Three Forts on the Tay: Excavations at Moncreiffe, Moredun and Abernethy, Perth and Kinross 2014-17

Despite a resurgence in Scottish fort studies, few sites have been investigated, and fewer still at the scale reported in this volume. Over 2014-17, Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust, working with AOC Archaeology Group, excavated three hilltop forts on the Tay estuary to explore both their enclosing works and internal buildings, and uncovered an impressive assemblage of small finds. At Moredun fort on Moncreiffe Hill, a previously unknown monumental roundhouse, a rare La Tène bird-head brooch, and evidence of shale bangle industry were uncovered. At Castle Law, Abernethy, excavated in the 1890s and the type-site of Childe’s ‘Abernethy complex’, re-excavation prompted reassessment of the artefacts from original excavations to reveal new evidence of the deposition of artefacts and animal bones within its cistern. Excavation of the enclosing works of these sites, and Moncreiffe fort, suggest an evolution of fort defences from simple earth and stone ramparts to massive timber-laced walls – the murus Gallicus described by Caesar – reflecting high status sites with restricted access for a social elite. Hillforts of The Tay was part of the Tay Landscape Partnership Scheme, a community heritage initiative and the results of this citizen science project make a significant contribution to establishing Tayside as a well-studied area for the site type both within Scotland, and further afield. David Strachan has worked in curatorial field archaeology in Wales, England and Scotland for over 30 years, at both national and local level. As ‘county archaeologist’ with Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust over the last 20 of these, he has led several research projects, often delivered through community archaeology. They range from the recovery of the Late Bronze Age logboat from Carpow on the Tay estuary to the excavation of early medieval longhouses in the uplands of Glen Shee. Martin Cook is Head of Fieldwork at AOC Archaeology Group and has worked in commercial archaeology since 1999, having managed over 500 fieldwork projects, including over 35 excavations ranging from the prehistoric of Kilmartin Glen to modern industrial structures at the Commonwealth Games site, Glasgow. Martin has worked closely with Historic Environment Scotland on major infrastructure projects, and with the City of Edinburgh Council at the Tron Kirk and Cramond Roman Fort. Dawn McLaren is Associate Director of Post-Excavation and Head of Artefact Studies at AOC Archaeology Group and has published widely on prehistoric Scotland, with a particular focus on Bronze Age and Iron Age material culture. Her specialisms include the analysis of coarse stone tools, rotary querns, and early ironworking across Britain, and her recent work includes analysis of artefacts from Clachtoll broch, Assynt, and the important assemblage of Neolithic Grooved Ware pottery from Newmills, Perth and Kinross. Archaeology,Scotland,Fort,Hillfort,Iron Age,Estuary,Rivers,Roundhouse,Timber-laced,Wall,Rampart Cover Title Page Copyright page Contents Page List of Figures 1. Introduction Figure 1.1: The central east coast of Scotland showing Moncreiffe Hill, Abernethy, sites from the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland (Lock and Ralston 2017) and the extent of Figure 1.6 in white. Figure 1.2: Some of the 338 project volunteers with staff from Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust and AOC Archaeology Group in 2017 (George Logan/PKHT). Figure 1.3: Moncreiffe Hill dominating head of the Tay estuary: a late 19th-century view from Newburgh (Culture Perth and Kinross Local and Family History). Figure 1.4: The solid geology of the area showing all three sites occurring on outcrops of the Ochil Volcanic Formation above Old Red Sandstone deposits of the Glenvale Formation (Contains British Geological Survey materials © UKRI 2023). Figure 1.5: Complex drift geology with mainly glacifluvial sand and gravel overlain by late glacial estuarine deposits at more than one height level, fronted on the lower ground by latest Devensian pink silts and sands. These are partially buried by the H Figure 1.6: Sites from the Atlas of Hillforts (Lock and Ralston 2017) showing excavated examples in