Brasenose
C ollege, O xfo rd , sixteenth century hall (floor area only,
screens passage shaded; after R C H M Inventory of . .
City o f Oxford, p. 24 )
a l t h o u g h a g o o d p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e s u m m i t p la t e a u w a s c l e a r e d , m o s t o f t h e
i n t e r i o r w a s n o t e v e n s a m p l e d . A p a r t f r o m t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e h a ll, t h e a r e a
r i c h e s t in i m p o r t e d p o t t e r y w a s t h e s o u t h - w e s t g a t e , b u t it w a s c le a r f r o m
th e s t r a t ific a t io n th a t th e sh e r d s fo u n d th e re h a d w a s h e d d o w n h il l b e t w e e n
th e A r t h u r ia n a n d E t h e l r e d a n p e r i o d s . S o m e w h e r e i n s id e t h e s o u t h - w e s t
g a t e t h e r e m u s t b e a m a j o r f o c u s o f s i x t h - c e n t u r y a c t i v i t y ; b u t s in c e it lie s
b u r i e d u n d e r s o m e e i g h t f e e t o f h i l l - w a s h , w e d id n o t f e e l j u s t i f i e d in s e a r c h
in g f o r it .
H a z a r d s o f e x c a v a t i o n a p a r t , it w o u l d b e u n r e a s o n a b l e t o u s e t h e q u a n t i t y Figs. 3 1, 33
o f i m p o r t e d p o t t e r y as a n i n d e x o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a s ite . C a s t l e D o r e in
C o r n w a l l w a s a s m a ll I r o n A g e f o r t r e s s , r e - u s e d in t h e p o s t - R o m a n c e n t u r ie s ,
w h e n it e n c lo s e d a t i m b e r h a ll a b o u t n i n e t y f e e t l o n g b y f o r t y w i d e . E x c a v a
tio n s c o v e r in g a la r g e p a rt o f th e in te r io r p r o d u c e d o n ly o n e u n ty p ic a l
i m p o r t e d s h e r d , a n d n o o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y a r t e f a c t s . It h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d
th a t n o t o n ly h a d th e flo o r le v e ls b e e n o b lit e r a t e d b y p lo u g h in g , b u t th e
a s s o c ia t e d a r t e f a c t s h a d b e e n d e s t r o y e d in t h e s a m e w a y . T h i s is i m p o s s i b l e
t o c r e d it in f a c e o f th e m a t e r i a l w h i c h h a s s u r v i v e d c e n t u r ie s o f p l o u g h i n g a t
C a d b u r y . F iv e se a so n s o f e x c a v a t io n at C a s te ll D e g a n n w y , a r o y a l fo rtre ss Fig. 33
o f th e p r i n c e s o f n o r t h - w e s t W a l e s , p r o d u c e d t w o d e f i n i t e s h e r d s o f C l a s s B ,
a n d a b o u t t e n le ss c e r t a in e x a m p l e s . A t C a s t l e D o r e it is t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l
e v i d e n c e , a n d a t C a s t e l l D e g a n n w y t h e h i s t o r i c a l a s s o c ia t io n s , w h i c h d e t e r
m i n e t h e s t a t u s o f t h e s i t e . 72 In t h e s a m e w a y , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f C a d b u r y
aro u n d ad 5 0 0 is d e c l a r e d n o t b y t h e q u a n t i t y o f i m p o r t e d p o t t e r y r e c o v e r e d
b y e x c a v a t i o n , b u t b y t h e t i m b e r h a ll, t h e g a t e - t o w e r , a n d t h e w h o l e d e f e n
siv e sc h e m e .
The strategic role of the fortress
At this point we may speculate on the strategic role played by the new
defensive work. Here we can usefully start with the second phase, represented
by the re-metalling o f the roadway at the south-west gate. I have argued
that the silver buckle found beneath the road dates it probably to the 570s,
and certainly to the last third o f the sixth century. This brings us to a
F ig . 3 2 historically-recorded period o f Anglo-Saxon expansion against the West
Welsh, the inhabitants o f Dumnonia, that is, modem Cornwall, Devon and
Somerset. In a d 577, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the rulers o f
Wessex, Cuthwine and Ceawlin, ‘ fought the Britons at the place that is
called Deorham ’ and captured Gloucester, Cirencester and Bath. Deorham
is identified with the modem Dyrham , a little north o f Bath, which itself
is about tw enty-five miles from Cadbury. Assuming that the Chronicle is
recording only the decisive event in a protracted campaign o f Wessex
aggression and British resistance, Cadbury would seem a good base for the
defence o f Dumnonia. Either before or after Deorham, therefore, its
defences might have been put in a state o f repair. There are obvious hazards
in fitting the one historical record to the one archaeological fact in a period
when both are scarce; but provided the hazards are recognized, the specula
tion is justified.
If Cadbury might have served as a Dumnonian base against Wessex in the
570s, what was its role a century earlier, at the time o f the first imported
pottery? Before we attempt to answer this, we must compare it with other
British fortresses o f the late fourth and fifth centuries. It has long been
recognized that in Wales and the Marches numerous Iron Age hillforts, both
large and medium in size, were re-occupied during the Late Rom an period.
N one o f them, however, appeared to have been refortified, and third- and
fourth-century refuse lapped over the back o f the decayed ramparts. In
1969 Chris Musson started to re-explore one o f them, the Breiddin. B y
extending the Cadbury technique o f very wide rampart cuttings, he was
able to show, contrary to the received view, that the Breiddin had been
refortified in the late fourth century with a sophisticated timber defence,
in the form o f a raised fighting platform and look-out towers. It seems pos
sible, therefore, that fuller exploration might show that such major works
o f refortification were common at the very end o f the Rom an period.
When we turn to the forts which produce the Tintagel-type o f imported
F ig . 3 3 pottery, the picture is very different. At present we know about a dozen
such sites used by the Britons. Many o f them are re-used Iron Age hillforts,
82
}2 The background to Cadbury-Camrlot. The Badon campaign: t-S defended sites occupied, on the
evidence of pottery, around AD 300: 1 Coygan, Carmarthenshire; 2 Dinas Powys, Glamorgan ;
j Cadbury-Congresbury, Somerset ; 4 Cadbury-Camelot; 3 Castle Dore, Cornwall; 6 Trevelgue;
7 Chun Castle; 8 Ilchester, Somerset. The condition of the Roman town-walls of Ilchester about
AD 300 is unknown, but the defences of Cadbury-Congresbury appear to have been derelict, leaving
Cadbury-Camelot as the only known basefor the defence of Dumnonia. * suggested sitesfor Badon.
• Saxon settlement around AD 300 (afterJ. N. L. Myres, Anglo-Saxon pottery and the settle
ment of England, Oxford, 1969, map 8)
The Dyrham campaign : B Bath ; C Cirencester ; D Dyrham ; G Gloucester. By the time of Dyrham,
there is evidencefor Saxon penetration a little south and west of the earlier concentration
with their defences only slightly modified or re-furbished: only one is known
to have undergone a major refortification comparable with Cadbury.
Norm ally, the actual defences are far from impressive, though they may be
enhanced, as at Castell Degannwy and Dinas Emrys, by a strong natural
position. And all but one o f them are quite small - less than a fifth o f the area
enclosed by the Cadbury defences. The exception, Cadbury-Congresbury,
is a very complicated site, whose history is only now being unravelled by
excavation. The Iron A ge fort there encloses about half the acreage o f
Cadbury-Cam elot, but the fifth-century enclosure is probably only half
the size o f its Iron Age precursor, and was apparently derelict by the time
that our site was re-fortified.73
It is clear that the smallness o f these forts o f the late fifth and sixth cen
turies is directly related to the contemporary military organization. B y the
time that the pottery imports begin, those western and northern regions o f
Britain in which they are found were certainly under the politico-military
1 83
0
33 Com parative plans o fforts producing pottery o f the late fifth and sixth centuries; the fortifications
were not necessarily defensible at that date. 1 C a d b u ry-C am elo t ; 2 C adbury-C on g resbu ry ; 3 D unadd,
A r g y ll, capital o f Scottic Dalriada ; 4 D in as P o w y s ; 3 C h u n C a s tle ; 6 Castell D ega n n w y , Caernar
vonshire, fortress o f the princes o f north-west W a le s; 7 D in as E m rys, Caernarvons. ; 8 Castle D o r e ;
9 M ote o f M a rk , Kircudbrightshire
control o f petty princes; and even the more Rom anized lowlands were
politically fragmented under the rule o f t y r a n n i or usurpers. The armed
force appropriate to such rulers was the personal war-band or bodyguard:
co m ita tu s in Latin; te u lu , ‘fam ily’ in Welsh; h e o r d - g e n e a t a s , ‘hearth-com
panions’ in contemporary Anglo-Saxon society. It is difficult to suggest

