Lodge Hill Fort
Interim 
          Report
      Excavation of Lodge Wood Camp
      Summer 2000
      by Ray Howell and Josh Pollard, SCARAB, University of Wales Newport
CAERLEON, 
          Lodge Wood Camp, (ST 323 914)
        
          Lodge Wood Camp is an imposing hillfort situated on the 
            north-west edge of present day Caerleon, overlooking the 
            mouth of the Usk valley and parts of the Severn estuary.  
          The monument comprises a triple-banked enclosure with out-works 
          on the south, west and north, enclosing an area of c. 2.2ha.  
          A small oval enclosure (100 x 50m across) lies within the 
          western third of the interior.  Several phases of construction 
            may be represented by the earthworks (Whittle 1992, 45).  
          Despite its size, and location adjacent to the Roman legionary 
          fortress at Caerleon, until this year the monument had not 
          been subject to archaeological investigation.
                      
          An opportunity to examine the site was provided by the generous 
offer of a grant from the Charles Williams Trust (a Caerleon-based 
educational charity).  Scheduled Monument Consent was 
            obtained, and work was undertaken by a team from the University 
            of Wales College, Newport during June and early July 2000.  
          The principal aims of the excavation were to establish the 
          date and sequence of rampart construction, the character 
          of activity within the interior (e.g. evidence of occupation, 
          craft activity, etc), and whether evidence existed for pre- 
          and post-hillfort activity (Neolithic, Bronze Age, Roman 
          and/or post-Roman).
                      
          Following limited geophysical survey within the interior, 
          three areas were selected for excavation: an area of 106m2 within the western part of the interior of the hillfort 
            close to the southern rampart (Trench 1); a trench (2) through 
            the first sequence of bank and ditch adjacent to Trench 
            1; and a third trench sited over the innermost section of 
            the western entrance (Trench 3).  Additional small-scale 
            interventions were made in and around areas of mountain 
            bike damage within the western entrance.  The results 
            are summarized according to trench:
                      
      Trench 1: the hillfort interior
 Intensive biological activity, in particular through 
            tree and scrub root action, had resulted in severe reworking 
            of the soil matrices, effectively removing obvious boundaries 
            between originally discrete layers and deposits.  Consequently, 
            it was often impossible to determine context changes on 
            the basis of variations in soil structure, colour and composition, 
            and stratigraphic boundaries were generally identified by 
            changes in stone density.  The acidic nature of the 
            soils had also led to the destruction of unburnt bone and 
        
                      
          The sequence begins with the cutting of a substantial quarry 
hollow, running the whole length of the southern side of 
the trench, and two irregular hollows up-slope from this.  
          Over 4.2m wide and up to 1.0m deep, the cut of the quarry 
          hollow followed natural bedding planes within the rock, 
          the inner side varying from vertical to shallow and the 
          base being stepped in profile.  Lying within the lee 
            of the rampart, the feature was almost certainly dug to 
            provide material for bank construction.
                      
          The quarry hollow was subsequently filled in a seemingly 
deliberate act with deposits of soil and stone in order 
to provide a level surface.  Cut into this surface 
            in the south-western part of the trench were a number of 
            post-holes, one group of seven (F.14, 34-39) describing 
            a small sub-rectangular building c.3x2m (Fig. 1).  
          The interior of the structure was marked by a spread of 
          irregular stone paving.  This was bounded on its northern 
            side by two phases of shallow ditch or gully (F.3/20), running 
            down-slope from the north-west corner of the trench and 
            terminating adjacent to the structure and a zone of cobbling.  
          The second phase ditch F.3 had been deliberately backfilled 
          with a deposit of stone rubble, and contained a La Tène 
            1 iron brooch and sherds of middle Iron Age pottery.
                      
          To the east, a low earth and stone bank ran on from the 
ditches after a gap of c.0.8m, both elements apparently 
forming an insubstantial enclosure of unknown extent within 
the interior of the hillfort.  The 'entrance' gap was 
            marked by a single large post-hole.  The rock-cut scoops 
            were contained within this, and provided platforms upon 
            which a series of timber structures had been constructed.  
          Situated against the edge of excavation, and marked by stone-packed 
          post-holes, it was not possible to determine the precise 
          extent, layout or function of these buildings.  Quantities 
            of metalworking slag and furnace base were, however, recovered 
            from these areas in association with middle Iron Age ceramics.
                      
          At a later date, a series of narrow terraces were created 
across the east half of the area, taking advantage of the 
already stepped profile created by the slope of the ground 
and the infilling of the quarry hollow.  Cut into these, 
            from a level that produced a small amount of late Roman 
            pottery, were a number of small post-holes.  Both pottery 
            and post-holes may relate to a limited phase of re-occupation 
            of the hillfort.
                      