chronological order: Hurly Hawkin (1); Dunsinane Hill (2); Castle Law, Forgandenny (3); Castle Law, Abernethy (4); Drumharvie (5); Clatchard Craig (6); Cas Figure 1.7: ‘MacBeth’s Castle’ on Dunsinane Hill at 310 m OD. Scarred by early excavations, it remains undated, but has been re-excavated in 2022 (photo: D. Strachan 2001 © PKHT). Figure 1.8: The complex series of forts on Castle Law, Forgandenny, at 275 m OD, range in size from 0.12 ha to 0.93 ha (photo: D. Strachan 2001 © PKHT). Figure 1.10: SERF excavations of the oval, uni-vallate hilltop contour fort of Rossie Law c. 2.3 ha at 324 m OD produced Late Bronze Age and Iron Age dates (photo: D. Strachan 2001 © PKHT). Figure 1.9: The hilltop inland promontory fort on Ben Effrey, at 360 m OD, has three lines of ramparts enclosing 0.21 ha and has produced Early Iron Age dates (photo: D. Strachan 2001 © PKHT). Figure 1.11: The internal area of forts shown in Figure 1.6 based on Lock and Ralston (2017). Note the area of sites discussed in this volume have been refined in GIS: Castle Law, Abernethy (0.06 ha); Moredun 1 (0.15 ha); Moncreiffe Hill (0.2 ha); Moredun Figure 1.12: Comparative plans of selected forts within 10 km of Moredun fort (including Castle Law, Abernethy, Moncreiffe and Moredun). Figure 1.13: Comparative plans of selected forts shown in Figure 1.6 beyond 10 km of Moredun fort. Figure 1.14: Topographic position of the forts shown in Figure 1.6. Figure 1.15: The relative heights above sea-level (OD) of the forts in Figure 1.6 with Moncreiffe (36) and Moredun (44) in black and Castle Law, Abernethy (45) in red. 2. Moncreiffe fort Figure 2.1: The location of the Moncreiffe (1) and Moredun (2) forts on Moncreiffe Hill, with possible Iron Age sites in the immediate area (Appendix A), including the forts The Roundel (3) and Dow Hill (4). Figure 2.2: Aerial view of Moncreiffe fort, bottom right, and Moredun fort, top left (© Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 2.3: The OS 1st Edition 25-inch map of 1863 (Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland). Figure 2.4: The OS 1:2,500 revision of 1966 first recognised the west entrance and suggested the east entrance to the north of the path (Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland). Figure 2.5: The Oxford North Archaeology survey from 2012. Figure 2.6: The 2014 laser-scan topographic survey indicating the lines of possible entrances identified. Figure 2.7: View of the south-east of the fort, taken from the east, showing the modern path cut into the profile on the left and the proposed original entrance in the centre-left of the frame. Figure 2.8: Geophysical survey results: magnetic (above), and resistivity (below). Figure 2.9: The topographic survey showing the trench layout and the lines of Ramparts A–D. Figure 2.10: Rampart A [119] outer face [104] in Trench 1. Figure 2.11: Platform [110] and slot [112] to the right and collapse [102] and Rampart A in the centre, looking north-east across Trench 1. Figure 2.12: Working shot of Rampart A [210] showing the inner stone facing [209] in the foreground with the outer stone facing [203] beyond. Figure 2.13: The outer stone face [203] of Rampart A [210] in Trench 2. Figure 2.14: The inner stone face [209] of Rampart A [210] in Trench 2. Figure 2.15: Rampart B [1014] in Trench 1a looking to the south-east. Figure 2.16: Rampart B [2004], Rampart C [2005] and Rampart D [2006] with terraced foundations of bedrock [2003] in Trench 2, looking west. Figure 2.17: Plans of Trench 1a showing Ramparts B, C and D. Figure 2.18: Plans of Trench 2a showing Ramparts B, C and D. Figure 2.19: Sections through Trenches 1 and 2 detailing Ramparts A, B, C and D. Figure 2.20: Trench 4 plans and section showing details of the manipulated bedrock entrance [412] with Ramparts A and B to the north. Figure 2.21: The western entrance [412] showing cut bedrock [433]. Figure 2.22: Trench 3 showing the overburden [303] overlying a bedrock cut channel [306]. Figure 2.23: The area of possible paving [307 and 309] in Trench 3. Figure 2.24: Trench 5 plan and section showing bedrock [502], glacial till [504], colluvial hill wash deposit [503] and turf/topsoil [501]. Figure 2.25: Chronological model for the radiocarbon dates from Moncreiffe. Each distribution represents the relative probability that an event occurred