precise figures for the size o f such armies. For an exceptional enterprise, the
British attempt to overthrow the Anglian kingdom o f Deira, an army o f
three hundred was gathered together. But for the war-band o f a petty
prince, something o f the order o f a hundred might be reasonable. And for
such a force, the small fortifications which we know - the defended courts
o f princes - would be entirely appropriate.74 But it seems ridiculous to
82 T h e fir st e v id e n c e o f th e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d h a ll: S it e L in 19 6 8 (p p . 7 4 - 5 ) . In a d d it io n to th e u su a l Iro n
A g e st o r a g e p its, a n d a s h a l lo w fie ld d itc h r u n n in g u p f r o m le ft to r ig h t , th e re is a n a r r o w b u t st e e p -s id e d
w a ll- t r e n c h , r u n n in g u p f r o m r i g h t to le ft . T h i s c o n t a in e d fr a g m e n t s o f a la t e - fift h o r s i x t h - c e n t u r y w i n e -
j a r . F u r t h e r e x p lo r a t io n s h o w e d th a t th e w a ll- t r e n c h h a d h e ld a lig h t sc re e n o r p a r t it io n w it h in th e h all
83 T h e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d h a ll (Fig. 10 , 1 5 ) , as u n c o v e r e d in 19 6 9 , l o o k in g e ast (p p . 7 8 - 9 , 1 7 7 - 8 ) . W h it e p e g s
sta n d in th e p o s t - h o le s a t t r ib u t e d to th e h a ll. F o r a p la n a n d r e c o n s t r u c t io n see Fig. 30; c o m p a r e a lso P la t e 84
84 L o o k i n g w e s t a lo n g th e le n g t h
o f th e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d h a ll.
W h it e p e g s sta n d in th e p o s t - h o le s
o f th e h a ll; th e w a ll- t r e n c h d is
c o v e r e d in 19 6 8 is im m e d i a t e ly
b e h in d th e s e c o n d t w o - m e t r e p o le .
T h i s v i e w g iv e s a g o o d im p r e s s io n
o f th e c o m m a n d i n g p o s it io n o f
th e h a ll o n th e h ig h e s t p a rt o f th e
s u m m it p la te a u . C o m p a r e P la t e 83
85 T h e p a r a lle l w a ll- t r e n c h e s o f a
s m a ll r e c t a n g u la r b u ild in g (Fig.
10, 16 ) w h ic h m a y h a v e b e e n
a n c i lla r y to th e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d
h a ll. T h e w h it e p e g s in th e r i g h t
b a c k g r o u n d m a r k th e n o r th -e a s t
c o r n e r o f th e h a ll
86 T h e m o r t a r e d w a ll o f E t h e lr e d a n C a d a n b y r i g as it w a s fir s t d is c o v e r e d in 19 6 6 (p. 49 ). T h e w a ll h as a
fr o n t fa c e o f w e ll- la i d lia s sla b s, b a c k e d b y a r u b b le c o r e . B e h in d chis a g a in , b u t n o t seen in th is v i e w , is
a re a r fa c e ( c o m p a r e P la t e 7 3 ) . B e h in d th e m o r t a r e d w a ll is a w i d e e a rt h e n b a n k (p. 19 8 )
8 7 T h e s o u t h - w e s t g a t e o f C a d a n b y r i g . In th e f o r e g r o u n d a re th e s h a t te re d r e m a in s o f th e le ft - h a n d
r e s p o n d o r p ie r o f th e g a t e - a r c h , w i t h H a m st o n e sla b s p r o t r u d in g f r o m th e c o r n e r . T o th e r i g h t is th e
w a ll o f th e e n tr a n c e p a ss a g e ( c o m p a r e P la t e 8 9), w h il e to th e le ft th e f r o n t fa c e o f th e burh w a ll is s t a r tin g
to rise u p th e h ill (p. 19 8 , Fig. 3 5 ) . T h e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d w a lli n g is j u s t a p p e a r in g in th e b a c k g r o u n d ;
c o m p a r e P la t e 7 6
88 L o o k in g d o w n th e p a s s a g e - w a y o f th e E t h e lr e d a n g a te . It is lik e ly th a t th e p a ss a g e h a d o r i g i n a lly
b e e n p a v e d w it h sto n e slabs, b u t i f so th e se h a d b e e n r e m o v e d a lo n g w i t h m o s t o f th e w a lli n g ,
p r o b a b ly w h e n th e burh w a s a b a n d o n e d b y C n u t (Gig. 3 5 ; p p . 7 0 , 2 0 1 ) . A s it re a c h e s th e e x c a v a t io n
fe n c e , th e lin e o f th e p a ss a g e d o e s n o t ru n s t r a ig h t a h e a d , b u t tu rn s v e r y s h a r p ly to th e rig h t .
90 T h e e a ste rn a n d s o u t h e r n a r m s o f th e c r u c if o r m tr e n c h (Fig. 1 o, 29) d is c o v e r e d
o n S it e E in 19 6 7 (p . 7 2 ). It se e m s l i k e ly th a t th e tr e n c h h a d b e e n d u g f o r th e
f o u n d a t io n s o f a c e n t r a lly - p la n n e d c h u r c h (Fig. 36) ; b u t th e a c tu a l c o n s t r u c t io n a l
w o r k h a d n o t b e e n st a rte d w h e n E t h e lr e d lo s t c o n t r o l o f th e a re a , a n d th e sc h e m e
w a s a b a n d o n e d u n d e r C n u t (p p . 19 8 - 9 ) . T h e b e v e lle d re - e n t r a n t b e t w e e n th e t w o
a r m s o f th e cro ss is v e r y c le a r. F o r p la n s see Figs 8 a n d 36
< 8 9 L o o k i n g a c ro ss th e E t h e lr e d a n p a ss a g e to th e b e st p r e s e r v e d le n g t h o f w a lli n g .
T h e H a m sto n e slab at th e b a se o f th e fr o n t g a t e - a r c h can b e seen at th e p o in t w h e r e
th e w a ll tu r n s to ru n u p th e h ill. J u s t to its r i g h t is a n o t h e r H a m sla b w it h a s o c k e t
f o r th e g a t e p iv o t . S lig h t tr a c e s o f th e A r t h u r i a n - p e r io d w a ll can b e seen p r o t r u d in g
b e n e a th th e E t h e lr e d a n w a ll o p p o s it e th e m id - p o in t o f th e t w o - m e t r e p o le (Fig. 33)
9i L a te S a x o n o r
n a m e n t a l p la q u e s o f
bone p r o b a b ly
f r o m a w o o d e n cas
ket. The la r g e s t
p ie c e , 4§ in s lo n g ,
is d e c o ra te d in
th e A n g lo -S a x o n
a n d V i k i n g s t y le o f
th e e a r ly e le v e n t h
cen tu ry
92 I r o n k n iv e s , a c h is e l, a n d a b u c k le o f A r t h u r i a n o r E t h e lr e d a n d a te . T h e t w o le f t - h a n d k n iv e s a re
c e r t a in ly f if t h o r s ix t h c e n t u r y ; th e o t h e r t w o k n iv e s c o u ld b e e it h e r o f th a t d a te o r L a t e S a x o n ; a n d th e
c h is e l a n d b u c k le a re a lm o s t c e r t a in ly e le v e n t h c e n t u r y . A c t u a l size
9 3 . 9 4 P o s t - E t h e lr e d a n w a lli n g at th e s o u t h - w e s t g a t e (p p . 6 9 , 2 0 2 - 3 ) . M a s s iv e b lo c k s o f y e l l o w
s a n d s to n e as t h e y fir st a p p e a r e d , a n d as t h e y w e r e s u b s e q u e n t ly u n c o v e r e d o v e r l y i n g th e m o r t a r e d lias
w a lli n g o f th e E t h e lr e d a n burh. T h e r e is n o s a t is fa c t o r y h is to r ic a l e x p la n a t io n f o r th is la te p h ase
9 5 F ie ld d itc h o f m e d i e v a l o r la t e r d a te (Fig. 10, 3). T h i s p a r t ic u la r d itc h w h ic h
r u n s d ia g o n a lly a c ro ss th e e n tir e e x c a v a t e d a re a is seen h e re o n S it e B . S im ila r
d itc h e s w e r e u n c o v e r e d e ls e w h e r e o n th e sa m e g e n e r a l a lig n m e n t (Fig. 10, 1 a n d 2 ),
a n d o n S it e E F G p a r a lle l p lo u g h sc ra tc h e s w e r e v is ib le in th e b e d r o c k (Fig. 8).
T h e s e d itc h e s a re a ls o p a r a lle l w i t h th e r id g e a n d f u r r o w v is ib le o n th e e a rlie s t a ir -
p h o t o g r a p h o f C a d b u r y C a s t le , ta k e n in 19 2 8 . T h i s s u g g e s t s th a t th is p h a se o f
a g r ic u lt u r e is r e c e n t r a t h e r th a n m e d i e v a l. It m a y e v e n r e p r e s e n t an e x t e n s io n o f
p lo u g h in g d u r in g th e N a p o le o n ic w a r s (p p . 2 0 3 - 4 )
suggest such a role for Cadbury, with its twelve hundred yards o f perimeter,
and its eighteen-acre enclosure. And here two points deserve emphasis.
First, the existence o f R am part E was proved on all sides o f the site, in ram
part cuttings A, D, I, J and K. Secondly, it had evidently been a deliberate
act o f policy to build a defensive work o f this size. The shape o f the Cadbury
hill-top lends itself to the construction o f a much smaller fort, something o f
the order o f Castle Dore or Dinas Emrys, enclosing just the summit plateau
and making use o f the south-westem scarp. Instead, some late fifth-century
commander decided to fortify eighteen acres. Presumably he had a large
garrison to accommodate, and a large labour force to carry out the work.
Cadbury and Arthur
It is here that the archaeological facts about Cadbury and the historical
inferences about Arthur come together with the symbolism o f Camelot.
It is true, o f course, that no personal relic o f Arthur was found during the
excavations - but the Camelot Research Committee had emphasized from
the start that none was to be expected. This is in the nature o f archaeological
evidence. N o personal tokens o f the emperor Hadrian have ever been re
covered from Hadrian’s Wall, nor has any Edwardian castle produced a
memento o f Edward I. The historical evidence is that Arthur was not him
self the ruler or war-leader o f a single kingdom, but that he was ‘leader o f
battles’, dux bellorum, on behalf o f several kingdoms. In this he appears as
direct successor to Ambrosius Aurelianus, who led British resistance to the
Anglo-Saxon settlers in the middle decades o f the fifth century, and who
probably commanded the forces o f several tyranni owing a general allegiance
to an overlord or high king.
We have no direct evidence for the size o f the combined forces which
Ambrosius and Arthur commanded, but we can make a controlled estimate.
The lower limit is given by the three-hundred-strong army o f the Gododdin,
setting out from Edinburgh against Anglian Deira and perishing almost to
a man at the battle o f Catraeth, Catterick Bridge. The upper limit is set by
the Rom an field army in Britain about a d 400: not more than six thousand
men, according to the best calculations. It is unthinkable that even the
combined forces o f several British successor kingdoms could match this
figure. A thousand men might seem right for the armies o f Ambrosius and
Arthur. And Cadbury itself would be a suitable base for such a body.
There is, o f course, no reason to connect Cadbury with the campaigns
waged by Ambrosius. There is historical evidence that he was already an
193
eminent soldier by a d 437, so he had probably retired before Cadbury was

refortified in the 470s or later. But this date would fit Arthur, especially if
we put his victory at Badon in a d 490 or 499. Just as the late sixth-century
repair o f the defences provided a base for the campaigns which had their
climax in the British defeat at Deorham, so their original construction, a
Fig. 32 century earlier, could have provided a base for the campaigns which had
their culmination in the British victory at Badon. The site o f Badon itself is
unknown, though the case for identifying it as Bath seems stronger than
that for Badbury Rings, Dorset, or Badbury near Liddington Castle in
W iltshire.75 There is at least agreement that it was fought against the Anglo-
Saxons in southern England. And it is worth remembering here that, al
though the recorded history o f Wessex begins with the founders o f the
dynasty, Cerdic and Cynric, landing from Southampton Water in a d 49$,
the archaeological evidence is for a vigorous settlement in the Upper Thames
valley from the 450s.76
These are speculations only; but in a period in which facts are so few,
some speculation is both legitimate and necessary. The minimal facts may
usefully be recapitulated. Arthur was a great warrior, concerned especially
with campaigns against the Saxon settlers around a d $00. On present
evidence, Cadbury was outstanding at this time among British fortresses in
terms o f the size and strength o f its defences. Whether Arthur was personally
connected with it or not, it illustrates the kind o f defended base which he
might have used. With every justification, we can think o f Arthur and his
troops feasting and carousing - like the Gododdin army in the hall o f
M yddynog M w ynfaw r - in a hall similar to that at Cadbury; and riding
out to battle through a gate-tower like that at the south-west entrance.
Saxons and Vikings in Wessex
After the victory o f Dyrham, eastern Dumnonia did not immediately fall
into Saxon hands. A battle at Beandun, perhaps Bindon in east Devon, in
614, shows the Saxon kingdom o f Wessex probing along the south coast,
but it was not until 658 that the Wealas, the Welsh or Britons, were driven
back to the river Parrett. N o evidence is available to show what part Cadbury
might have played in seventh-century campaigns. Once the rule o f Wessex
was asserted over Somerset, it would certainly have been abandoned, for the
Saxons at that time had no interest in fortified hill-tops. So the fort lay
derelict until the emergencies o f Ethelred’s reign gave a new urgency to the
need for strong defences.
19 4
Ethelred II, Æthelræd Unræd, ‘ Noble-counsel No-counsel’ or ‘Noble-

counsel Evil-counsel’, came to the throne o f Wessex in 978. Almost two
centuries earlier, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records the first Viking assault
on Wessex. Through the ninth and early tenth centuries, Viking raids on
England had passed into settlement, and the settlement itself had been con
tained by the kings o f Wessex, Alfred and his successors. At the time o f
Ethelred’s accession, England had enjoyed a long respite from raiding; but
two years later, the peace was broken by the appearance o f fresh Viking
forces at Southampton, in Thanet, and in Cheshire. These new raiders were
altogether more formidable than the old, a permanent professional fleet and
army rather than bands o f adventurers. Their activities were recorded
contemporaneously in minute and circumstantial detail in the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle.'’1 From that record I propose to extract only the events which are
immediately relevant to Cadbury. The first o f these was the appearance o f
the fleet and army o f Thorkell the Tall in August 1009. From then until
10 12 Thorkell’s army ‘harried and burned as was their wont’ in southern
and eastern England, and as far north as Northampton, as far west as the
vale o f Pewsey.78 Meanwhile, in September 1009 or March 1010, Ethelred
had founded the emergency burh o f Cadanbyrig.
The Late Saxon burh or fortified town was essentially a military device
developed by Alfred and his successors in order to defend Wessex and to
consolidate their hold on territory as they won it back from the Danes.
Elaborate arrangements to maintain the defences and their garrisons demon
strate the administrative sophistication o f Late Saxon England. N orm ally
the burh was low-lying, involving either the defence o f a pre-existing centre
o f population and commerce, or the foundation o f a new one. T w o excep
tions, the refortified Iron Age forts o f Cadbury and o f Cissbury in Sussex,
are both works o f Ethelred’s reign, and reflect the seriousness o f the emer
gency in the early eleventh century. The actual defences o f early burhs were o f
earth, with timber palisades or breastworks. But in a d 917, a burh which
had been built in this way at Towcester before Easter was strengthened with
a stone wall in the autumn. From that time on, any newly-founded burh
would have been fortified with a masonry wall, and similar walls were added
to existing burhs.19
Apart from their defensive functions, the burhs were commercial and Rs- 34
administrative centres. As one aspect o f this, many o f them contained royal
mints, for a strictly controlled currency was another mark o f Late Saxon
administrative efficiency. The normal coin was a silver penny, which bore
on the obverse the name o f the ruler with a crude portrait; and on the reverse.
195
34 Mints in operation at varying times during Ethelred’s reign (AD Ç 7 8 - 1 0 1 6 ) , with the numbers
of the moneyers operating at them. The silver penny shown above (actual size) was struck at
Ethelredan Cadanbyrig by the moneyer Winas
the name o f the moneyer and o f the mint town, surrounding a symbolic
design, frequently a cross. Thus a typical penny from the Cadbury mint
reads :
+ EDE L RE DR EX .A .N G L. + WINASONCADABYR
Ethelred King o f the English Winas at Cadbury
What the coins lack is any anno domini date o f minting. The date can, how
ever, be inferred: broadly, from the historically-known dates o f the rulers;
more narrowly from the typological development within each reign; most
precisely, because the type itself was changed periodically, and all the
existing coins were then re-called.80
The Cadanbyrig mint was founded by a group o f moneyers who had
previously been minting at the lowland burh o f Ilchester, some seven miles
Fig- 34 to the west. The abandonment o f Ilchester and the founding o f the Cadan
byrig mint coincided with a change o f type which numismatists date to
either September 1009 or March 1010. It is clear that the move was an
emergency measure, intended to remove one mint at least to a place o f
safety. But this poses the question, was the mint set up in a pre-existing Late
196
Camelot and (Cadanbyrig
Saxon fort; or were burh and mint simultaneous foundations? There is in

