STOKELEIGH
IRON AGE CAMP
Leigh Woods,
A Site Introduction
Fig 1 Reproduced as a Section from the Stokeleigh OS Map 2005 1:2500
Courtesy of the National Trust (
Nigel B.Bain MA, BD
May 2009
There is an extensive
number of diverse hillforts scattered across the West of
As a result, the National Trust
in collaboration with English Heritage and Natural
*All
photographs displayed in these pages are taken by courtesy of the above
Stokeleigh Camp (GR: 559733) is
dramatically situated on a promontory high over the Avon Gorge. Extending over some
7.5acres, it stands at its southern end over 300 feet above the river. This
flat outcrop of carboniferous limestone, with its steep or scarped slopes
around the perimeter, offers a superb vantage point and impressive natural
defences. Its precipitous cliffs to the east may have significantly
eroded over time into the gully below, but in their day they made the northern
end of the camp more defensible. The southern edge is protected by the steep
contours of
Fig 2 The two Main Ramparts - Western side.
At its western end, and some 330 yards
(est.) back from the forward cliff spur, the promontory at Stokeleigh was
cordonned off ‘at the neck’. Initially this may have meant only a ‘barricade
and a trench’. More robust defences would subsequently be built across this
vulnerable landward side from which massed attack might come. These took the
form of a series of
defensive lines, two fully concentric sets of earthworks or ramparts, each with accompanying ditches. A further one also briefly accompanies the
others south from the
northern end, before turning westwards and ending sharply. The fort is
therefore multivallate. In
appearance, these defences describe the outer perimeter of a crescent or ark
lending the whole camp a characteristic half moon aspect. (Fig 3)
Fig 3
OS Map 154, 2005, 1:25000
Doubtless in use on a makeshift basis as
far back as Neolithic times, Stokeleigh comes into focus as a fort sometime
‘after the late third century BC’ (J.Haldane, 1975,P61) during
the late Pre-Roman Iron Age. In an earlier, wilder era, the site may have
functioned in its own right and operated as a raiding post. Those were
treacherous times and much of Iron Age
At some stage, Stokeleigh may have become
the stronghold of some hereditary clan chief. He would look to the tribal
leadership, initially Durotrigian, whose regional capital
may have been one of the larger camps nearby, as at Dolebury (GR 450590) a
little further south. As one in a series of similar outlying forts in the
vicinity, Stokeleigh’s role would never only have been narrowly defensive but
also strategic. It may have served as an advance look-out post or even as a
‘command and control centre’ for wider military operations (Fig 4).
In this way, local or confederate tribal
agreements, like major alliances today, would serve to keep the peace. When
this was the case, then together with Burwalls (GR: 563729) immediately south and its ‘twin’ on the other side of
the Gorge, the Clifton Iron Age Camp (GR:
566733), Stokeleigh, the largest
and best preserved of the three, would conveniently monitor and
dominate access through the Avon at a critical point.(Figs 3 & 4) When not a rival, then this would normally also have
made Cadbury
Camp (GR:454725) just a few miles along the ridge, another likely
military partner. Its own high position also gave it a key strategic significance.
It stood guard over the approaches to the Avon, the Severn Estuary and the
seaborne threat from the fierce Silures of South Wales; as also over
the
Fig 4 OS Map ‘Ancient
From the 1st
century BC onwards, there was growing tension between the native Durotriges
of
Fig 5
Local Iron Age Tribes around the
local trade routes. Yet this was an age however when
the capture (and recapture) of strongholds was not uncommon and such traumatic
episodes did occur. It seems reasonable to suggest therefore that Stokeleigh together with
its neighbouring forts may well have succumbed to Belgic westward expansion and
occupation by the time of the Claudian invasion in AD 44.
Many native forts in the west of
According
to Barrett ( P18) however, Stokeleigh would actually have been garrisoned as
part of a general Roman military programme for the whole area. In this way he
can comment on what he considers to be certain stone remains from the Roman
era. These would constitute a line of defences and signal stations running
westwards from Stokeleigh and skirting the Failand Ridge as far as Clevedon. (P19) (Fig 4)
K.S.Gardner examines the possibility of a
connection between Stokeleigh and the
THE INNER CAMP AND MAIN RAMPART
The actual extent of the inner camp at
Stokeleigh may not be particularly large and does not qualify it as a major
stronghold. Indeed the sheer scale of the surrounding fortifications makes this
generally level interior plateau look modest by comparison. Its defences were designed
for dangerous times and indicate something of the scale and intensity of
anticipated assaults. The fort may never
have enjoyed regional importance, but these defences in themselves clearly
argue the existence of settlement,
however limited, together with local status. Unsung short-lived generations
must have been played out the human saga behind these walls. (Fig 6) Finds
of worked bones, domestic pottery, bronze and iron implements, baked clay and
stonework are in evidence. (Haldane,1975).