at some particular time. For each of the radiocarbon measurements two distributions have been plotted, Figure 2.26: Span of the Iron Age activity at Moncreiffe. The probability distribution is derived from the chronological model shown in Figure 2.25. Figure 2.27: Sample of sherds representing Vessel 2 from [1005]: a) body sherd (SF1026), b) body sherd (SF1030), c) basal angle sherd (SF1030). Figure 2.28: The fragmentary and heat-affected saddle quern (SF221). Figure 2.29: A selection of coarse stone, shale and struck lithics: a) stone lamp (SF412), b) grinder (SF220), c) spindle whorl (SF2001), d) shale bangle fragment (SF302), e) jet bead fragment (SF01), f) flint arrowhead (SF1017), g) core-rejuvenation flak Figure 2.30: Heavy-duty stone maul (SF409). Note pecked notches for hafting on opposing long edges. Figure 2.31: A suggested reconstruction of the sequence of ramparts A–D based on Trench 1. Figure 2.32: A reconstruction of the fort: multi-vallate with two entrances and in a dramatic location overlooking lower Strathearn (artist Chris Mitchell). 3. Moredun fort: survey and excavation results Figure 3.1: The location of Moncreiffe and Moredun forts on Moncreiffe Hill, and possible Iron Age sites in the immediate area (Appendix A). Figure 3.2: Aerial view of Moredun showing successive circuits of fortification (© Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 3.3: The OS 1st edition map of 1863 showing only the inner enclosure and with a path leading to the ‘Strange Little Mound’ recorded in the Name Book entry (Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland). Figure 3.4: The site as mapped by Christison (1900b: 81, fig. 37; Reproduced by kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland). Figure 3.5: The RCAHMS survey of 1953. Note direction of north in the top left corner (© Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 3.6: The 2012 survey by Oxford North Archaeology showing the scheduled area. Figure 3.7: The 2014 RCAHMS survey annotating archaeological features as used in the text (© Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 3.8: The magnetic survey of 2013–14 highlighting key anomalies discussed in the text (background image © Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 3.9: The resistivity survey from 2013-15 highlighting key anomalies discussed in the text (background image © Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 3.10: The trench plan 2015–17 (background image © Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 3.11: Plan of the monumental roundhouse in Trench 1 and Trench C. Figure 3.12: Elevations of the surviving walls of the monumental roundhouse in Trench C. Figure 3.13: Trench 1 in 2015 showing wall [124] with external terraced bedrock to the left. Figure 3.14: Trench C in 2016 showing the outline of the outer face of the wall [C003/2016 and C010/2016] and the entrance containing an area of burning [C018/2016] identified by the geophysics (photo: Ken Ward). Figure 3.15: Terraced bedrock in Trench 1 (2015) with lower courses of surviving wall [124] at the top. Figure 3.16: Detail of pecked bedrock in Trench 1. Figure 3.17: Detail of pecked bedrock in Trench 1. Figure 3.18: The deposit fine quarry rubble [114] at the base of the terraced bedrock [108] in Trench 1 (2015). Figure 3.19: The external façade of the monumental roundhouse wall [C010/2016], constructed onto bedrock [C011/2016] above a cut step, in Trench C. Figure 3.20: Detail of the surviving outer wall-face [103] on the left and core material [116] in Trench 1. Figure 3.21: Detail of the surviving outer wall-face [103] in Trench 1. Figure 3.22: Wall tumble [C006/2016] above the bedrock in the east section of Trench C in 2016 showing manipulation of the bedrock [C011/2016] into a stepped form. Figure 3.23: External face of the monumental roundhouse wall [C010/2016] showing incorporation of cup-marked stones [C014 and C015/2016] with other possible rock art. Figure 3.24: Detail of entrance [C008/2016] of the monumental roundhouse during excavation. Figure 3.25: Entrance [C008/2016] showing the north-facing entrance passage [C008/2016] with possible vertical timber slot at the corner with the building’s external façade [C010/2016] to the right, and wall core [C007/2016] above. Figure 3.26: The north-facing façade of the entrance