fact no evidence for a bttrh at Cadanbyrig independent o f the mint, and a
hill-top town would be most unlikely under normal Late Saxon conditions.
The two must therefore go together. And if the creation o f the mint dates
the foundation o f the burh, its removal should likewise date the abandon
ment. Under Ethelred’s successor, Cnut, the original llchester moneyers
moved back there. A few coins o f C nut’s early issues were in fact struck at
Cadanbyrig, but the moneyers responsible appear shortly afterwards at
Crewkerne and Bruton. The numismatic evidence gives the limits o f 1009
to 1019 for the burh and mint o f Cadanbyrig.81
This has taken us beyond the appearance o f Thorkell the Tall, and we
must now return to the last years o f Ethclred’s reign. In 1013 the whole
character o f the struggle was changed when Swein Forkbeard, the Danish
ruler, came to England with the intention o f taking over the kingdom.
District after district submitted to him, while Ethclred himself retired first
to his fleet in the Thames, and then to Norm andy. B y the end o f 1013
Swein was regarded as king by most o f the country, but his death in February
1014 threw the situation once more into flux. O ver the next two and a half
years, there was a struggle for power between Ethelred, his son Edmund
Ironside, and Sw ein’s son Cnut, which was only finally resolved by the
deaths o f Ethelred and Edmund in April and N ovem ber 1016 respectively.
From the end o f 1016, Cnut was undisputed master o f England, and it was
possible to re-establish firm and orderly government. But during the years
o f turmoil, Wessex had been now in the hands o f Cnut, now o f Edmund
Ironside. This is the political background to Cadanbyrig.
The archaeology of Cadanbyrig
The first thing to be said about Cadanbyrig is that no trace o f the mint was
located during the excavations. This is not surprising: when the moneyers
returned to llchester, or went to Crewkerne and Bruton, they would obvi
ously have taken their dies and other tools with them, and they would cer
tainly not have abandoned ingots o f silver. But if the mint was not found,
there was good evidence for the burh defences. As with earlier works, these Fig. 4
involved the rcfortification o f twelve hundred yards o f perimeter. In this
case, we can calculate the appropriate size for the garrison. An early tenth-
century document, the Burghal Hidage, shows that four m ai were needed
to man each pole (five and a half yards) o f wall. This gives a paper garrison
o f about 870 men for Cadanbyrig.82
197
Camelot and Caàanbyrig
The main feature o f the defences was a mortared stone wall, four feet
Plates 73, 86 wide. Where the face o f this was preserved, for instance in Cut A, it con
sisted o f beautifully laid Lias slabs, specially imported for their quality as
building stone. Behind this was a rubble core o f local rock, bound with a
rather soft mortar. This in turn was backed with a bank o f earth, rubble, and
even large boulders - whatever came most readily to hand - to an overall
width o f twenty feet. O nly in one place, in part o f Cutting D, was any
evidence found for a rear wall o f mortared stone. There is no evidence to
suggest that this was related to some special feature such as a tower. The
implication is that it had been intended to face the inside o f the bank with
masonry all round the perimeter, but the work had never been completed.
It should be added that we have no evidence for the original height o f either
the bank or the wall, but it is reasonable to think that the wall was carried up
as a parapet protecting a wall-walk.
The south-west gateway through the defences was explored, as far as its
Plates 87-89 ruined condition allowed, in 1968 and 1969. The main feature was a simple
passage-way about ten feet wide by thirty feet or more long. This was
35 walled in well-laid Lias, set in a hard white mortar. We do not know
how the passage was roofed. A flat wooden ceiling is possible, but a barrel
vault might be more appropriate to the quality o f the masonry. The outer
end o f the passage was narrowed with piers or responds carried up in Ham
stone, imported from ten miles away. The doorway itself may have had
a flat lintel, or an arch turned in Ham stone. The known quality o f Late
Saxon churches in the area, for instance at Milborne Port, assures us that the
gates o f Cadanbyrig could have been accomplished works o f architecture.
The door itself was probably double-leaved, and had turned on sockets cut
in Ham stone slabs, one o f which was found almost in its original position
in the passage.
One other structure may be attributed to the Ethelredan burh: the cruci
Plates 9, 90 form trench on Site E. This is a rock-cut trench, normally about five feet
wide, varying in depth from four to twenty inches, marking out a regular
equal-armed cross one hundred and thirty feet overall. One other feature
o f the plan deserves notice: the re-entrants between the four arms o f the
cross are not right-angled, but deliberately bevelled. The trench cuts
several Iron Age pits, and its filling contains weathered sherds o f Ultimate
Iron Age pottery, so it must date to the very end o f the Iron Age or later.
The filling itself, o f soil and small stones, is completely uninformative.
These are the observed facts; from this point we must either preserve a
despairing silence, or speculate.
198
J5 The south-west gate of the Ethelredan burh with underlying remains of the Arthurian-period gate.
I Ethelredan mortared wall with face preserved; 2 Ethelredan wall with facing lost ; j Ham stone
piers for arch and slab with socket for gate-pivot; 4 Arthurian-period dry-stone walling; 5 traces of
timber beams and posts; 6 Arthurian-period structures, inferred; 7 late sixth-century repair to
roadway
In 1968, I put forward a closely-argued case for regarding this as the Fig. 36
foundation trench for a Late Saxon church which had never actually been
built; and I also published a conjectural reconstruction o f the kind o f church
which might have been intended.83 N o reasoned refutation o f m y case has
appeared in print, and no alternative suggestion has been put forward, so
my hypothesis stands. O nly the briefest outline o f the case can be repeated
here. The trench was dug for the foundations o f a masonry structure con
sisting o f a central square which projected into the bevelled re-entrants, and
four smaller square units. Such a structure recalls centrally-planned churches,
and no other known form o f building. The orientation, thirty degrees north
o f east, is within the range o f medieval churches. The projection o f the central
feature can be paralleled in several Late Saxon churches where the tower is
wider than chancel, nave, and transepts. The absence o f mortar from the
199
36 Three Laie Saxo n churches with square towers projecting in the angles between the narc, chancel
and transepts. 1 M Uborne Port, Somerset ; 2 C adanbyrig ; walling inferred from the foundation trench
uncovered in I Ç 6 7 -6 Ç ; 3 Sto ir, Lincolnshire. (M ilb orne Port and Stow after H . M . and J . T aylor,
Anglo-Saxon architecture, Cam bridge, 19 6 5 .)
trench shows that the church had never been built. The very brief history o f
the burh provides an acceptable context for a building which was planned,
had its foundations dug, and was then abandoned. The overall bracket is
a d 10 0 9-10 19 , but the disturbed state o f Wessex from 1013 to 10 17 makes
it doubtful whether any serious building could have been undertaken in

those years.
The finds from this short-lived burh are naturally sparse, but nonetheless
varied. Unfortunately no silver pennies were found, but this is perhaps not
surprising when we consider how much o f the currency minted for Ethelred
went straight into Viking coffers as loot and bribes. A number o f hard-
Plate XI fired, coarsely gritted cooking pots must be Late Saxon, rather than later.
Plates 9 1, 92 Several iron knives with a long thick back are characteristic o f Viking and
Late Saxon England. But the most interesting pieces from Ethelred’s burh
are some ornamental strips o f bone from a wooden casket. Most o f them
200
have very simple decoration, but one has the elaborate interlace typical o f
the period. Clearly, some o f the arts could still flourish amid the march and
countermarch o f English and Viking armies.
We have seen that the Cadbury mint stopped production early in Cnut’s
reign, and it is reasonable to think that Cadanbyrig, an inconvenient hill-top
town, was then abandoned. But the archaeological evidence allows us to go
further than this. O nly in one o f our rampart cuttings was the outer face o f
the burh wall present. At the gate, three or four courses were still in place Plates 88, 89
along the left hand side o f the passage, but on the right only a yard or so o f
walling, three courses high, was preserved. This walling had not disappeared
through dereliction and collapse. N o mortared stone was found tumbled
into Ditch i ; and at the gate, the walling had not collapsed across the passage
way. Indeed, the paving o f the passage had itself vanished. The evidence
points conclusively to a systematic demolition o f defences and gates. There
can be no doubt that this was done on the orders o f Cnut, who could not
leave a fortress standing empty as a potential base for English or Viking
r-- ■ !%.
201
IX After Cadanbyrig
Medieval Cadbury
Our archaeological information does not come to an abrupt stop after

Cnut’s demolition o f Cadanbyrig, though the scraps which remain form
a poor tail-piece to the main Cadbury story. First o f all, the south-west gate
Plates 93, 94 was rebuilt on top o f the Ethelredan ruins. The re-build was in dry stone
work, using a mixture o f very massive blocks o f yellow sandstone and some
Lias slabs. It had been badly mutilated, probably by farmers digging out
the stones in later centuries, so that only part o f th^outer end o f the passage
had been preserved. The entrance itself was ten feet wide, but there was no
trace o f gate- or door-arrangements. Rather similar dry stone walling, using
Plate 73 large yellow blocks, is recognizable in the defence cuttings all round the
perimeter. In 1966 we thought that this was a rear wall for the Late Saxon
bank, but a closer study o f the stratification showed that it was in fact later,
and had been cut into the back o f the Ethelredan rampart. The stratification,
as well as the character o f the stonework, relates it to the re-build at the gate.
In other words, we have here evidence for a crude but comprehensive re-
walling o f the hill-top.
It is uncertain, however, whether we can reasonably call the yellow wall
and gate a refortification. The gate is not at all military in character. The fact
that round the perimeter the wall is on the inside, not the outside o f the
bank suggests that it was intended to keep something in the fort rather than
to keep enemies out. It seems likely that the yellow wall and gate were
intended to turn the fort into a large stock enclosure, but we have no evidence
when this was done.
There is, however, a hint o f medieval military activity at Cadbury. In
1209, a sum o f forty marks ( £ 1 2 .16 .4 or £ 12 .8 2 ) was paid from King
Joh n ’s household accounts ad opera castri de Cadebir, ‘towards building work
at the castle o f C adbury’. There is no other reference either to the castle or
to the opera, and it is even in dispute which Cadbury is intended. The fact
202
A fter Cadanbyrig
that the recipients o f the money, Peter de Scudamore and Godfrey de St

Martin, were active in Wiltshire and Dorset about this time creates a slight
bias in favour o f our Cadbury. The identification is clinched, as tightly as
the character o f the evidence will allow, by discoveries on Site M in 1968. F»?. 5
It was shown that the scarp at the south-wcstcm end o f the summit plateau
had been artificially steepened. More important, above the scarp was a
square-sectioned trench, dug into the solid rock o f the hill to a depth o f two
feet and a width o f eight feet, and obviously intended as the foundation
trench for a masonry wall. From its floor came a large part o f a twelfth- or
early thirteenth-century cooking pot. This, then, could be part o f the
opera: a castle projected, but never completed, on the strongest part o f the
hill. T w o leading students o f the historical sources have drily remarked that
it is not clear w hy John should have chosen to embark on such a project.84
For the rest, the history o f Cadbury is agricultural, antiquarian, and Plate i
archaeological. Outside the defences, especially on the south, less clearly on
the east and north-east, is a series o f terraces, known locally as ‘The Linches’ . 3
Their purpose is, o f course, not military, but agricultural, to make possible
the plough-cultivation o f a steep slope, and perhaps also to increase the
actual surface area available for grazing. It is almost certain that they are
deliberately built, rather than an accidental by-product o f ploughing along
the slope. Similar ‘strip lynchets’ are widely known on the slopes o f the
Wessex downs and elsewhere in southern England, and there has been a
great deal o f controversy about their date o f construction and period o f use.
T w o o f the Cadbury lynchets appear quite clearly in Stukeley’s ‘Prospect Plate 2
o f Camalet Castle’, already overlaid by a well-developed hedge. So here at
least the lynchets had been abandoned as part o f a system o f land-holding
and cultivation by the early eighteenth century. On the other hand, Bennett
tells us that those on the south o f the hill had been cultivated within his
memory.
Later cultivation o f the hill-top itself has also left archaeological traces.
One o f the clearest o f the patterns on the geophysical plots is a series o f linear
anomalies running roughly south-west to north-east across the hill. In 1967
we hoped that some o f these marked the parallel wall-trenches o f rectangular
buildings o f Arthurian or Ethelredan date. Excavation showed, however, Plates 9, 95
that they were actually indicating shallow, featureless ditches. An obvious
explanation was that these ditches, and the banks o f spoil which must 8,10
originally have stood beside them, marked field boundaries for some kind
o f strip field. In confirmation o f this agricultural interpretation, on Site
E F G shallow grooves could still be seen in the rock running parallel with
20 3
After Cadanbyrig
one o f the ditches. These were certainly plough scratches. The fact that they
had not disappeared through the weathering o f the soft rock argued for
their being recent. As it happens, the earliest known air-photograph o f
Cadbury, taken by the R o yal Air Force in January 1928, shows the hill-top
ploughed in ridges which run parallel with some o f the ditches. So air-
photography and archaeology complement one another with evidence
about a system o f agriculture which, from unknown beginnings, lasted well
into the present century.
Finally, some account should be given o f the traces o f walling which are
still visible on the hill-top today. The clearest stretch is to be seen just to the
left as one comes in through the South Cadbury or north-east entrance,
where the inner face o f the bank is revetted with well-laid blocks o f dry-
stonework. Comparable walling surrounds the whole perimeter, but in
some places it has either collapsed or has grassed over. At the south-west
entrance, this walling over-rides all phases o f the gate, and passes out through
the entrance passage to the foot o f the hill. In 1890, Bennett claimed that the
wall was at least two hundred and fifty years old, but he quotes no authority
for his statement. Since it is not mentioned by Stukeley in his detailed
account, it is almost certain that it was not in existence at the time o f his visit
in 1723. It is most likely to be a product o f late eighteenth- or nineteenth-
century farming, intended to allow cattle to graze the banks while keeping
them out o f the cornlands o f the interior. Whatever its date and purpose, it
is disturbing that this wall has deteriorated quite markedly within living
memory. '
After the excavations
I have now taken m y account o f the history o f Cadbury up to the point