Fig 6 The Inner Camp and
‘The
Southern Terrace’
From the inside,
the inner camp is effectively contained
by a single rampart, the longest, highest, and most considerable of them all. It begins at the fort’s south-eastern extremity almost at
the cliff spur. (This provides the best observation and most likely signal
point in the camp offering a panoramic view over the Gorge, the Avon in both
directions, and terrain far beyond). It may first be observed briefly below the
existing pathway and, ‘as not much more
than an
artificial terrace, making use,’
suggests Haldane (1966,P34), ‘of an
already existing natural one, bounded on
the uphill side by a slope of
considerable steepness, which may have been artificially steepened.’
Along and above the steep southern edge of
On course to the south-western gap in the
bank, it gradually rises to the same level as the accompanying pathway with
some evidence of laid stonework across. It flattens out after some way to an
almost uniform width of about 50 feet. The whole bank was probably built up to
extend the steep side of the site outwards and to shore the hillside up against
erosion or landslip down the Valley.
Fig 7 'The Southern Terrace'; Revetment Wall and
Bank
The Western Face
The wall briefly rises at the outer
edge of the embankment as it approaches the south western gap. (see P18) The
whole rampart now assumes majestic proportions as it curls round westwards and
northwards in a gentle curve. Then it moves finally east to the steep edge at
the other end of the promontory. S.Seyer (1821) notes, ‘Between these two sides... the length
(ie of the rampart)…is 225 yards.’ (P65)
Broad and solid, this massive bank has
largely been constructed with local limestone boulders, rubble and earth. Along
the middle of its summit, it appears to have been surmounted by vertical
drystone walling. No Roman mortar here. However it may not be an
original feature. (Thackeray P3). This was first uncovered at two points by Lloyd Morgan
and is recorded on his map of 1904. Haldane (1966,
P35) after limited excavations, confirmed
its existence here but not on the other ramparts. He noted that the
construction of this walling at Stokeleigh appears to be unusual and
uncharacteristic of what is found in other local hill-forts.
Over 2000 years ago, this whole earthwork
would have been higher still, not least because the inner camp and ditch would
be lower while its taller reaches have inevitably compacted. Even today, it
still stands some 30 feet above the level of the interior in places, is in good
condition and presents a most commanding prospect from the outside. (Figs 2,6 & 8)
Fig 8 The Main Rampart and Inner Camp
The First Ditch (Figs 9,9a,10)
Below the first rampart and occasionally
running some 60 feet down its steep slope, we come to the bottom of a deep and
relatively wide trench.
Figs 9 & 9a
Fig 10
A view from the top of the main rampart
to the limestone bottom of the first
ditch.
Originally this would be deeper and appears to
have been cut into the limestone bedrock, still partly visible in places. It is
typically hollow, and ‘u’ shaped, and would have provided much of the material
from which the first rampart would subsequently have been constructed. (Fig 10)
The
depth of the ditch it hosted, is particularly evident along the western face
but becomes less so towards the northern end where it terminates.
Existing ‘causeways’ lead across it up to the gaps in the main rampart in the
north-west and the south west corners of the camp. These also serve to
demarcate physically the trench as a ditch from the subsequent declivities (Fig 11
) at the sharp northern and southern edges of the promontory into which
water would otherwise drain away.
Fig 11 Example of a declivity at the SW gap
Sketches from the Past
Fig 12
Reproduced from the Map of C.Lloyd Morgan , AD 1904
Given the likely amount of growth obscuring the site, the relative
accuracy of these maps for their time is remarkable.
Fig 13
Reproduced from the Map of S.J.
Loxton 1916 ;
Courtesy of the National Trust (
THE SECOND RAMPART
At the western face, the first trench rises
back up the other side on a fair slope for some 24 feet in places to a
second rampart This stands at a
lower level to the first. (Figs 14 & 15) Here at its most impressive, the bank appears to stand about 15 feet
directly above the bottom of the first ditch and between 10 to 15 feet above
the level of the inner camp.