passage [C008/2016] detailing the use of both Old Red Sandstone and local stone built, with the wall constructed directly onto the bedrock. Figure 3.27: The south-facing entrance passage façade [C008/2016] during excavation, detailing use of Old Red Sandstone and the possible vertical timber slot towards the external face of the building [C003/2016] on the left-hand side. Figure 3.28: The interior corner of the north-facing entrance passage [C006/2017] and internal face of the roundhouse wall [C005/2017]. Figure 3.29: Detail of the possible vertical timber slot at the southern outer corner of the exterior of the entrance [C008/2016] with heat-affected stone in the entrance passage. Figure 3.30: Detail of the possible vertical timber slot at the north entrance corner [C003/2016]. Figure 3.31: Charcoal deposit [C015/2017] to the west of entrance [C008/2017]. Figure 3.32: Area of burning and heat-affected soils and stone [C018/2016] at the interior of the entrance passage in 2016. Figure 3.33: Tumble across the interior of the monumental roundhouse, abutting the internal face [C005/2017] of the wall [C001/2017] visible in the top right. Figure 3.34: Mid-excavation of the internal face [C005/2017] of the wall [C001/2017] in background, showing the hearth [C020/2017] to the right of the section line, and material underlying the hearth [C024/2017] to the left. Figure 3.35: Post-excavation showing the internal wall face [C005/2017] and the hearth [C020/2017] overlying burnt in situ floor deposits [C019/2017] and levelling deposit [C027/2017] overlying the bedrock. Figure 3.36: Post-excavation showing the internal wall face [C005/2017]; hearth [C020/2017]; floor deposits [C019/2017]; levelling deposit [C027/2017] and flat stones [C028/2017] overlying the bedrock. Figure 3.37: In situ burnt bone points (SFC012) below the possible destruction layer [C013/2017]. Figure 3.38: Detail of charred timbers [C016B/2017] from beside the hearth, possibly the remains of a timber roof. Figure 3.39: The plan of Trench 2 showing Ramparts B and C. Figure 3.40: Section through Trench 2 showing Ramparts B and C. Figure 3.41: The inner face [209] of Rampart C [203], overlying the old ground surface [202] and bedrock. Figure 3.42: The outer face [206] of Rampart C [203] constructed directly onto the bedrock. Figure 3.43: Collapse [206] of Rampart C [203] located on a tumbled stone deposit [214]. Figure 3.44: A charcoal-rich occupation deposit [229] directly underlying deposit [225], which was apparently cut away for the construction of Rampart C. Figure 3.45: Section through Trench E detailing Rampart C, with upper deposit [001] and lower deposit [010]. Figure 3.46: Internal face [E005] of Rampart B [E011] showing crushed stone [E016] and base of the stone facing. Figure 3.47: Rampart B [204], showing the inner facing [227] and stone core [226]. Figure 3.48: Plan and sections of the rampart of Annexe D in Trench 3. Figure 3.49: Aerial of the rampart of Annexe D in Trench 3 showing the inner, median and outer faces from left to right (photo: Ken Ward). Figure 3.50: The internal face [313] of the rampart of Annexe D [325] in Trench 3, from the east. Figure 3.51: The external face [305] of the rampart of Annexe D [325] in Trench 3, from the west. Figure 3.52: The internal face [313] of the rampart of Annexe D on the left, with the median and outer faces in the centre and right respectively. Trench 3 from the north-east. Figure 3.53: The truncated remnants of the Annexe D rampart in Trench E. Figure 3.54: Post-excavation plan and sections of Wall E in Trench 4. Figure 3.55: Plan of the surviving Wall E in Trench A showing the internal and external faces, the area of paving, and sondages excavated. Figure 3.56: Plan of Trench A pre-excavation, detailing possible hut-circle features identified in survey. Figure 3.57: A vertical aerial view of the innermost oval fort E with Trench A over Wall E open in 2017. The external (north-facing) façade is to the top with the inner face below. The earthworks of unrecorded wall-chasing are visible to the exterior of t Figure 3.58: Area of paving [A123] and linear cut [A127] exposed abutting the inner face of Wall E in Trench A [A111]. Figure 3.59: Mid-excavation view of Trench 4 showing the Wall E [406] at the top of the frame, with upcast material [405] from the