where archaeologists, Bennett, St George Gray, and ultimately the Camelot
Research Committee, began their investigations: we have come full circle
back to the beginning. But in Part One I deliberately omitted certain aspects
o f the recent excavations, simply because they seemed more appropriate to
the end o f the book than to its middle. These matters can be summed up in
a single question, often asked by laymen: ‘What happens now to the site
and the finds?’ To this enquiry, and others like it, the archaeologist has a set
o f stock answers. Whether or not they are satisfactory is another matter.
The chief question the layman really wants to ask is ‘W hy ever did you
stop digging, when you've only excavated about six per cent o f the site?’
For the Arthurian enthusiast this challenge is given teeth by my own
20 4
After (Jadanbyrig
admission that just inside the south-west gate there is a major focus o f
Arthurian-period activity which we omitted to excavate.
The first reason why, on any large archaeological site, the digging even
tually has to stop is that there is a limit to the resources o f money and skilled
man-power which are available. The learned societies and public bodies
which provide the hard core o f finance will make large grants for a finite
project, but not for one which is open-ended. They rallied to our 1970
season with generous support because the Committee had firm ly declared
that this was to be the final year o f excavation.
Moreover, by 1970 the Cadbury team itself was breaking up, for reasons
which are worth explaining. It might be thought that on such a large project
the senior members o f the team - the Director and his Deputy, the Finds
Supervisor and the Site Supervisors - would be permanent, salaried officers.
Nothing could be further from the case. The Director was a full-time
university teacher, the principal supervisors were full-time undergraduate
and graduate students, and for all o f us, Cadbury was a spare-time activity.
As supervisors came to the end o f their university courses, they necessarily
had to seek paid employment, which normally left them without the leisure
to commit themselves to a long excavating season. This was no doubt very
unsatisfactory, but it happens to be the current state o f affairs in the organ
ization o f British archaeology.
Another practical limit was imposed in South Cadbury itself. It is probable
that the hamlet could have absorbed the excavation and the diggers, at the
cost o f minor tensions in the village pub where diggers sometimes swamped
out the locals. But what South Cadbury could not absorb was our visitors,
in their coach-loads and in cars by the thousand. In this respect local tolerance
and patience were not inexhaustible; and by the end o f 1970, they were
nearly bankrupt.
There were also issues o f principle. Any excavation must be seen in wider
perspectives o f archaeological research. It may be regrettable that only six
per cent o f the interior o f Cadbury has been examined. On the other hand,
no other major English hillfort has been excavated as extensively as Cadbury,
or in accordance with a similar policy o f research. What is now needed is
work on a dozen hillforts, on the same scale as that at Cadbury, and perhaps
governed by a comparable policy, but directed by men with interests and
prejudices different from my own.
M oreover, there is a good case for leaving important features o f any one
site undisturbed so that future generations may investigate them. Just as
St George G ray’s excavations were more advanced technically than Ben-
After Cadanbyrig
nett’s, and mine than G ray’s, so thirty years hence someone with greater
technical resources and more developed skills than my own will wish to
excavate that focus o f Arthurian-period activity by the south-west gate.
I hope that I may be there to see the results.
There is a further, even more important reason for bringing the digging
to a halt: the need to study and to publish our discoveries. There would,
after all, have been no point in digging if all the objects we found, all the
plans o f buildings, all the photographs o f ramparts were simply to be locked
away in cupboards or buried in a basement at University College, Cardiff.
Publication, when all is said and done, is the ultimate purpose o f excavation -
though one might not guess this from the activity o f some archaeologists.
And the necessary prelude to publication is a very detailed study o f all our
finds, in relation to the ramparts and buildings at Cadbury, and in com
parison with similar objects from other sites. It is true, o f course, that
everything was inspected as it came out o f the ground, but only a cursory
examination was possible during the excavation itself. In brief, the digging
had to stop so that the proper study o f our discoveries might begin.
The second question which the layman asks is ‘ W hy do you fill all the
trenches in and cover everything up?’ This comes especially from local
people, who had hoped that the walling o f the Ethelredan gate, so splendid
in appearance, might remain uncovered for future generations to see. In this
case, the answer is plain. We ourselves had to remove every stone o f the
Ethelredan gate so that we could explore the Arthurian and Iron A ge gates
buried beneath it. Even if this had not been necessary, it would still not have
been possible to leave the Ethelredan walling exposed. Both mortar and
stonework had perished after nine hundred years o f burial, and a few winters’
frosts would soon have destroyed what had been left by King Cnut. As for
the interior o f the site, nothing could be left open there, because pits, gullies
and post-holes would rapidly have silted up with wind-blown dust, their
sides would have crumbled with frost, and weeds would have sprung up
on the rock between them.
Beyond this, there is usually an obligation on the archaeologist, when he
has finished digging, to restore a site to its original appearance, and to return
the land to its normal use. N o one would quarrel with the first point: the
last thing we want is that our ancient monuments should be left with the
gaping wounds o f excavators’ trenches. The second point is more debatable.
The man-in-the-street with a taste for history and archaeology might
imagine that our ancient hillforts and other sites belong first and foremost to
the nation - this is what ‘national heritage’ means. As part o f our common
206
After Cadattbyritf
history, they should be readily available for examination by suitably skilled

researchers; and they should be freely open to the visits o f the ordinary
citizen. Th'is should be especially true in the case o f sites like Cadbury, whose
outstanding interest has been demonstrated by excavation.
The actual position is very different. H owever important a monument
might seem, it belongs not to the nation, but to the person on whose land it
stands; and he has almost absolute power over it. Unless there are established
rights o f way, the public has no claim to access: at Cadbury this is limited
to a footpath round the defences. Archaeologists can claim no right to inspect,
still less to survey or to excavate a monument : the whole Cadbury operation
was dependent on the enlightenment and goodwill o f Mr and Mrs Mont
gomery, the owners. Finally, even when a site is nominally protected as a
‘scheduled monument’ under the Ancient Monuments Act, the landowner
may obliterate it by ploughing, afforestation, quarrying, building, or in
any other way he wishes - provided he gives three months notice to the
Department o f the Environment. So much for the national heritage! In
face o f this, the obligation to return farming land to its original use after
excavation must seem rather mild.
The landowner’s rights over the finds from an excavation are also absolute.
Unless objects are declared Treasure Trove, they belong to the landowner,
who may legally sell them - to foreigners if he wishes; keep a few pretty
things for himself and throw the rest aw ay; give them all to his friends; or
deposit some or all o f them in a museum. For an object to be Treasure
Trove, it must not only be o f precious metal, like our gold Covesea bracelet,
or the gold coin o f Antethos; it must also be proved that the original owner
had deposited it, as he thought, in a safe place, intending to recover it. It
then belongs to the Crow n, but the finder (not the landowner) is paid the
market value o f the piece. None o f the objects from Cadbury was proved
to be Treasure Trove, and everything therefore belongs to the landowners.
Fortunately the owners o f Cadbury have decided to place the great bulk o f
the finds in the Somerset County Museum at Taunton, where they will
join the material from St George G ray’s excavation and from Mrs Harfield’s
collection.
Before this can happen, however, there is much to be done to the finds.
The treatment varies: at one extreme are featureless scraps o f pottery, which
require a quick examination with a hand lens before they become a figure
in a statistical table; at the other are frail and priceless bronzes, like the face
plaque from the gate, or the shield-mount from the plateau, which have
required months o f the most skilled treatment in the laboratory o f the
207
After Cadanbyrig
British Museum. All objects are cleaned, and if necessary they are strength
ened with plastic resins. All are examined, classified and tabulated, and those
which merit it are drawn and photographed as well.
Part o f this treatment is necessary in order to preserve objects which have
lain for hundreds or thousands o f years in a stable environment in the ground,
so that they do not corrode or disintegrate when exposed to the atmosphere.
But the main work o f classifying, illustrating and cataloguing the objects
is in preparation for the full and final report on the excavations. Interlocked,
therefore, with the research on the objects is that on the structures where
they were found.
On countless photographs, plans and other drawings the evidence for
defences, gates and buildings must be analysed, and correlated with other
structures at Cadbury, and with similar structures on other sites. Then paper
reconstructions must be attempted, firstly o f particular buildings, individual
pots and so on; then o f entire cultural phases; and finally, the whole history
o f Cadbury must be reconstructed in the imagination.
O bviously this has already been done in outline, or the present book
could not have been written. The layman may well ask ‘How will the final
report differ from the book; and w hy should it be different?’ To take the
second question first. When a scientific discovery is reported, it is usually
sufficient to state the hypothesis that is being tested, to describe the apparatus
and the procedures used, and to give the result o f the experiment. A ny other
scientist can then build similar apparatus, repeat the procedure, and obtain
the same result, thereby verifying the experiment. But no one who wishes
to verify m y observations and test my hypotheses will ever be able to repeat
the procedure which I used at the south-west gate. The evidence no longer
exists at Cadbury - it was totally destroyed in' the digging. The only clues
that remain lie in eight ring-back binders, five rolls o f drawings, some
hundreds o f photo-negatives and transparencies, and a score o f cardboard
boxes o f pottery and other objects.
The historian studies his document, and returns it to the safe-keeping o f a
library; the scientist’s experiment is repeated in other laboratories; but the
archaeologist’s experiment is unrepeatable because he has destroyed the
primary evidence. Consequently, he has an absolute obligation to publish,
as fully as possible, the records which he made during the excavation. This
gives his colleagues some opportunity o f judging whether his methods o f
excavating were sound, and whether his observations were acute, and
therefore likely to be reliable. From this they can proceed to judge the
plausibility o f his hypotheses. Conversely (or perversely) they may decide
208
After Cadanbyrig
that quite different hypotheses will explain the evidence more reasonably.
This is only possible if it is presented very fully and fairly.
All this, o f course, determines the character o f the final report. In com
parison with this book, it will be enormously, even tediously, detailed, both
in words and illustrations. Much o f it will consist o f lists, tables and cata
logues. Its language will be technical, and its statements will be qualified.
Whereas here I have stated the most likely explanations, in the full report I
will have to argue a case, stating and rejecting unlikely hypotheses, before
settling for the best one. Lastly, where this book presents the Director’s own
interpretation, in the final report part o f my role will be to edit detailed
specialist reports written by experts in particular fields.
T w o points should have emerged from all this. Firstly, the work o f exca
vating Cadbury is at an end, for this generation at least. Secondly, the detailed
research goes on : less spectacular than the digging, but no less arduous. And
in the long run, it is this research, and the publication which results from it,
which bring the digging itself to its true fulfilment.
20g
Chronological Table
DATE PERIOD DEFENCES S W GATE IN TER IO R
, U E AR LY
4 00 0 O Z
“
z _
Ï F ie ld b a n k 7 R it u a l p its
300 0
- 1 LATE
2 000 E AR LY
1000 S M ID D L E D it c h . K 61 8
<
9 00 No
S LATE
z d e fe n c e s
8 00 o
<r T u rf C o o k i n g a n d o th e r
700 CD f o r m in g p it s
IN IT IA L
600 UJ
E AR LY R a m p a rt A S ix - p o s t - h o u s e s 7
500
<
4 00 R a m p a rt B S in g le g u a r d -
cham ber R ound
M ID D L E
3 00
R a m p a rt C P a ire d g u a r d - houses
200 se v e ra l p h a se s c h a m b e rs
O
100 cr LATE O u te r b a n k s
added
BC
U L T IM A T E R a m p a rt D S in g le g u a r d - P o r c h e d s h r in e
AD
z cham ber
100 M a s s a c re F ie ld - o v e n , b a r r a c k s
<
2 00
5
300 o R o m a n o - C e lt ic
te m p le 7
4 00 cr
500 A R T H U R IA N R a m p a rt E G a te -to w e r F e a s tin g h a ll
T o w e r r e f u r b is h e d
6 00
7 00
800
900
1000 ETHELREDAN M a s o n r y w a ll M a s o n r y g a te C h u rc h
1100
1200 C a s t r u m d e C a d e b ir 7 Y e l l o w g a te 7
1300
FINDS BACKGROUND EVENTS DATE
W i n d m i l l H il l c u lt u r e
S im p le b o w l s , t r u m p e t lu g s 4000
F ir s t fa r m e r s
F lin t a x e s , le a f a r r o w s
3000
R m y o - C la c t o n b o w l G r o o v e d - w a r e c u lt u r e 2000
B ro n z e axe
D e v e r e l R im b u r y c u lt u r e
1000
U r n f ie ld c u lt u r e s
900
C o v e s e a g o l d b r a c e le t 800
H a lls t a t t B
B r o n z e k n iv e s , s p e a r
L a r g e p la i n ja rs 700
B r o n z e ra z o rs H a lls t a t t C
N e c k - c o r d o n ja r s 600
S w a n 's n e c k p in s
J a rs w it h f in g e r - t ip o r n a m e n t H a lls t a t t D 500
F in e b o w l s
400
S im p le ja r s
300
B e a d - r im ja rs 200
W id e - r a n g e o f d e c o r a t e d p o t t e r y
Ir o n c u r r e n c y b a r s a n d o t h e r m e t a l w o r k 100
C o in s 5 8 -5 1 C aesar s c o n q u e s t o f G aul
BC
W h e e l- th r o w n p o tte r y
AD
R a re R o m a n p o t t e r y 4 3 C la u d ia n in v a s io n o f B r it a in
M ilita r y b ro n z e s 100
200
L a te R o m a n c o in s 300
G ilt b r o n z e A
4 0 6 G e r m a n ic b a r b a r ia n s c r o s s R h in e 400
I m p o r te d b o w l s a n d a m p h o r a e c 5 0 0 B a t t le o f B a d o n 500
5 7 7 B a t t le o f D y r h a m
600
700
7 8 9 F u s t r e c o r d e d V ik in g a tt a c k
800
on W essex
900
9 7 8 E th e lr e d th e U n r e a d y
L a te S a x o n p o t t e r y , b o n e a n d m e t a l
1000
1 01 6 C n u t
1100
1199 . . 1200
, „ , . John
1216
1300
Epilogue
It seems fitting to end this account o f the Cadbury-Cam elot excavations