                      Trench 2: the bank and ditch
 A 2m wide cutting was taken through the inner bank 
            and ditch.  The ditch was fully excavated, but time 
            constraints resulted in only partial excavation of the bank 
            deposits.  V-profiled, 5.7m wide and 2.2m deep, the 
            ditch is of a single phase.  Making use of geological 
            boundaries, it was cut into rock of the north side and a 
            stiff red clay on the south.  The basal fills of the 
            ditch comprised clay marl.  Sealing this was a massive 
            (0.5m thick) collapse deposit of stone rubble from the rampart, 
            perhaps representing a deliberate slighting of the defences.  
          This in turn was followed by further deposits of clay loam 
          and rubble.  Sherds of middle Iron Age pottery came 
            from the primary fill and fragments of Roman tile and pottery 
        
                      
          The bank was only excavated to its full depth on the northern 
side of the cutting.  At least 8m wide and over 1.2m 
            high, it is made up of a series of complex deposits of soil 
            and rubble.  A minimum of two phases are represented; 
            the first a stone-revetted timber-laced rampart, and the 
            second a timber revetted stone bank.  The latter only 
            survived as a thin rubble spread overlying a soil that had 
            formed subsequent to the collapse of the primary rampart.  
          This episode of re-modelling is most likely of latest Iron 
          Age, late Roman or even post-Roman date.
                      
                      Trench 3: the western entrance
 A 10x3m trench was sited to take in the northern 
            half of the entrance proper and the terminal of the northern 
            inner bank.  It became evident that the entrance was 
            an original feature, though it may have been infilled early 
            in the life of the hillfort and then re-established at a 
            later date.  The sequence begins with a simple entrance 
            formed by a low revetted stone bank, 6.2m wide, incorporating 
            a recessed 'guard-chamber' and cobbled entranceway.  
          The format is similar to that of the period III-V south-east 
          entrance at Dinorben (Savory 1964, fig. 5).  An oval 
            post-hole off-set from the centre of the entrance may be 
            part of a gate structure.  Subsequent phases of modification 
            and addition followed.  First, an elaborate hornwork 
            was constructed on the exterior side.  At a later date 
            the entrance was infilled with dumps of earth and stone, 
            supported on the outer face by stone revetting.  This 
            was subsequently cut through late in the life of the monument, 
            re-establishing the original line of the entrance.  
          With the exception of one small fragment of tile and a piece 
          of modern glass, both from immediately below the topsoil, 
          no artefactual material was present.  This in itself 
            might imply the recutting pre-dates the post-medieval period 
        
                      
                    Discussion
The excavations provided clear evidence of an early-middle 
            Iron Age date for the construction of the hillfort, and 
            for contemporary activity (both occupation and metalworking 
            on some scale) within the interior.  Pre-hillfort activity 
            is attested by only two pieces of worked flint, and these 
            may, anyway, be curated.  A low density scatter of 
            late Roman ceramics, along with limited structural evidence 
            (post-holes within the interior and a late phase of bank 
            rebuild) indicates renewed activity focussed on the monument, 
            following a period of abandonment roughly coeval with the 
            establishment and occupation of the Roman fortress at Caerleon.  
          A substantial deposit of stone rubble within the ditch, 
          obviously derived from the inner rampart and associated 
          with Roman pottery and tile, could tentatively indicate 
          deliberate slighting of the bank.
          Given our relatively impoverished understanding of the Iron 
          Age in south-east Wales beyond the margins of the Severn 
          Levels, the excavation has the potential to contribute significantly 
          to our understanding of settlement practices, activities, 
          and to a limited degree economies and environments, in the 
          region during the 1st millennium BC.  The 
            excavation has also provided the potential to examine the 
            later (post-Iron Age) history of one of the region's larger 
            hillforts, and, whilst to some extent ambiguous, the results 
            do hint at the possibility of later Roman and/or post-Roman 
            reoccupation.  In this respect, the key aims and objectives 
            of the excavation have been, or will be, met.
                      
      Acknowledgements
 First and foremost, we would like to thank the Williams 
        Trust for their generous sponsorship of the excavations, 
        Mr T. Prichard and the Trustees of Lodge Farm Church, on 
        whose land the hillfort lies, and Mike Yates and Felicity 
        Taylor of Cadw.  The work was supervised by the authors 
        and Adrian Chadwick, Ian Dennis and Mike Hamilton, with 
        additional assistance from Lesley McFadyen and Steve O'Rourke.  
        Thanks also go to Neil Phillips and Kate Smith for undertaking 
        a survey of the earthworks under very difficult conditions.
        
        Ray Howell and Joshua Pollard, SCARAB, University of Wales 
        Newport
        
        References
                    
Savory, 
          H.N. 1964. Dinorben: A hill-fort occupied in Early Iron 
            Age and Roman times. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales
          Whittle, E. 1992. A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales: 
      Glamorgan and Gwent. London: HMSO
        
        Many 
            thanks to: Ray Howell; Joshua Pollard; SCARAB and University 
      of Wales Newport for permission to publish this report.