earlier, unrecorded excavation. Figure 3.60: Section through the upcast material [A106] from the earlier excavation in Trench 4. Figure 3.61: Detail of the external face [402 and 419] of Wall E [401] in Trench 4. Figure 3.62: The external face [402 and 419] of Wall E [401] with bedrock foundation. Figure 3.63: The external facing [402 and 419] of Wall E [401] with collapsed core material [403] to the exterior (left). Figure 3.64: The internal face of Wall E with the core material (central) and outer face (left) in Trench A. Figure 3.65: Elevations of the external (above) and internal (below) faces of Wall E in Trench A, detailing the use of Old Red Sandstone, the timber sockets and the bedrock foundation. Figure 3.66: The external face of the wall of Wall E in Trench A showing the use of Old Red Sandstone and the horizontal slot indicated by the supporting timber pegs. Figure 3.67: Detail of the external face of Wall E in Trench A illustrating the use of Old Red Sandstone, the sockets of transverse timbers and the possible horizontal slot, and the sondage to identify the foot of the wall. Figure 3.68: The notable batter on the external face of the Wall E in Trench A. Figure 3.69: Detail of the internal face of Wall E in Trench A, showing bedrock at the base, and sockets for transversal timbers. Figure 3.70: A vertical aerial view of Wall E in Trench A in 2017, showing the internal and external wall faces (below and above respectively) and the area of paving [A120] on top of the surviving wall (photo: Ken Ward). Figure 3.71: Stone setting of paving [A120] on top of Wall E [A 111] in Trench A. Figure 3.72: Mid-excavation view of the northern possible roundhouse [A003] and [A006]. Figure 3.73: Mid-excavation view of the possible southern roundhouse [A004] and its interior. Figure 3.74: Plan of the stone-walled roundhouse in Trench B. Figure 3.75: Sections through the roundhouse in Trench B. Figure 3.76: The arc of the roundhouse bank in Trench B [B003] with the soil deposit [B006] within the interior (left) and collapsed tumble [B005] to the exterior (right) as detailed on Figure 3.74. Figure 3.77: The exposed external face of the roundhouse wall [B005] showing slippage at north end (left). Figure 3.78: The inner wall face of the roundhouse wall [B010] revealed in the east side of Slot B1. Figure 3.79: Plan of Trench D, including a rock-cut cistern [D109/D111]; an enclosing wall or bank [D107/D004], and a palisaded enclosure [D105] and [D008]. Figure 3.80: Sections of Trench D detailing including a rock-cut cistern [D109/D111], an enclosing wall or bank [D107/D004], and a palisaded enclosure [D105] and [D008]. Figure 3.81: Detail view of rock-cut cistern [D109]. Figure 3.82: Rock-cut face of the cistern [D109] in Trench D. Figure 3.83: Pre-excavation spread of tumbled stone [005] at the west end of Trench D. Figure 3.84: The possible enclosure wall [D107] around the rock-cut cistern [D109] excavated. Figure 3.85: Spread of tumbled stone [D005] and palisade slot [D008] in Trench D. Figure 3.86: Detail of the collapsed wall [D004] and possible stone platform [D108] at the east of Trench D. Figure 3.87: Chronological model for the radiocarbon dates from Moredun. The model is as described in Figure 2.25. Figure 3.88: Span of the Iron Age activity at Moredun. The probability distribution is derived from the chronological model shown in Figure 3.87. Figure 3.89: The relative altitude (m above OD) of sites in the environs of Moncreiffe Hill. The Roundel (57 m); Dow Hill (60 m); Law of Dumbuils (105 m); Moncreiffe Hill (180 m); Moredun (223 m); Castle Law, Abernethy (230 m); Castle Law, Forgandenny (27 Figure 3.90: A suggested reconstruction of Ramparts C and B based on Trench 2. Figure 3.91: A suggested reconstruction of rampart D based on Trench 3. Figure 3.92: An isometric reconstruction of the external face of Wall E showing the excavated façade in Trench A (dark grey) and suggested structural timbers (brown). Figure 3.93: The probable original entrance through Rampart C on the south-east of the fort revealed during tree clearance by the project in 2015. Figure 3.94: Possible phasing of Moredun. However it is equally possible that the initial phase saw the monumental roundhouse enclosed within Rampart B. Figure 3.95: Photo montage of the external face of Wall E. Figure 3.96: Photo