with a brief evaluation o f their significance, as it appears shortly after the
end o f the field-work and with the detailed analysis o f finds and structures
still far from complete. I begin with what the Press called ‘The quest for
C am elot’. We did not find the fabulous Camelot, nor add anything directly
to historical knowledge about Arthur as a person. But at the least, the quest
stimulated debate and research into Arthurian problems, both on the site
and in wider academic circles. And even if the discussions sometimes
generated coolness rather than light, our understanding o f the historical
Arthur, and o f the situation in which he acted, has certainly been enriched.8S
Beyond this, there have been solid and surprising gains in our knowledge
o f the material background o f the Arthurian period. I would be the first to
stress that in terms o f minor artefacts, my excavations at Dinas Powys
yielded more information for a twentieth the cost o f the Cadbury dig.86
But the possibility o f building up a revolutionary account o f economic and
social aspects o f the period on the basis o f the Dinas Powys evidence was due
simply to the fact that artefacts and documents had not previously been
related together. At Cadbury, the solid results were the uncovering o f a
major defensive w ork; o f a gate-tower which is the only one known in the
period; and o f a timber hall, one o f the only three known. Because o f the
vastness o f the site, and the depth o f post-Arthurian overlay, these results
could only be achieved at great expense. The surprise was the discovery o f
the hall, for while the location o f the defences and the gate was obvious,
there were no clues at all to its whereabouts. Before the excavation began,
I made a crude estimate o f the odds, based on the total area o f the Cadbury fort
in comparison with that o f the hall at Castle Dore. As a result, I warned the
Camelot Research Committee that our chances o f locating a hall were
two hundred to one against.
212
These major Arthurian discoveries will, in course o f time, form an accepted
part o f our overall picture o f a period which is at once fascinating and obscure.
But because Arthurian Cadbury is only one phase in the long history o f the
site, the ‘Quest for Cam elot' had to take its place within a much broader
programme o f research. Some o f the more important discoveries may be
listed briefly. The Neolithic phases remained obstinately enigmatic, but for
the Late Bronze Age we explored a small settlement, and made a major
contribution to the study o f the little-known pottery o f the period. The
transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age, a period o f major importance in
the peopling o f these islands, was elucidated for one site. Associated and
stratified groups o f pottery and other objects were collected to provide
firmer and richer evidence for the history o f the Iron Age in west-southern
England. N ew aspects o f the Rom an treatment o f the native Britons were
revealed. The only Late Saxon masonry gateway available for exploration
anywhere in England was fully excavated. And among notable buildings,
special mention might be made o f the six-post Iron Age structures; the
stake-built round house; the porched shrine o f the Ultimate Iron A ge; and
the foundation-trench o f the cruciform church.
The Iron Age merits further discussion, particularly in terms o f the
questions which I had posed before the excavations began. How far had
our policy o f excavation been successful in answering these questions?
There is no doubt at all that, by concentrating on the interior rather than on
the defences, and by exploring the central area rather than the periphery,
we gained new insights into the status and function o f Iron Age hillforts.
Here is one fort at least which had been a focus both for ritual and for the
highest levels o f craftsmanship. Here too, by inference, was a seat o f the
aristocracy. But before we can start to generalize from Cadbury to other
forts, we need more - I would say, many more - excavations directed in
accordance with the same policy. Even then, we may not be able to answer
questions about the density o f population in hillforts.
Here I think that Cadbury has a warning to offer against premature
generalization and synthesis. It is the most extensively excavated fort in
Britain, and evidence for a very long cultural sequence has been amassed.
But it has also emerged that every cultural phase except the Late Iron Age
had its own very restricted distribution within the eighteen actes o f the
interior. I have already commented on the absence o f pits o f the Early phase
o f the Iron Age from the areas which we excavated, and I have suggested
that the main focus o f settlement (which we can suspect from pottery in the
ramparts) lay elsewhere. A similar explanation seems to fit the distribution
Epilogue
o f Arthurian artefacts. If we had dug other parts o f the site we might have
found the principal centres o f the Early Iron Age and Arthurian occupations,
but missed the Late Bronze Age or the early Rom an phases. The one safe
generalization here is that it is impossible, from a small sample, to generalize
about the cultural history o f a hillfort, let alone about its population,
economy, status and function.
Despite this, we find respected scholars advocating limited excavations
on the hillforts o f an area in order to establish their culture, date and economy.
As a historian with some interest in early medieval social and economic
problems, I sometimes think that my prehistorian colleagues not only make
bricks without clay, but then use them to build large straw edifices.
To return to Cadbury. We have now collected the primary evidence for
a history o f one hillfort. Some years o f cataloguing and analysis lie ahead
before that history can be written in circumstantial detail. But enough is
already known to reveal the importance o f Cadbury. A magnificent site
by nature, with sweeping views and dramatic atmosphere, it was seized upon
by early man as an ideal place for settlement. Nature was then improved
with a series o f defences which in their serried steepness can rival any hillfort
in England. And through recurring times o f strife, the hill and the defences
were used again and again. So Cadbury came to outdo all other sites in the
number and time span o f its occupations. It was not the Arthurian period
alone, but C adbury’s four thousand years o f history that stimulated the
interest from which this book takes its own inspiration.
214
Appendix
The Battle of Badon
We have two early accounts o f the battle o f Badon or Badonicus.87 The

western British monk Gildas wrote a potted history o f Britain as a prelude
to his lengthy denunciation o f the sins o f kings and bishops in his own day.
He tells us how Anglo-Saxon mercenaries were employed to defend
Britain; how they mutinied against their paymasters, and overran much o f
the land; and how Ambrosius rallied the Britons to victory.
‘ From then on’ (continues Gildas) ‘ victories were won sometimes by our
men, sometimes by the enemy, up to the time o f the siege o f mount
Badonicus. That was almost the last slaughter o f the thugs, but certainly
not the least. It happened forty-three years and one month ago, as I well
know, because it was at the time o f my own birth.'
Our second account is found in a document commonly known as Annales
Cambriae, but more exactly described as the British Easter Annals. This is a
list o f important events - the deaths o f saints, bishops and kings, and major
battles - which had been recorded as they occurred in the margin o f a set o f
tables used for calculating, year by year, the date o f Easter. Long afterwards,
a twelfth-century historian had copied all the historical records out o f the
Easter Tables, thus producing the British Easter Annals. The entry about
Badon runs as follows :
‘ Year 72. Battle o f Badon in which Arthur carried the cross o f our lord
Jesus Christ three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons
were victorious’ .
Some elements in this record are at first sight ridiculous. We may, however,
take it that ‘three days and three nights’ is a literary expression for a pro
tracted battle, such as Gildas’s expression ‘siege’ suggests. What Arthur
carried ‘on his shoulders’ was probably an amulet with a relic o f the True
Cross. There is no reason to doubt that Badon was an actual battle, in which
Arthur was the British commander. But when did it take place? Gildas,
having told us that it was in the year o f his birth, docs not say when that
Appendix: The Battle of Badon
occurred. The British Easter Annals use a reckoning all o f their own, from
Year 1 to Year 533. It is possible, however, by picking out events which are
known from other documents, to calibrate the Annals; and on this basis
we can say that ‘ Year 7 2 ’ equals a d $ 1 8 .
Unfortunately this date cannot be reconciled with certain other reckon
ings. Gildas wrote forty-three years after Badon, so 518 4- 43 = ad $61. At
the time he wrote, M aelgwn was still ruler o f north-west Wales, for he was
one o f the kings whom Gildas denounced. But the British Easter Annals
tell us that Maelgwn himself died in a d $49. One at least o f these figures
must be w rong: can we detect which it is?
The answer lies in a further consideration o f the character o f Easter Tables.
M odem tables, like that, for instance, in the Book o f Com m on Prayer, have
Anno Domini dates in their left-hand column, and this has been the practice
for well over a thousand years. But the system o f a d dates, so familiar to us,
was not invented until a d 525; so when we find such dates applied to events
before then, they have been calculated from figures which had originally
been expressed in terms o f some other era. Badon, o f course, is in this
category.
N ow early Easter Tables sometimes covered a period o f nineteen years
only. The reason for this is that the date o f Easter is governed by the phases
o f the moon, and nineteen years is a lunar cycle. It is probable that Badon
was originally entered in a nineteen year table, with no further indication
o f date. Subsequently, some monk with historical interests copied the Badon
entry into a table covering a longer span. But he misidentified the lunar
cycle, and placed the battle exactly nineteen years too late.
If this is so, then Badon should not be placed at year 72 o f the British
Easter Annals, a d 518, but at year 53, a d 499. To check this, we add 43 for
Gildas’s lifetime, to arrive at a d 442 for the time when he was writing, seven
years before M aelgw n’s death in a d 449.
Although we can fix the date o f Badon with reasonable certainty, there
Fig. 32 is no agreement as to where it was fought. Identifications which have been
suggested include Badbury Rings in Dorset, and Badbury by Liddington
Castle in Wiltshire, but neither o f these is convincing. Gildas’s first-hand
knowledge was limited to a tight arc from north Wales to Cornwall and it
is likely that Badon was on the periphery o f that arc. This makes the medieval
identification with Bath very probable, and the ‘siege o f mount Badonicus’
possibly involved one o f the hills overlooking that city. There is at least
general agreement that it was fought against the Anglo-Saxons in southern
England.
216
Notes
1 Smith. L. T., T h e itin e ra ry o f J o h n L e la n d in 16 Radford, C. A. R. and Cox, J. S., ‘Cadbury