The rampart stands broader at the southern
end by the declivity towards
Fig 14 The Second Rampart West View (The first stands behind)
Fig 15 The Second Rampart West View (The first stands behind)
According
to Haldane, (1966; P35), there is no conclusive evidence that this earthwork
hosted drystone walling. The erection of sturdy wooden palisades here and along
the third bank may have seemed a plausible alternative. The trees immediately
around the camp, would have been felled to provide the timber required and at
the same time provide a clearer view of possible enemy movements. Further back,
new generations of surrounding trees may have been encouraged in order to
provide camouflage. Caesar (P114) in
his limited campaigns in
THE THIRD RAMPART
Fig 16 The Third Rampart (North West facing)
The second ditch now leads back up on to a
flat plateau. Here we meet a third bank which heightens briefly
at its edge into a low ridge. It too stands over its own accompanying trench, sloping down some 12 feet in places to the bottom. (Figs 16, 17 & 18) Altogether ‘a feeble affair’
comments Haldane (1975,P29), this rampart follows the other concentric ramparts
southwards from the northern edge. The width between it and the second ditch
progressively broadens from the northern end until after about 250 yards (est.)
both are separated by the flat plateau of over 30 yards wide.
Fig 17 The Third Rampart (North West facing)
At this point however the rampart diverges
westwards away from the camp in abrupt fashion. Haldane (1966) maintains that it, ‘appears
to fork. The southern half of the fork is mentioned by Seyer(1821) as an
earthwork, but it is almost certainly a natural feature, or one perhaps
slightly modified. The rampart forms the northern end of this fork continuing
for a short distance before temporarily disappearing, reappearing a few metres
beyond. The rampart then continues for about 30m before coming to an end. The
temporary disappearance of rampart and ditch suggest this portion was unfinished. The rampart and ditch have no
return to Nightingale valley on the south side.” (P33)
INTERPRETATION OF THE THIRD
RAMPART
The whole of this third bank may have been
one of the more subsequent features to Stokeleigh as a camp. It does not appear
integral to the immediate camp defence system, already well provided for by the
existing walls. It appears as a separate and independent addition in its own
right, but deliberately left ‘open’ at one end. Its existence raises several
important points.
This new line was clearly designed to
redress some perceived vulnerability in the existing defences. The scale of the
fortifications to the west suggests that any concerted attack would be
anticipated here, but not apparently from along
the northern edge. A third and more dispersed but palisaded embankment
in front of the first and second ramparts would therefore be designed to
counter this thrust.
Again, defences extended out this far would
also place the inner camp effectively beyond range of ‘artillery fire’, those
barrages of sling shot which accompanied Iron Age campaigns. Any prudent site
commander would have the surrounding terrain scoured in advance for loose
stones, and piled up in readiness. Even after a successful defence, the debris
left around after these ‘stone-throwing contests’ must have been enormous!
Fig 18 Section of Frontspiece OS Map 2005 + Author’s Designations & Alterations.
(Courtesy of the National Trust (
Forward Defence
A third bank may have served as a line of
forward defence, a salient.
From here back to the expanse
in front of the second ditch, hefty numbers of defenders crowding in from a
populous locality and reinforced by the strongest warriors could amass.
Military supplies could be channelled along its length. Here the brunt of the
onslaught would be taken or the campaign carried into enemy ranks. Equally the
position might be relinquished where necessary on tactical grounds and
defenders withdrawn progressively behind the inner ramparts.
Such
an extension was therefore designed and deployed as an outwork and was probably
constructed by the 2nd century BC. After this, there may have
been a general cessation in
building activity involving hillforts such as
Stokeleigh. A.Payne (2007,P5) notes that this appears to be the case amongst the
Durotriges after 100BC, but a little earlier amongst tribes further east.
‘A Staggered Entrance’
In conjunction with the other two, such a
bank would more importantly altogether provide a ‘staggered entrance’. This
was an imitation of the inturned entrances built into later
or more advanced constructions such as at Cadbury Camp further along the
Failand Ridge, and to a greater degree at
A third such bank in this case points
therefore to the likely proximity of a main entrance into the camp near the northern end where the separate defences all
close in near the precipice. In that sense, it served as an outwork and a
covering approach to the main inner gate itself, around which any successful
defence of Stokeleigh would revolve, a further tier of protection.