montage of the internal face of Wall E. 4. Moredun fort: the small finds Figure 4.1: Selection of ceramic sherds. None were found to rejoin. a) body sherd V5, b) body sherd V7, c) body sherd V8, d) body sherds from V9, e) body sherd from large vessel with horizontal linear impressions V12, f) body sherd and basal angle sherd f Figure 4.2: Spherical clay gaming pieces, a) SFC005, b) SFC007. Figure 4.3: The glass bead (SFB019) from the roundhouse (Trench B). Figure 4.4: A selection of the iron objects a) fine chisel tip (SFA113a), b) twisted and perforated iron strip fragments (SFA113b and SFA118), c) a small iron nail or tack (SFA126), d) a folded iron strip fragment (SFA132), e) a ring fragment (SFC111) and Figure 4.5: The twisted and perforated iron strip fragments (SFA113b and SFA114) after conservation. Figure 4.6: Copper alloy repair patch for the rim of wooden vessel (SFC060). Figure 4.7: The zoomorphic ring-headed pin (Copyright NMS). Figure 4.8: The zoomorphic ring-headed pin. Figure 4.10: The Torrs pony cap (© National Museums Scotland). Figure 4.11: Detail of repoussé bird-based design on the cap of the Torrs pony cap (© National Museums Scotland). Figure 4.9: Photogrammetry render of zoomorphic ring-headed pin. Figure 4.12: Detail of the bird head terminal of one of the horns of the Torrs pony cap (© National Museums Scotland). Figure 4.13: Shale working debris. Gathered materials and blanks: a) SFA073 and b) SFC057. Figure 4.14: Shale working debris. Perforated roughouts: a) SFA116, b) early stage roughout SFA169, c) three joining fragments of knife-cut roughout SFA010, d) roughout with sub-rectangular section SFA020, e) outer edge fragment from gouged roughout SFA02 Figure 4.15: Shale working debris. Final finishing and bracelets: a) spall from near complete bangle (SF206), b) bangle broken in final stages of polishing (SFC044), c) two joining fragments of D-sectioned bangle fragment (SFA096/A112), d) repaired bangle Figure 4.16: Main stages of shale working chaîne opératoire: a) gathered and shaped block of shale (SFA073), b) early stage perforated roughout (SFA169), c) late stage roughout fragment (SFA020), d) bangle fragment (SFC004). Figure 4.17: Details of repairs observed on shale bangles: a) fragment showing perforation to take a bracket (SFC030), b) iron mount in situ on SFC003, c) re-shaped squared end of fragment SFA120, d) re-shaped with bevelled edges to make the bangle easier Figure 4.18: Selection of chipped stone objects displaying secondary retouch: a) SFA114, b) SFA007, c) SFB015. Figure 4.19: Food processing tools: a) saddle quern SFC005, b) rubbing stone SFC049. Figure 4.20: Corner fragment from a sandstone saddle quern (SFC053). Figure 4.21: Food processing tools: rotary quern fragment SFA018. Figure 4.22: Cobble tools, grinders: a) SF101, b) SFA127, c) SFA086. Figure 4.23: Cobble tools, pounders and hammerstones: a) pounder SFA014, b) pounder SFA021, c) hammerstone SFA141. Figure 4.24: Strike-a-light (SFB007). Figure 4.25: Sharpening stones a) SF605 and b) SFC015. Figure 4.26: Grinding stones a) SFA103 and b) SFB008. Figure 4.27: Spindle whorls and beads: a) spindle whorl SFB013, b) possible whorl roughout SFB011, c) stone bead SF120. Figure 4.28: Stone lamps: a) SFA032, b) SFA039, c) SFB014, d) SFC020. Figure 4.29: Pivot stone SFC014. Figure 4.30: Cup-marked slab (SFC019). Figure 4.31: Cup-marked slab SFC019. Figure 4.32: Cup-marked slab (SFE016). Figure 4.33: Cup-marked slabs in situ (Trench C). Figure 4.34: Stone discs: a) small stone counter (SF600), b) possible weight roughout (GF 100), c) small sandstone disc (SF301), d) edge fragment from small sandstone disc (SF305). Figure 4.35: Diagram showing the percentage of the stone assemblage by area of excavation. Figure 4.36: Objects of worked bone: a) perforated bone roundel (SF132), b) set of bone points (SFC012). Figure 4.37: The worked bone roundel post-conservation (SF132). Figure 4.38: Detail of the wear observed on the tip of the bone points. 