o r a bou t the years I 5 J 5 - I J 4 J . vol. I (London Castle, South Cadbury'. P ro c. S o m erset arch.
>907). p.151. For the early antiquaries, & nat. h ist, so c., 99-100 (1934-3$), PP- 106-
Kendrick, T. D.. B r in - h an tiq u Mondon IJ-
1950; reprint. New York London 17 For the sceptical view: Trehame, R. F„
1970 ). T h e G la s to n b u r y leg end s (London 1967). For
2 Translated from Leland’s original Latin by the contrary view, Radford, C. A. R.,
Robinson, R.. T h e assertion o f k in g A rth u re ‘Glastonbury abbey', in Ashe, G. (ed.). T h e
(London 1582), f. 10 verso; accessible in quest f o r A r th u r ’ s B rita in (London 1968),
E a r ly E n g lis h te x t s o ciety, original series 165 pp. 119-38
(192$ for 1923), 2nd part, p. 35. 18 Harfield, M.. ‘Cadbury Castle', P ro c.
3 Stukclcy, W., Itin era riu m a trio su m (2nd cdn. S o m erset arch. & nat. h ist, so c., 106 (1962),
1776), centuria I, pi. 43. pp. 62-5.
4 Stukeley, Itin er. c u rio s., p. ij o . 19 Howell, M., ‘A soil conductivity meter’.
5 Jones, T., ‘A sixteenth century version of A rch a e o m e try , 9 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , pp. 20-3.
the Arthurian cave legend', in S tu d ie s in 20 Aitken, M„ ‘Magnetic location', and Clark,
la ng u a ge a n d literatu re in h o n o u r o f M a rg a re t A.,'Resistivity surveying’, in Brothwell, D.
S c h la u e h (Warsaw 1966). pp. 175—«5. and Higgs. E. (eds.). S cie n c e in arch a eo lo g y
6 Camden. W.. B rita n n ia (London 1386), p. 153. (London 1963; 2nd edn 1969), pp. 681-707.
7 Henderson. C., T h e C o r n is h church g u id e a n d 21 Note 14above.
p a ro c h ia l h isto ry o f C o r n w a ll (Truro 192$), 22 Windmill Hill: Smith. I. F.. W in d m ill H i l l
P- S7 . a n d A v e b u r y (Oxford 1963). Maiden Castle:
8 Pickford, C. E., ‘Camelot’, B ib lio g ra p h ic a l Wheeler, R. E. M.. M a id e n C a s t le , D o rset
b u lle tin o f th e in tern atio n al A rth u ria n so ciety, (London 1943). Hembury: accessible ac
21 (1969), pp. i $8-9. count in Fox, A., S o u th W est E n g la n d
9 Vinaver, E. (ed.). T h e w o rk s o f S i r T h o m a s (London 1964), pp. 30-2. The main general
M a l o r y (3 vols, 2nd edn Oxford 1967), vol. account is still Piggott, S., T h e n eo lith ic
I, p. cxlv. cultu res o f th e B ritis h Isle s (Cambridge 1934).
10 Jones, T.. ‘The early evolution ofthe legend 23 Houlder, C. H., ‘A neolithic settlement on
of Arthur', N o ttin g h a m M e d ie v a l stu d ies, 8 Hazard Hill, Tomes’, T ra n sa ctio n s, D e v o n
(1964). PP- 3-ai- A rch a e o lo g ic a l E x p lo ra tio n S o c ie t y , new series
11 Alcock, L., A r t h u r 's B r it a in : h isto ry a n d 21 (1963). PP-2- 3 1 -
a rc h a eo lo gy A D 3 6 7 - 6 3 4 (London 1971). 24 Accessible account of C-14 dating: Willis,
12 Note 4 above. E. H., ‘Radiocarbon dating', in S cien ce in
13 Bennett. J. A., ‘Camelot’, P ro ceed in g s, arch a eo lo g y (note 20 above), pp. 46-37. For
S o m ersetsh ire arch aeo lo gical a n d n a tu ra l h isto ry discussion of some of the limitations. P h ilo
so ciety, 36 (1890) part 2. pp. 1—19. s o ph ical T ra n sa ctio n s, R o y a l S o c ie ty o f L o n d o n ,
14 Gray, H. St G.. ‘Trial excavationsatCadbury A 269 (1970). pp. 1-185.
Castle. S. Somerset, 1913', P ro c. S o m erset 25 Renfrew, C. ‘The tree-ring calibration of
arch. & not. hist, so c., $9(1913) pt 2, pp. 1-24. radio-carbon: anarchaeological evaluation’,
15 Radford, C. A. R.. ‘Imported pottery P ro c. P re h is t. S o c . , 36 (1970), pp. 280-311.
found at Tintagel. Cornwall’, in Harden, 26 Hawkes. C. F. C and Clarke. R. R..
D. B. (ed.). D a r k - a g e B rita in (London I9$6). ‘Gahlstorf and Custer-on-Sea: two finds of
PP- 59 - 7 0 . . Late Bronze Age Irish gold*, in Foster, 1. LI.
217
N o te s
and Alcock, L., C u ltu r e a n d e n v iro n m e n t 39 Latest discussion of grain storage pits:
(London 1963). PP- 193-250. Bowen, H. C., ‘Com storage in antiquity’.
27 Musson, C. R., 'House-plans and pre A n t iq u it y 41 (1967), pp. 214-15.
history’, Current Archaeology. 2, no. 10 40 Distribution of ‘weaving-combs’ : Henshall,
(July 1970). pp. 267-75- A. S., ‘Textiles and weaving appliances in
28 Mackie, E., ‘Radiocarbon dates and the prehistoric Britain’, P ro c. P re h is t. S o c ., 16
Scottish Iron Age', A n t iq u it y , 43 (1969), (1950), pp. 130-62. Caesar's account: D e
pp. 15-26; Savory, H. N., ‘A Welsh bronze h ello g a llic o , V, xiv.
age hillfort’. A n t iq u it y , 45 (1971), pp. 251- 41 I S a m u e l xvii.
61. It goes without saying that the C-14 42 Full discussionin Allen, D. F., ‘Iron currency
dates quoted in these two papers are as bars in Britain’, P ro c. P reh ist. S o c ., 33 (1967).
subject to manipulation as any other such PP- 307 - 3 5 -
dates. 43 D e hello g a llic o , V. xii.
29 Sandars, N. K., B r o n z e age cultu res in F ra n ce 44 This account isbasedlargely on theresearch
(Cambridge 1957). especiallyfig. 73. Kossak, of M. G. Spratling.
G . ,S ü d b a y e m w ä h ren d d er H a llsta ttz e it (2 vols, 45 I had originally posed these questions in
Berlin 1959), taf. 9 and 136. 1964: ‘Hillforts in Wales and the Marches’,
30 Déchelette, J., M a n u e l d 'a rch é o lo g ie p réh isto r A n t iq u it y , 39 (1965), pp. 184-95-
iq u e , celtiq u e et g a llo -r o m a in e . V o l. 3 , p re m ie r 46 Hod Hill: note 37 above. Caernarvonshire:
âg e du f e r ou é p o q u e de H a llsta tt (Paris 1913). Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments
31 Brewster, T. C. M., T h e e x c a v a tio n o f (Wales), A n in v e n to ry o f the ancient m onu m ents
S ta p le H o w e (Malton 1963). in C a e rn a rv o n s h ire (3 vols, London 1956-64).
32 Alcock, L., ‘The Irish Sea zone in the pre- Also Hogg, A. H. A., ‘Gam Boduan and
Roman Iron Age’, in Thomas, C. (ed.). T h e Tre’r Ceiri*, A rch a e o lo g ic a l J o u r n a l, 117
Iro n A g e in the Irish S e a P ro v in c e (London (i960), pp. 1-39.
1972 ). pp- 9 9 -U 2 . 47 Recent general account of the period:
33 Stanford, S. C., ‘Credenhill Camp, Here Frere, S. S., B rita n n ia , a h isto ry o f R o m a n
fordshire: an Iron Age hill-fort capital'. B rita in (London 1967).
A rch a e o lo g ic a l J o u r n a l, 127 (1970), pp. 82- 48 Suetonius, D iv u s V esp a sia n u s, 4.
129. 49 Notes 22 and 37 above.
34 Filip, J., C e lt ic c iv iliz a t io n a n d its h eritag e 50 For tribal areas: Ordnance Survey, M a p o f
(Prague i960; Englishedition 1962). Piggott, southern B rita in in the Iro n A g e (Chessington
S., A n c ie n t E u ro p e (Edinburgh 1965), pp. 1962); also Rivet, A. L. F., T o w n a n d cou n try
201-7. in R o m a n B rita in (London 1958), pp. 151-6.
35 The best example is Rainsborough: Avery, 51 Camulodunum: Hawkes, C. F. C. and
M., Sutton, J. E. G. and Banks. J. W.. Hull, M. R., C a m u lo d u n u m : fir s t repo rt on the
‘Rainsborough, Northants., England: ex e x c a v a tio n s at C o lc h es te r 1 9 3 0 - 3 9 (London
cavations, 1961-5’, P ro c. P re h is t. S o c ., 33 1947) pis. lxxxix-xcvii. Hod Hill: Brails
(1967). pp. 207-306. ford, J. W., H o d H i l l , V o l. I , a n tiq u ities fr o m
36 Compare the undifferentiated fill of the H o d H i l l in the D u rd e n collectio n (London
post-pits at Little Woodbury: Bersu, G., 1962), figs 6-10.
‘Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire, 52 There are pointers in Hatt, J-J., C e lt s a n d
Part i : the settlement as revealed by G a l lo - R o m a n s (London 1970), p. 169;
excavation’, P ro c. P re h is t. S o c ., 6 (1940), Böhme, A., ‘Englische Fibeln aus den
pp. 30-1il, espec. 78-9. Kastellan Saalburg und Zugmantel’, S a a l-
37 Larger houses: Little Woodbury, note 36. bu rg Ja h r b u c h , 27 (1970), pp. 5-20.
Small houses in forts: Maiden Castle, note 53 For comments on these coins I amindebted
22 above; Hod Hill: Richmond. I. A., H o d to P. J. Casey.
H i l l , V o l. I I , e x c a v a tio n s . . . b etw een 1951 54 I amgrateful to G. Dannell for hisreport on
a n d 1 9 5 8 (London 1968). the Samian.
38 For another discussion of these houses, 55 Wainwright, G. J., ‘The excavation of a
Alcock, L., ‘Excavations at Cadbury- Durotrigian farmstead near Tollard Royal
Camelot, 1966-70,’ A n t iq u it y , 46 (1972), in Cranborne Chase, southern England’,
pp. 29-38. P ro c. P re h is t. S o c ., 34 (1968), pp. 102-47.
218
N otes
$6 Note 22, pp. 61-4. 231-3. 68 Examples are the south gate of Hod Hill
57 Calkin, J. B., ‘An early Romano-British auxiliary fort: note 37 above, fig. 41 B; and
kiln at Corfe Mullen, Dorset', A n tiq u a rie s Great Casterton, same report, fig. 50.
J o u r n a l . 15 (i 9 JS). PP 4 2 -5 5 69 Castle Dore: Radford, C. A- R-. ‘Report
58 General account of Celtic coins; Mack, on the excavations at Castle Dore', J o u r n a l,
R. P., T h e c oinage o f ancient B rita in (London R o y a l In stitu tio n o f C o r n w a ll, new scries 1
1953; 2nd edn 1964). Distribution maps by (1951), appendix. Yeavcring: Colvin, H. M.
Allen, D. F. in OS M a p o f southern B rita in , (ed.). T h e h isto ry o f the k in g 's w o rk s (Vols. I
note 50 above. For a critical study, Collis, Sc II, London 1963), pp. 2-5. Cheddar:
J. R., ‘Functional and theoretical interpret Rahtz, P. A., ‘The Saxon and medieval
ations of British coinage', W o rld A rch a e o palaces at Cheddar, Somerset— an interim
l o g y 3 ( 1971 - 2 ). pp.7 i- * 4 report of excavations in 1960-62', M e d ie v a l
59 Coins of Dobunni: Allen, D. F., ‘A study of a rch aeo lo gy , 6-7 (1962-3). pp. 53-66. The
the Dobunnic coinage', in Clifford, E. M., hall of Brasenose College, Oxford, is 49

B a g e n d o n : a B e lg ic o p p id u m (Cambridge by 25 feet, a floor area of 1225 square feet.
1961), pp. 7 5 -1 4 9 The larger room at Cadbury hasafloor area
60 I amgrateful toProfessorsJ. M. C. Toynbee, of about 1190 square feet if allowance is
S. S. Frere and D. E. Strong for their com made for the possibility of a 5 feet wide
ments on this plaque. passage beside the partition, or 1320 square
61 Lydney: Wheeler, R. E. M. and Wheeler, feet without allowing for apassage.
T. V., R e p o r t on the e x c a v a tio n o f the p re 70 Alcock, ‘Some reflections on early Welsh
h isto ric, R o m a n a n d p o s t-R o m a n site in L y d n e y societyandeconomy’, W e lsh H is to ry R e v i e w ,
P a r k , G lo u c este rsh ire(London 1932). Maiden 2 (1964-65). pp-1-7
Castle, note 22 above. Brean Down: Ap 71 Alcock, D in a s P o w y s (Cardiff 1963).
Simon, A. M., ‘The Roman temple on 72 Castle Dore: note 69 above. Degannwy:
Brean Down. Somerset’, P ro ceed in g s, U n i Alcock. ‘Excavations at Degannwy Castle,
v ers ity o j' B risto l S p ela e o lo g ic a l S o c ie ty , 10 Caernarvonshire, 1961-6', A rch a e o lo g ic a l
(i9<*5). PP- 195-258. General account : Lewis, J o u r n a l, 124 (1967), pp. 190-201.
M. J. T., T e m p le s in R o m a n B rita in (Cam 73 General survey of Arthurian-pcriod forts:
bridge 1966). For letters comparable with Alcock. A r t h u r 's B rita in , pp. 209-27, 347-9.
the Cadbury example, Lydney, p. 102 and 74 Size and organization of armies: A r t h u r ’s
pi. xxxiv. B rita in , pp. 335-8.
62 Lcland: note 1above. Stukcley: note 4. 75 Site of Badon: A r th u r 's B rita in , pp. 67-71.
63 I am grateful to the excavators for inform 76 Settlement of upper Thames valley: Myres,
ation about these key sites in advance of J. N. L., A n g l o - S a x o n p o tte ry a n d the settle
publication. m ent o f E n g la n d (Oxford 1969).
64 The primary study by Radford (note 15 77 Accessible translations of the A n g l o - S a x o n
above) should now be supplemented by C h ro n ic le areby Garmonsway, G. N. (Every
Thomas. A. C.. ‘Imported pottery in dark- man Library 1953); and by Whitclock. D.
age western Britain', M e d ie v a l a rch aeo lo gy , with Douglas. D. C. and Tucker, S. I.
3 ( 1959 ). PP- 89-111 ; 2ndby notesin Alcock, (London 1961).
A r t h u r ’s B rita in , pp. 201-9.
78 For the Vikings: Jones, G.. A h isto ry o f the
65 Roman timber gates: Richmond, I. A., V ik in g s (Oxford 1968).
‘Roman timber building', in Jopc. E. M. 79 For bu rhs and mints: Loyn. H. R., A n g l o -
(ed.). S tu d ie s in b u ild in g h isto ry (London Saxon E n g la n d and the N o rm a n C on quest
1961), pp. 15-26. (London 1962). chapter 3. Radford, C. A. R..
66 Uslar, R. von, S tu d ie n z u fruh gesch ich tlich en ‘The later pre-Conquest boroughs and their
Be/estig u ng en z w is c h en N o rd s e e und A lp e n defences'. M e d ie v a l a rch aeo lo gy . 14 (1970),
(Köln 1964). PP- 16-33. pp. 83-103, describes the wider background
67 Alcock, L.. ‘Castle Tower, Penmacn: a of Cadanbyrig.
Norman ringwork in Glamorgan', A n t i 80 A well-illustrated introduction is Dollev,
quaries J o u r n a l, 46(1966), pp. 178-210, espec R. H. M., A n g l o - S a x o n P e n n ies (London
ially pp. 187-90. 1964).
219
N o te s
81 Dolley, R. H. M„ ‘The emergency mint of am grateful to D. J. C. King for urging on