As Haldane (1975) rightly points out, ‘When
the outer bank and ditch were made, the route of approach to the northern
entrance could only have been along the flat ground between the middle ditch
and the outer bank.’ (P30)
An Outer Gate – a public entrance to the Camp?
As previously noted, the third rampart
abruptly diverges westwards from the rest of the camp. Burrow (1981) notes, ‘On the E
side of the bank immediately before this change in direction, two parallel
banks about 20m apart and 1.5m high, project ESE for about 30 m.’(P222) (Fig18, 19)
Fig 19
The cross banks converge on the corridor to the north-west gap
Each bank runs from above the ditch of the
second rampart but stops, apparently
uncompleted, at the existing pathway towards the north western gap. Burrow
maintains that both have ditches ‘on the
N in the case of the S bank and on the S on the other’. (P222).
Interpretation is difficult and Haldane (1975,P29)
surmises that these possibly represented
‘an intention to make a new entrance
here.’
Equally, however, these cross
banks together with the third rampart seem more likely to represent ‘part of
the complex entrance arrangements.’ (Thackeray P2) They appear to offer the only
clearly definable or obvious public entrance to the camp as a whole, at a key
point in the camp and right under the main western walls. It may have served as
a gatehouse. This would operate as a control point to the crucial corridor
between the second ditch and third wall leading to the inner camp at the
north-western end. In time of emergency this would be sealed off. In short,
this complex feature would serve as the ‘de facto’ entrance to the whole fort.
(Figs 18, 19)
ENTRANCES TO
THE INNER CAMP
There has
been some serious debate about the all-important question of possible entrances
to the inner camp at Stokeleigh. There are currently gaps at each end of the
main rampart, at the south west and the
Manby (1802, P13) mentioned
only the latter. Haldane whose careful work makes him in almost all respects,
the most useful of our contributors, also accepts only a northern entrance. (1966, P34;
1975,P29). Even then he concludes his
review of this issue, ‘The position of
the entrance or entrances is not well defined and needs further clarification
by excavation.’ (1966,P38) Burrow, whilst
noting features of both gaps, can also maintain that ‘the position of the original
entrance(s) is unclear’. (1981,P221).
While the current path over the western walls
is likely to be more recent, the possibility of a path and entrance up the gully facing the
1.
The
South Western Gap
Haldane partially disqualifies the idea
of a main gate on the
Burrow nevertheless adds his weight. The gap
in the ‘SW’ corner ‘would appear to be
‘recent.., since the contours of the banks are still present beneath the
track..’ (1981,P22)
It may be
argued that such a passage could have been etched and.. hallowed by generations
of casual walkers through the camp. (Fig 20)
Fig 20:The South West Gap through the Main Rampart
Seyer however
had observed that close to this gap lay ‘the
foundations of a long narrow
building, or the like’.(1821,P65).
Lloyd Morgan responding to this, pointed out that, ‘These are not now definitely traceable. But near the path, just within
the Camp there are some stones, apparently in line, which, in the light of Seyer’s statement, may perhaps be regarded as
the last remnants of this ‘gatehouse’’. (1900, P21) Haldane
nevertheless discounts this as improbable and effectively with it the whole
idea of an entrance at this point at all.(1966,P35)
There appears
then to be an absence of fuller evidence to date of any serious defensive
indices attending the south west gap - such as a gatehouse, or an outwork as
the north western corner offers. At present the south western gap still appears
to be an unlikely Iron Age entrance into the camp.
2. The North Western Gap
The case for some kind of main entrance or
gateway near the northern end of the main ramparts adjoining the precipice
facing the
Fig 20
The Path leading over the preceding two Ramparts
and through the main North Western gap
in the inner Rampart.
Haldane (1966) is more critical. Such stones are no longer
visible. Also the height of the path through the gap stands about three feet above the general level of the inner
camp but lies only briefly below the
level of the main rampart at a gentle incline to it. It seems to provide no
clear break as would support a
substantial gate, (P34,35), unless
the level of the path had subsequently been raised. He nevertheless concedes that ‘this
may be due to partial obliteration of the ramparts in this area’(P34) , neither of which in their present condition appears as formidable as on the western
side. (Fig 20)
Where any such ‘obliteration’ of the immediate ramparts and associated
gatehouse/gateway was deliberate, then it would hardly represent a surprising
tactic on the part of the victors. It was certainly standard practice with the
Romans. Such a drastic demolition would constitute the normal means of
‘neutralising’ an enemy stronghold for the future. In this case it may have
signified the final riposte to Stokeleigh’s military prospects.