5. Moredun: environmental evidence Figure 5.1: Photomicrographs in Plane Polarised Light (PPL): (A) Fe/mn pedofeatures and clay infilling to void; (B) Crescentic Clay infillings; (C) Boundary between underlying natural (A135) and buried soil (A125); (D) Charcoal layer within C029; (E) Mix Figure 5.2: View of the pond looking north to the ridge of Grange Hill in May 2018. The pond is in the centre marked by a complete cover of Potamogeton, within grassland and surrounded by partly over-hanging non-native trees. Figure 5.3: Age-depth model for the sediments at Grange Hill generated by BACON, showing (a) the positions of the calibrated 14C assays, the 95% probability date range constrained within black dotted lines, all probable age-depth models in grey, darker ar Figure 5.4: Carbon contents and particle size data, the latter plotted in relation to 1.0 standard deviation around the overall mean to define significant changes: note changes in horizontal scales. Figure 5.5: The complete percentage-based pollen record with four local pollen assemblage (lpa) zones. Figure 5.6: Pollen influx values (grains/yr) of selected taxa. 6. Castle Law, Abernethy Figure 6.1: The location of the fort (1) with known and possible Iron Age sites mentioned in text (Appendix A). Figure 6.2: The plan of the site, and the lochan to the west, as presented by Christison and Anderson (1899: 16, fig. 2. Reproduced by kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland). Figure 6.3: Detail of structures uncovered during the 1890s excavation (Christison and Anderson 1899: fig 3, Reproduced by Kind Permission of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland). Figure 6.4: The south-west section of the outer face of the main enclosure or ‘inner wall’ uncovered over 1895–7 as shown in Figure 6.3 (Christison and Anderson 1899: plate I. Reproduced by kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland). Figure 6.5: Christison’s section through the ‘inner wall’ (Christison and Anderson 1899: fig 6. Reproduced by kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland). Figure 6.6: The second photograph of the 1890s excavations, taken from the south. The inner face of the outer wall appears on the left with the inner wall on the right (Christison and Anderson 1899: plate II. Reproduced by Kind Permission of the Society o Figure 6.7: The 2012 survey by Oxford Archaeology North showing the extent of the scheduled area. Figure 6.8: The 2013 RCAHMS survey showing the fort and the 1890s excavation trenches and their spoil (Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 6.9: The location of the 2017 excavation trenches (background image Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 6.10: The plan of Trenches 1 and 2 (above) and the section through the interior of the fort in Trench 1 (below). Figure 6.11: The external façade of the inner wall in 2017, constructed onto the bedrock. The extent of erosion is clear through comparison with Figure 6.4. Figure 6.12: The internal face of the inner wall detailing with probable timber sockets. Figure 6.13: Elevations of external (above) and internal (below) façades of the inner wall showing the use of Old Red Sandstone and probable/possible timber voids. Figure 6.14: The inner face of inner wall in Area A, showing the possible repair in the façade. Figure 6.15: The curvilinear setting of flat stones [122] amongst dark in situ internal deposit [123], taken from the east. Figure 6.16: The fully exposed setting of flat stones [122] below the rubble collapse [106]. Figure 6.17: The oak timber [132] at the base of the internal face of the inner wall [116]. Figure 6.18: Elevations of the external (above) and internal (below) façades of the outer wall, indicating the use of Old Red Sandstone and the survival of timber beam holes. Figure 6.19: The external face [112] of the outer wall [111]. Figure 6.20: The batter on the outer face of the outer wall. Figure 6.21: The inner face of outer wall [111] surviving in situ between the ranging poles, with large, tumbled blocks in front. Figure 6.22: The inner face [114] of outer wall [111] with bedrock exposed beneath. Detail of the surviving façade as excavated is shown in Figure 6.18. Figure 6.23: The section through the outer wall [111] showing the linear arrangement of flat stones [129] that may cover a transverse timber channel within the wall core [113]. Figure 6.24: Looking north in Trench 2 along the transverse wall [137] showing it to abut the external façade of the inner wall [119]. Figure 6.25: Detail of the join of the transverse and inner walls shown in Figure 6.24. Figure 6.26: Trench 2 view to the south showing the transverse