Cadbury', B ritis h N u m is m a tic J o u r n a l, 28 me the reasons for identifying the castrum
(1955 - 7 ). pp. 9 9 - 105 . de C a d e b ir with our site.
82 Hill, D., ’The Burghal Hidage: the estab 85 Alcock. A r t h u r ’ s B rita in .
lishment of a text'. M e d ie v a l a rch aeo lo gy , 13 86 Dinas Powys: note 71 above.
(1969). PP-84 - 9 2 . 87 The primary documents are reproduced in
83 Case for a church: A n tiq u a rie s J o u r n a l, 48 A r t h u r ’s B rit a in , especially fig. 3, and are
(1968), pp. 12-3. Reconstruction: A n t iq u it y , discussed in chapters 2 and 3. The present
42 (1968), p. 49. account supersedes the chronological argu
84 Colvin. H. M. (ed.). T h e h isto ry o f the k in g ’s ments advanced there, which are unneces
w o rk s (Vols. I & II, London 1963). p. 583. I sarily elaborate.
220
List of Illustrations
Unless otherwise stated, the photographs were taken by members of the Cadbury excavation team on
film donated by Kodak Ltd, and are the copyright of the Camelot Research Committee. Other photo
graphsareby: Ewart Needham, i ; H. C Tilzey, 3: Royal Naval Air Service, Crown Copyright reserved.
4, 5; H.J. P. Arnold, 6; Associated Press, 14, 40; Aly Aviation, 16,17; ColinJeffrey. 26; M. G. Spratling,
$1; British Museum, $2; Peter Clayton, $6, 58.60,61, 62, 63,64.6$, 66, 72, 80; XII; Oxford University,
Institute of Archaeology, $7; National Museum of Wales, 70, 71; University College, Cardiff. 10, 11.
22. 23. 24. 37, jo. 59, 91. 92. VIII, IX, X, XIII, XIV, XV. Figures 1. 2. 31, 32. 36 were drawn by G.
Stephenson; 4. j. 9-11 by D. Honour; 6. 8 by C. R. Musson; 13-17. 20, 24. 28 by S. Leek; 23 by S.
Schottcn; 25. 34 by K. D. Howes; 26, 29 by D. L. Owen; all others are by the author.
Colour Platos
■4, i$ Excavation of southern defences. 1967.
AFTER PACE J 6 16, 17 Aerial views of 1969excavations.
18-20 Excavation of aNeolithic pit.
I Cadbury-Camclot from the air, 1970.
21 Late Neolithic stake-hole.
II The southern defences.
22 Late Neolithic pottery.
Ill Excavation of the Arthurian gate.
23 Bronzes of the Bronze and Iron Ages.
IV, V Excavation of atimber round-house.
24, 2$ Late Bronze Age oven-pit.
26 Aerial view of south-east defences.
AFTER PACE 124
27 Ditch i.
VI The south-west gate. 28 CuttingD, 1967.
VIII South-eastern defences from the air. 29 Bank 1, 1968.
VIII, IX Celtic bronze pendant. 30 Ramparts A and B.
X Inlaid metal-work.
XI Silver buckle and bronze disk. AFTER PACE 84
XII Bronze face-plaque.
31 Young adult male skeleton.
XIII Fifth-sixth century imported pottery.
32 Excavation of south-west gate. 1970.
XIV Gilt-bronze Saxon button brooch.
33. 34 Ultimate Iron Age gate.
XV Late Saxon pottery.
35 Guard-chamber, south-west gate.
36, 37 Gate arrangements of Ultimate Iron
Age gate.
38 Wall-trench, Iron Age round house.
AFTER PACE 32
Site A.
1 Aerial view of Cadbury Castle, i 39 Dry stone walling. Site A.
2 Stukeley's drawing of Cadbury 40 Excavation of round house. Site G.
ramparts. 41 Iron Age features. Sites F, G.
3 Model of Cadbury Castle. 42 Features, Site C.
4. S RNAS aerial photographs. 43 Excavation of Site P. 1970.
6. 7 Geophysical survey in progress. 44 Round house. Site P.
8 Excavation of Site F, 1967. 45 Site T. 1970.
9 Site EFG, 1967. 46, 47 Animal and weapon burials.
IO Bronze objects found in 1966. 48 Ox burial.
it Neolithic to Saxon finds, 1967. 49 Wall-trench, porchcd shrine.
12. 13 Aerial view and plan. Sites P. S. 50 Iron objects. Site N.
221
List of Illustrations
$1.52 Iron Age shield mount. 3 Cadbury Casde plan, p. 16.