Fig 21 The Ramp leading up through the
North West Gap
to the Inner Camp from over the other
ramparts.
Subsequently (1975) Haldane, without indicating exactly where, broadly clarifies his own
conclusion, ‘The main entrance is
probably close to the northern cliffs where the middle and inner ditches were
never cut and there is a broad sloping ramp..’
(P29), (Figs 18
& 21)
Citadel,
Gatehouse or more recent ?
Haldane’s conclusion clearly includes but
preempts the remaining issue. That is whether the north-west gap at Stokeleigh
might nevertheless also have been reinforced by some defensive structure a
little inside the camp. This would otherwise support the case for a main
entrance or gateway here.
It is true that a small but almost circular cliff
spur projects eastward from just inside the camp at the north western
end of the first rampart (Fig 18) ‘overlooking
the road of entrance’, (Seyer, P65). The spur also hosts a pathway which descends sharply
to the
Fig 22
The remains of a later oblong building with the surrounds
of another, earlier but larger
construction to the rear of the spur.
This constitutes hollow, almost
rectangular, stone remains which extend 45 x 20ft. They may represent some minor redoubt or gatehouse as part of the
overall defence provision of the camp at a key point. This may have been
designed to buttress the north-west gap, thwart access into the camp from round
the edge of the inner wall on the north side, or indeed from below. However
Lloyd Morgan, Haldane and Burrow all consider this to derive from a more modern date
altogether and form no part of the original complex. Various interpretations
have been placed on it but inconclusively.
Today when the undergrowth is seasonally cut
back, another feature is also evident, either
immediately beside, or as part of, or below the one above. These are the
limited remains of earlier walling surrounds. These appear to belong to some
building of greater size altogether, stretching to the southern edge of the
spur, such as Barratt (P18) and Seyer (P65) refer to. They are partly visible at the top right
hand side of Fig 22 above. Both Barratt (P18)
and Manby ( P13) hold this to be a Roman
structure – a citadel or a Praetorium. However Haldane (1966, P36)
maintains that this building also is ‘certainly
not of the same date as the camp.’
The case for a north western
entrance or gateway whether at the gap
as most agree, or simply close to the
ramp as Haldane maintains, may therefore have to stand on its own merits
regardless of the ruins close by. The ongoing debate about the exact location
for the gate this still remains open.
3.
An
Entrance over the Western Walls ?
Two significant paths converge from outside
at the cross banks where a gatehouse may once have stood. Here another
lightly-etched footpath now passes directly to the right over the second and
first ramparts into the inner camp. (Figs
9, 18) It should be noted however that
none of the earlier sources refers to this, which suggests it to be a more
recent ‘tourist trail’. Nor do recent writers consider it worth mentioning. The
path itself is too slim for ‘traffic’, and however ‘convenient’ now would have
had to pass through two ditches originally ! Neither is the arrival of this at
the summit of the first rampart marked by any clear gap or attended by any
obvious descent into the camp. As an entrance to the camp, it does not appear
to offer a viable alternative to that of the NW.
4.
An
Entrance up the Gully ?
There is however also the possibility of another
entrance into the camp, perhaps even near
the north-western gap, which deserves consideration. This would appear at some
point on the ascent of a steep footpath up through the gully (Fig 18)
fronting the fort and facing the
In support of this, Haldane (1966,P34),
conjectures, ‘The weakest point on the
northern side is the wide gully which leads at a fairly steep gradient into the
main body of the camp behind all the defences. It is flanked by steep cliffs,
making it easily defensible, an excellent cross-fire being possible. Not far
from the foot of the defile, there is a fresh water spring. These factors
favour the existence of an entrance up this gully. Little defence would be
necessary at the sides, and a gate and a palisade would be sufficient at the
uphill end.’