wall [137] (foreground left) apparently abutting the inner face [135] of outer wall [111]. Figure 6.27: Detail of the intersection between the transverse wall (left) and inner face of the outer wall (right) shown in Figure 6.26. Figure 6.28: Calibrated radiocarbon results. Figure 6.29: Saddle quern fragment (SF001) from the 2017 excavations. Figure 6.30: Pounder (SF002) from the 2017 excavations. Figure 6.31: Spall from a ceramic crucible (SF024) from the 2017 excavations. Figure 6.32: The crate of animal bone from the 1890s excavation held by the National Museums of Scotland (photo: Trevor Cowie). Figure 6.33: Detail of the animal bone wrapped in newspaper from July 1939, suggesting repackaging for protection in advance of WW2 (photo: Trevor Cowie). Figure 6.34: The excavation and view to the north-east, including the estuarine terraces at Abernethy village, the confluence of the Rivers Tay and Earn at the head of the estuary, and the Carse of Gowrie beyond (photo: Ken Ward). Figure 6.35: The view south-south-west from Abernethy round tower showing Abernethy Hill (left); the Glen (middle); and Castle Law (right), illustrating how the flat-topped fort at the left of Castle Law is overlooked from the main body of the hill to the Figure 6.36: A less familiar view of the fort from the south-east showing how the fort, above the quarry to the right of the ridge, is far more vulnerable on its south and west side. Figure 6.37: A schematic isometric reconstruction of the outer (left) and inner (right) timber-laced walls, showing excavated façades (dark grey) and possible structural timberwork in brown. Figure 6.38: A reconstruction proposing an entrance through the inner wall at high level, accessed by an intra-mural timber structure, and one large internal building at the east end (artist: Chris Mitchell). 7: Discussion and conclusions Figure 7.1: A selection of oblong and oval forts, based on Feachem (1966: fig. 5) with the addition of the fort enclosed by Wall E fort at Moredun. Figure 7.2: Relative areas of Castle Law, Abernethy (0.06 ha); and Moredun E (0.15 ha); Moncreiffe (0.2 ha); Moredun Annexe D (0.68 ha); Moredun C (1.2 ha); and Moredun B (1.8 ha). Figure 7.3: Plans showing the morphology, vallation and relative size of the forts. Figure 7.4: Deuchny Wood fort in 2015 following tree clearance (Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 7.5: Deuchny Wood fort: a candidate for the oblong series? Figure 7.6: Tree removal carried out through the project, improving the ‘readability’ of the fort, views across the landscape from it, and visibility of the previously hidden southern entrance (Crown Copyright: HES). Figure 7.7: On site interpretation at Moncreiffe fort, accessed by the Woodland Trust Scotland path network. List of Tables 1. Introduction Table 1.1: Locational and administrative details of the sites. 2. Moncreiffe fort Table 2.1: Radiocarbon dates recovered. Despite a resurgence in Scottish fort studies, few sites have been investigated, and fewer still at the scale reported in this volume. Over 2014-17, Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust, working with AOC Archaeology Group, excavated three hilltop forts on the Tay estuary to explore both their enclosing works and internal buildings, and uncovered an impressive assemblage of small finds. At Moredun fort on Moncreiffe Hill, a previously unknown monumental roundhouse, a rare La Tene bird-head brooch, and evidence of shale bangle industry were uncovered. At Castle Law, Abernethy, excavated in the 1890s and the type-site of Childe's 'Abernethy complex', re-excavation prompted reassessment of the artefacts from original excavations to reveal new evidence of the deposition of artefacts and animal bones within its cistern. Excavation of the enclosing works of these sites, and Moncreiffe fort, suggest an evolution of fort defences from simple earth and stone ramparts to massive timber-laced walls - the murus Gallicus described by Caesar - reflecting high status sites with restricted access for a social elite. Hillforts of The Tay was part of the Tay Landscape Partnership Scheme, a community heritage initiative and the results of this citizen science project make a significant contribution to establishing Tayside as a well-studied area for the site type both within Scotland, and further afield.