53 Stake-built round house. Site B. 4 Plan and profile of Cadbury defences,
$4 Ox-skull. Site C. p. 26.
5$ Metal-working area. Site N. 5 Progress of excavations, 1966-69.
PP JO-3 1 -
AFTER PAGE 136 6 Geophysical survey. 1967. p. 55.
7 Section of Bank 1, Site D. pp. 66-67.
56 Bone implements.
8 Geophysics and excavation in area
57 Celtic coins.
EFG, 1967, p. 71.
58 Iron Age weaving-combs.
9 Excavated areas, 1970. p. 77.
$9 Hoard of Iron Age iron objects. 10 Principal structures in the interior,
60 Iron axe and currency bar. pp. 80-81.
61, 62 Iron implements. 11 Structural analysis. Site T. pp. 82-83.
63 Iron weapons. 12 Ultimate Iron Age gate, p. 106.
64 Neck-rings. 13 Early Neolithic pottery, p. no.
65.66 Brooches. 14 Late Neolithic bowl. p. 113.
67 Human remains, south-west gate. 15 Gold bracelet, p. 114.
68 Excavation at Site B. 1968. 16 Late Bronze Age pottery, p. 116.
69 Buildings. Site B.
17 Initial and Early Iron Age pottery,
70-72 Roman military equipment and model
legionary. P 119-
18 Reconstruction of Rampart A, p. 122.
73 Latest phases. Bank 1, Cutting D. 19 Reconstruction of Rampart B, p. 123.
74 Stony Bank. Rampart E. 20 Middle and Late Iron Age pottery.
75 South-west gate. 1970.
76 Arthurian-period walling, south-west P 132 -
21 Profile of the Iron Age ditches. Site D.
gate.
77. 78 Arthurian gateway. P- 134
22 Iron Age shield reconstructed, p. 155.
79. 80 Axe-hammer and buckle in situ . 23 Relative chronology of Samian pottery,
81 Revetment of Rampart E.
p. 161.
24 Ultimate Iron Age pottery, p. 164.
AFTER PAGE 184 2$ Development of Celtic coinage, p. 166.
82-84 Arthurian-period hall. 26 Ultimate Iron Age brooches, p. 169.
85 Wall-trenches, rectangular building. 27 Fifth-sixth century ad pottery, p. 175.
86 Ethelredan mortared wall. 28 Amphorae, p. 176.
87 South-west gate of Cadanbyrig. 29 Reconstruction of Arthurian-period^
88. 89 Ethelredan gate passage. gate-tower, p. 178.
90 Cruciform foundation trench. 30 Reconstruction of Arthurian-period
91 Late Saxon bone plaques. hall. p. 179.
92 Arthurian and Late Saxon small finds. 31 Comparative floor plans of medieval
93. 94 Post-Ethelredan walling, south-west halls, p. 181.
gate. 32 Map of Badon and Dyrham campaigns,
95 Medieval or later field ditch. p. 183.
33 Comparative fort plans, p. 192.
34 Map of Ethelredan mints, p. 196.
Figures 35 Ethelredan and Arthurian period
1 Distribution map: coins, p. 12. gate plans, p. 199.
2 Distribution map: hillforts, p. 13. 36 Late Saxon church plans, p. 200.
222
Index
A. gilt bronze letter, 5, 173 Cadanbyrig, 23. 27. 49. 195fT. ; see also 84, 101. 172; linear. 72. 79. 203:
Air-photography. 28. $0. 52-3. 63, 84. B u r h , Church. Ethelredan wall supposed Neolithic, 103. in. 113-4
in. 117. 136, IJ7. 173. 204 Cadbury/Congresbury. 174, 183 Dobunni. 167
Ambrosius Aurelianus, 17-8. 193-4. 21$ C a d e b ir , castrum de, 203 Donations. 29, 32, 63, 76
A n g l o - S a x o n C h ro n ic le . 182, 19$ Camden. W., 13-4 Dumnonia, i82ff., 194
Anglo-Saxons. 17-8, i82fT.. i93ff. 215—6 Camel. Queen Camel. West Camel. 12 Dumovaria-Dorchester, 170-1
Animal burials. 81. 136. 133. 138. 164 Camelot, 11-4, 18-9. 21-2. 212 Durotrigcs, 159-61, 163, 165-8
Animals, domestic. 81. 84, 110. 113. 136. Camelot Research Committee. 22ff., 32.
164 63-4, 68, 76, 193. 204-5. 212 Edmund Ironside. 197
Annals. British Easter; A n n a le s C a m h ria e . Camlann, 17-8 Entrance roads. 104-5. 107. 130, 134.
215-6 Castell Degannwy, 181. 183 161-2. 171. 174. 182. 198, 201. 213
Antcthos, 167, 207 Castle, stone at Cadbury. 203 Entrances, 25. 69-70, 76. 102-7. 130. 134,
Antler, no. 112 Castle Dore, 178, 181. 193. 212 159-62, 167-8, 170-1. 176-7. 181. 198,
Arrowheads. 108-10. 113, 163 Causewayed camps, 110 201-2. 204; see also Site K
Arthur, 11-19. 22. 25, 49. 51. 193-4. 212. Celtic Art see Plaque. Shields, etc. Ethclrcd, 23, 27. 49, 51, I94ff.
a ,5 Celts, 116, 118, 120-2. 129, 156, 170, Ethelredan defences, 49. 67-70, 104. I97ff.
Arthurian defences, 49. 66-8, 103-5, 176-7 see also Ramparts, inner
I74ff., i82ff., 2 12 ; see also Rampart's Chronology. 111-2. 118-20; Neolithic, Excavation, mechanical, 66-7, 79, 102
inner n 1-3; Early Bronze Age, in, 113;
Axe-hammer. 104-5 Late Bronze Age. 115; Iron Age. 117, Fairs, 110, 163
Axes, stone, 25, 108; bronze. 113; iron, 133; post-Roman, 174 Farming. 117, 136. 156, 172. 203-4; sw
153 Church. 72-3. I98ff. also Ditches, linear ; Ploughing
Cissbury, Saxon mint. 195 Hints, 20-1, 25. 69, 73. 102, 108-10,
Badbury. siteof Badon. 194. 216 Cnut, 27. 49, 70, 197, 201-2. 206 112-3
Badon, 17-8. 194. 215-6 Coin-dies, 197 Floors, 50, 73, 130, 135, 172
'Banjo', 52-4. 62 Coins, 21. 28, 52; Celtic. 20, 166-7. 207; Folk-lore. i2fT., 19-20, 24. 51
Bath. 182. 194, 216 forged. 166; Roman, n, 14, 19-20, 51. Fund-raising. 22, 29. 32, 63-4, 76, 205
Bennett. Rev. J. A.. 20-2, 25, 27, 203-6 68, 160, 167, 170. 172-4; Ethelredan, Furnaces, 52. 84, 156
Bone, decorated. 200-1 27. I9 5 ff
Boudicca, 171 Contour plan. 32. 49, 55, 64 Gate-towers, 104-5, >7 4 . 176-7. 212
Brass, 170 Covesea bracelet. 114-5, 207 Gates. 134. 162, 176-7. 198. 202
Britons, post-Roman. i82ff.. I93ff. Crewkeme, 27. 197 GeofTrey of Monmouth, 14-5
Bronze Age, 27, 50-1. 73, 79. 105-6. in. Crop-marks, 27-8, 50 Geology. 24, 50. 74. 109. 129. 131. *33 -
ii3ff.. 213 Cruciform trench see Church 173 . 198
Bronzes, 101, 105-6. 114. 117. 120, Currency bars, 154, 158 Geophysical instruments, 55; see also
154-7. 167. 172, 207; see also specific 'Banjo'
objects Daggers. 84 Geophysical survey. 5iff.. 63. 65. 70, 72-3,
Bronze-working. 84, 114. 154-8, 167-8. Danes. 195. 197 80. 84, 101. in. 117. 136. 157. 173. 203
180 Defences, 63, 65-9. 102. 122. 129. 133-4. Gildas, 18, 215-6
Brooches, 52. 105-6. 160. 163, 168-70 159-60. 162. 168. 173. 175-7. 193-5. Glass. 22
Bruton. 27. 197 197, 202, 204. 212; see also Ramparts, Glastonbury. 13. 24-5, 78; lake village. 21.
Bucket, bronze. 114 Ditches 2 4 . 133
Buckle, silver, 104-5. >74- 182 Dcorham (Dvrham). 182. 194 Gododdin. 193
Buildings. 49. 68. 76. 156, 180; Roman. Devcrcl-Rimbury, 115-6. 119-20 Gold. 114-5; see a lso Treasure trove
74. 85. 171-2; see also Houses, Timber- Dinas Emrys, 183, 193 Gray, H. St George. 20-2. 25. 27. 69.
buildings Dinas Powys. 51. 180. 212 204-7
Burghal hidage. 197 Disk, bronze. 155 Guard-chambers. 107. 130, 134. 162. 177
B u rh . 27. 4 9 . Si. 67-70. 7 3 - I9 5 ff Ditches, defensive, n. 19, 25. 65, 129. 134. Gullies. 55. 62. 72-3. 79. 101. 109. 116-7.
Burials. 123; Iron Age. 102-3 162. 172. 201; hollow-way. 50-1.73. 206; drainage. 49. 52. 68, 73. 135. 157
223
Index
Halls, 70, 72. 74, 178, 180-1 ; Arthurian, Pins, 50-1, 73, 121 Site EFG, 70, 72-4 79-80, 109, 116, 136,
jo, 75-6, 78-9, 101, 175. 177-8, 181. 212 Pits, 20, 27-8, 50. 52-3, 55, 62, 69-70, I981T., 203
Hallstatt, 118, 120-3 72-4, 79, 101-3. 109-10, 116-7, 131, Site I, 68, 102-4. 193
Harfield. Mrs M., 21-2, 25, 28. 50-1, 109, 136, 153-4, 157. 198, 206. 213; storage, SiteJ, 68, 102, 193
207 20, 27-8,65,79, 116. 121, 136. 156-7, Site K, 102-7, 130, 133-4, 159-62, 167,
Hazelnut shells, 110. 112 160, 163 170-1, 176, 193, 198
Hearths, 50, 52, 73. 79. 130, 178 Planning, policy, 24. 28, 32, 51, 62, 64-5, Site L, 74-S, 7 9 . 177-8
Hcmbury, 109-n 74, 76, 79-80, 102-3, 205, 213 Site M. 203
Hillforts, 64, 101. 103, 117-8, 133. 136, Plaque, bronze, 105. 167-8, 207 Site N, 80, 109, 154, 156
154, 156-9. 205, 213-4; post-Roman, Ploughing, of hilltop, 19, 25, 27-8, 49-50, Site P, 80, 109, 135-6, 153
I74ff- 181-3. 195 63, 72-3, 84, 101, 108, 114, 164, 173, Site S, 80
H is lo ria B ritio n u m . 17-8 177-8. 203-4 Site T, 80, 101, 109, 121, 135-6, 153, 163
Hoards, bronze, 114; iron, 153-4 Pottery, 20-1, 28, 50-1, 73, 102, 118-20, Skeletons, 102-3, 105-6, no, 159-60
Hod Hill, 157, 159-60, 168-70 131, 136, 162, 207, 213; Neolithic, 21, Sling bullets and stones, 19, 28, 154
Horse-harness, 120, 172 27, 69, 102, 108—13; Late Bronze Age, Soil anomaly detector, conductivity
Houses, 20. 49-50, 64-5, 74. 118, 121, 114-20; Iron Age, 21, 49. 81, 109. meter, see ‘Banjo’
162-3; Late Bronze Age. 116-7; 119-23, 129-32, 158-69, 198; Roman. South Cadbury village, 78, 205;
rectangular, 101, 121-2, 153, 163; 51, 160-1, 165, 169-73; post-Roman, excavations, 51, 170, 172
round, 52, 73 ~4 - 7 9 . 84. 101, 135-6, 157 . 21-2, 50-1. 63, 75. 78, 105, 174-5 ; Late Spearheads, bronze, 50, 105-6. 114; iron,
162-3 Saxon. 79, 200; Medieval, 203 105. 120, 170
House-platforms, 49, 74, 84. 135 Press, relations with, 29, 32, 63-4., 212 Stake-holes, 74, 84, 101-2, 113, 135
Publication, 206-9 Stock-enclosure, 202-3
Ilchester, 27, 171, 196-7 Stukelcy. W„ 11-2, 14, 19, 21, 173, 203-4
Quarrying, 19, 25, 202 Survey. 28-9, 32, 49, 52-5. 63, 65, 70,
Iron Age. 20-1, 27. 49 “5 >. 67. 73~4. Querns, 19-20, 153
79-103. 105-7. 118-72, 213 72-3, 76. 84, 101, i iT, 117. 136, 157,
Iron-work, 84, 118, 120, 153-4, 158, 167. Radio-carbon dating, 1 1 1 - 3 , 117 173 . 203
180; see a h o under specific objects Ramparts, 11 , 19-20, 25, 32, 49, 65, 68, Swords, 52, 84, 120
12 1, 17 5; inner, 49, 51, 66-70, 102-3,
Temples, Iron Age, 81, 153, 158, 163-4,
King John,203 109, 1 13, 117 , I23<f., I33ff., 162, 168,
>7 *. 173 - 4 ; Romano-celtic, 51. 84, 173
Kitchen, 180 17 1-8 , 185, 197-8, 2 0 1-2 ; outer, 66,
Textiles, 116, 153, 158
Knives. 51, 73, 114, 180, 200 133-4, 162
Timber-framing, defences, 103, 123, 129,
Razors, bronze, 120-1 176, 182; hall, 177-8
Landowners, 76, 78, 207 Religion see Animal burials. Pits, Plaque, Tintagel, 21; pottery, 21-2
Leland.J., 11-5, 19, 21, 173 Temples, Weapon-burials Tools, bronze-workers’, 156
‘Linches’, 203 Revetments. 49, 68-9, 130, 133, 162, 171, Topography, 24, 32
176, 198, 202 Tores, 170
Magnetic field, 52-3, 62 Ring-ditches, 73, 79-80, 101, 135-6; see Tower, 162, 198
also Gullies; Houses, round
Maiden Castle, Dorset, 49, 109, 133, 159, Trade, Neolithic, 109; Late Bronze Age,
165. 170-1. 173 Roman conquest, 74, 159-60, 165, 167 50-1, 114; Iron Age, 133, 154, 158. 163,
Masonry, 19, 49, 104. 173, 195, 197-8, Romances, medieval, 14-5 165-6, 168; post-Roman, 21-2, 174-5
201, 203 Romans, at Cadbury. 14, 19, 21, 67, 74, Treasure trove, 207
Massacre, 105-7, 159-60, 167, 169-71, 176 105-6, 159-61, 168, 171fT
Meare, 21, 24, 133 Roofing, 135, 173, 178 Vespasian, 159. 170
Milbome Port, 198 Vikings, I95ff., 200-1
Saw blade, 153 Visitors, 29, 32, 205-7
Military equipment, Roman, 51, 101, 172 Scabbards, 84
Mints. 23, 27, I95ff. Scrap metal. 84. 114, 155-7. 180 Walls, modem, 204
Scrapers, flint, 108 Warband, 183-4
Neolithic, 20-1, 25, 27, 69, 73, 102-3, Shields, 51, 84, 154, 156, 170. 172, 207 Warfare, post-Roman, i82fT, I93ff.
io8ff., 213 Sickle, iron, 120, 154 Wattle, 74, 84; -and-daub. 73, 135. 178
Neolithic bank, see Ramparts, inner Site A, 49, 68, 73, 102, 113. 115, 117. 123. Weapon-burials, 84, 164
133 . 157 . 193 . 198 Weapons, 84, 105-6, 156-7, 159-60, 170;
Organization, 29, 65, 68, 76-8. 205 Site B, 50-1, 84, 101. 135, 153, 157, see also specific weapons
Ovens, 52, 72-3, 101, 116-7 159-60, 171-2 Weaving-combs, 153
Site C, 50-1, 74, 101, 153-4, 163 Wessex, 182, 200
Pendant, bronze, 154-5 Site D. 65, 102-3, >09. 123, 129, 133, Windmill Hill, 109-11
Pennies, silver, I95ff.. 200 153 - 4 . 193 . 198 Workshops, 84
224

Was This Camelot?

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Was This Camelot?

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

W as this C am e lo t?

whose skill and dedication ensured the success of

First published in the U nited States in 1 9 7 2

Printed and hound in Great Britain by

Part O ne: Exploration

VI THE IRON AGE TOWN

VII CELTIC CLIMAX AND DOWNFALL

VIII CAMELOT AND CADANBYRIG

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 221

I have no hesitation in presenting this book on a personal note. In 1950, after

Arthurian period we were singularly - almost rcsistantly - ignorant in any

I The growth of a theory

Leland and the identification of Cadbury as Camelot

15 acres. Sin gle

Palace’ , incolae Arthuri Palatium dicunt.6 This, it w ill be observed, is in direct

The authenticity of Arthur and Camelot

records maintained in some British monastery, in the year in which they

could initiate m ilitary action on behalf o f Britain as a whole. For instance,

From antiquarianism to archaeology at Cadbury Castle

Whatever Arthurian associations Cadbury had in Leland’s day, in the follow­

beginnings o f purposeful excavation, we have to wait until the late nineteenth

exact positions o f the principal finds, in a w ay which would have been

systematic account o f what could now be called the ‘imported pottery

charged me, in the summer o f 1966, with the direction o f a reconnaissance

The topographical data

burial at Glastonbury - which may have more substance than historians

The archaeological and historical data

in the Stone Age. N o w , however, the discovery o f a fair quantity o f charac­

enterprise Mrs Harfield arranged for Cadbury to be photographed by the

Resources and organization

M y original intention in 1966 had been to restrict our reconnaissance to a

importance o f Cadbury in terms o f archaeological scholarship to the learned

Survey and excavation, 1966

2 3 S o m e s i g n ific a n t b r o n z e s . E a r l y B r o n z e A g e fla n g e d a x e , 4 in s lo n g (p. 1 1 3 ) . L a te B r o n z e A g e

widely known in the Mediterranean in the ninth and eight centuries bc .

The geophysical reconnaissance: instruments and principles

on her television set during a programme decrying the Arthurian connec­

dcavouring to locate these man-made geophysical anomalies. Having been

The geophysical reconnaissance: survey and results

6 Geophysical survey 19 6 7 . D ot-density presentation o f the overall results o f the S o il Conductivity

pare the results obtained by the various instruments. We also opened up

II Early morning mists clearing to reveal the southern defences.

IV, V Two stages in the excavation of a timber round-house in 1970. The

Policy and organization

The excavation of the defences, 1967

7 Bank l : the stratification revealed on Site D in

mountaineering than archaeology, so steep was the slope. Unfortunately

The prehistoric defences, 1968

The completion o f our ten-metre cutting through Bank i was obviously

was no one to sec my mistakes. After half-an-hour o f precision hacking, I Plate 29

The south-west entrance, 1968

Our thorough exploration o f the post-Rom an defences in 1967 enabled us

how it could be Ethelredan. Eventually, we found remains o f the burh wall

False clues in the interior, 1967

When, in M ay 1967, we had found the O xford and C ardiff geophysical

8 Geophysical survey and excavation oj

Cadbury was swept by a torrential thunderstorm. The rain freshened up the

Iron Age pits and buildings

house platforms levelled o ff into the hillslope. If this interpretation was

Arthurian possibilities, 1968

Policy and organization

welcome and opposition in the village o f South Cadbury, and we gained

The exploration of the Arthurian hall, 1969

Temples and workshops

Whatever Arthurian associations Cadbury had in Leland’s day, in the follow

in the Stone Age. N o w , however, the discovery o f a fair quantity o f charac

on her television set during a programme decrying the Arthurian connec