It may be that Haldane is building on Lloyd
Morgan’s earlier suggestion, “To the
south of the spur is a depression running down to the
Indeed, Barrett had maintained but in general terms that ‘the old roads from the camps on Leigh-down
may be still traced through an orchard at the village of Leigh, and through
Leigh-wood down to the river Avon at Sea-mills’. (P20) It seems
reasonable then to suggest that one or more footpaths might indeed weave their way down the steep east-facing expanse
beneath Stokeleigh to the river immediately below where until recently a ford did exist. It lay across a rock
ledge in the river and was passable at low tide. If
present in pre-Roman times, it would certainly have served as a vital aspect
of communication, economic
relations and mutual defence in the association of Burwalls and Stokeleigh with
Clifton Camp on the other side. Equally
however, of ‘the earlier writers’
Lloyd Morgan refers to, neither Manby
nor Seyer in fact mentions his point at all; while Barrett earlier only
specifies, ‘A deep and hollow valley or
comb alone separated the two camps on the Leigh-side, and served as a passage down to the river, for each to get water for
their use, where was a vadum or communication over a shallow ford with their
companions at
Fig 23 NCC Panel, Leigh Woods; Courtesy of the
National Trust
Barrett is obviously referring to the
natural passage which begins at a short level distance from the western
defences of Stokeleigh. It runs down through
Again, it seems hardly necessary to observe
that the builders of the hillfort chose their site on grounds of its potential
invulnerability. They would hardly have completed almost three tiers of
earthworks in the front when the real source of danger lay with an open ‘back
door’. Indeed the serious erosion, so evident down the gully of today,
constituted an even steeper, more precipitate and defensible prospect at its
overhanging cliff edge two millennia ago when it was probably also palisaded.
By comparison, the prospect of a sharp upward path coupled to some entrance,
below or above, was clearly considered of altogether lesser military
significance by the Camp’s occupants. This may even have been on account of the
reasons Haldane suggests (P22) but perhaps not least because there was neither serious passage nor
entrance.
Economic criteria would also dictate the
nature and significance of any entrance to the Camp. At Stokeleigh, the main
entrance corridor appears to have stood on flat ground in front of the western
walls. Here traders and domestic animals from a whole network of local paths
would converge. This would also involve all those goods relayed across the Avon
and up a negotiable
In summary, both from a
military and an economic perspective, it would appear that any route or entrance up
the gully would be considered of minor significance at best. This suggestion
may be further precluded by the extensive erosion from overhanging cliffs which
we note today. This has effectively covered any traces of the existence of such a route. For the time
being, the discussion must be left to the realm of possibility only.
The case for a main entrance into Stokeleigh
inner camp therefore must rest at present with the inturned entrance in front
of the western walls leading to the north western passage through the ramparts.
REFERENCES
‘Ancient
W.Barrett ‘The History and
Antiquities of the City of
I.Burrow ‘Ancient Earthworks
and Camps of
I.Burrow ‘Hillfort Settlement
in
Julius Caesar ‘The Conquest of
James Dyer ‘Hillforts of
James Dyer ‘The Penguin Guide
to Prehistoric
‘
K.S.Gardner ‘The Wansdyke Diktat – a
Discussion Paper’ (Internet) 2008
*J.W.Haldane ‘Stokeleigh
Camp,
*J.W.Haldane ‘The Excavations at Stokeleigh Camp,
Proc. Univ. Bristol Spelaeol.
Soc. 1975,Vol 14(1),pp 29-63.
Leigh Woods Archaeological
Survey; Archaeological Record 2001 Feature; Stokeleigh Camp
S.J.Loxton , Surveyor, Map of
Stokeleigh 1916, Commissioned by Leigh Woods Management Committee. Courtesy of
the NT (
S.J.Loxton Map of Stokeleigh , 1916 Courtesy of the NT (
G.W.Manby ‘Fugitive Sketches
of the History and Natural Beauties of Clifton.Hotwells and Vicinity’ 1802; pp
12-15
C.Lloyd Morgan 1900 ‘
N.T. Report; Stokeleigh Camp,
Leigh Woods,
A.Payne ‘Hillfort Studies and
the
S.Seyer ‘Memoirs,Historical
and Topographical, of
‘Stokeleigh OS Map 2005 1:2500
Courtesy of the NT(
Tacitus ‘The Agricola and the
The OS ‘Map of Southern
Britain in the Iron Age’, 1967 repr., 1:625,000
‘The Cerne Giant and Dorset
Hill-Forts’, NT 2004
Nigel
B.Bain
Head of History (retired), The
If you wish to contact Nigel Bain, please send
an e-mail via the Webmaster (details on home page)