Talk:Vitrified fort

Comments removed from article to talk page

I've removed the following comments, misplaced by an IP claiming to be Euan MacKie in the article rather than here:

"Euan MacKie’s research

Archaeologists such as myself who have excavated a vitrified fort, visited many of them and are familiar with the experiments which have been carried out to reproduce them are in no doubt about how they came into existence. :I'm afraid the whole of the descriptions above are based on false assumptions.

They in fact are burnt timber -framed strongholds; the neatly built drystone wall has a timber framework embedded throughout its rubble core. The burning of this timber-and-stone wall evidently occasionally produced high enough temperatures to melt some adjacent stone, especially when the internal timbers were turned to charcoal by the heat and then produced a blast furnace effect when exposed to the wind. The idea that vitrification was a construction technique is nonsense; only bits of the wall were vitrified and most of it was just badly heated. I explained all this years ago in a chapter called "the vitrified forts of Scotland" in D W Harding's book "Hillforts: later prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland" (1976). Euan MacKie"

Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to reinstate some of this. As the quote in the section below from the 2017 Trusty's Hill dig report demonstrates, this continues to be the professional view, and MacKie's 1976 book chapter is prominently cited. Unfortunately the book chapter does not appear to be easily available online, and I haven't yet been able to read a copy; but an earlier paper from 1969 Timber-laced and vitrified walls in iron age forts: causes of vitrification (Glasgow Archaeological Journal 1 pp.69-71), based on the excavations at Dun Lagaidh in Wester Ross in August 1967, is powerfully written. Jheald (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Harding (2017), p.112 similarly gives MacKie (1976) as citation for "several good reasons" why "current opinion now discounts vitrification as a construction technique". Jheald (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Also Ralston (1986) [1] p.18 gives this paper as his key citation for the discounting of the constructionalist view, alongside two papers by Nisbet that review the history of previous theories: "[MacKie's recent review] has indicated the strength of the field evidence for vitrification as a product of the destruction of defences. The writer concurs entirely with MacKie's arguments in this regard" ... "These three papers (MacKie 1976; Nisbet 1974; 1975) contain all the most cogent arguments that have been advanced to suggest that vitrification is a destructive process, frequently coinciding- in archaeological terms - with long-term, if not definitive, abandonment of the affected site."

I think I've now tracked down a copy, so I'm going to see if I can find it. Jheald (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Really need better picture(s)

The existing pictures for this article are fine, but boy, do they not give the general idea of a vitrified fort, especially the noted Scottish examples. I have spent a little time looking for a better image that is appropriately licensed (or public domain) but I am striking out. This is FAR from my area of expertise though, so I would appreciate any help from anyone! Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

unattributed plagiarism

It is very obvious from the writing style that this article has been lifted in great swathes from some antiquarian periodical of the 19th or early 20th century. (The red flag immediately goes up at the word "crude". It's quite tricky to vitrify earthworks.)

A century or so of research and excavation has gone on. Why is wikipedia so shockingly bad at Scottish history? Why do we get the regurgitated opinions of long-dead gentlemen amateurs instead of references to hard research, and Walter Scot romances built upon folklore still, in the 21st century, substituting for historical information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.179.30 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

New research

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440316000200 2601:405:4301:CB3F:5536:D8FE:E4D3:BEBA (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this 2016 refers to much other recent research that differs from what the article currently says. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also a second paper by the same team with others, that was published the following year in Scientific Reports doi:10.1038/srep40028 (open access).

I can't say I think they are particularly weighty compared to the archaeological consensus; which I think, per the comments and references in the Euan MacKie section above and elsewhere, is a lot more dominant and consistent than perhaps these papers represent it. (But no doubt it's helpful for publication if you can present the field to editors not specialised in it as being uncertain and full of questions).

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that their perspective seems to be located squarely in the laboratory, rather than the field archaeology. Yes, in laboratory terms, the vitrified sintered-together material may be locally stronger than the loose stone material that made up the core of a timber-laced wall. But compare that to the field description of the result of vitrification in MacKie (1969) of "a mass of fused rubble" having "burst from the core through the inner face" of the wall. As well as distortion and bursting of the wall, consider too the effect of losing structural timbers, which as Caesar found, gave the structure as a whole resilience and strength. And consider too how the extent of vitrification in the field is generally haphazard and inconsistent, often quite limited to just the immediate locality of the former structural timbers. As the field archaeologists discuss, all of this weighs rather strongly against the idea of vitrification being the result of any kind of considered constructive process, instead making it much more plausibly an incidental by-product of the sustained spectacular demonstrative firing of the wall and destruction of its internal timber infrastructure.

There are also the other points of the context that the field archaeologists raise, which Wadsworth et al do not discuss -- namely that vitrification appears to be most often found in conjunction with the end of the occupied usage of a fort, not its beginning, consonant therefore with destruction rather than construction. In some cases, as at Trusty's Hill, there is even evidence of the outer facing-stones of the wall first having been torn down, and now forming a separate stratigraphical layer, before the exposed internal structure was then fired. Furthermore, there's no evidence of any aspect of the wall having been specially tailored to assist the process -- for example, there's no evidence of special stone being used, that might eg fuse more easily, or impart particular characterisics. Instead, as the conventional archaeological consensus insists, everything just points to the vitrified walls just having been a standard timber-laced construction, made out of regular local stone, that had already stood for decades or centuries, that "do not differ in any essential point of their character from forts that are not vitrified" (Anderson, 1888, quoted [2]), but which then met a fiery end.

All in all, Harding (2012) seems entirely justified to comment that it is now "long after the myth of creative vitrification should have been laid to rest." (same link), and I can't see that these papers really offer anything to alter that. Jheald (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Quote from 2017 final report on Trusty's Hill dig

The following quote is from the discussion of vitrification in the 2017 final report for the 2012 dig at Trusty's Hill, a medium-sized fort in Galloway which was destroyed with some vitrification in the early 600s AD. I am not putting it here necessarily to suggest adding any points as particular citations for the article, because I think this is a summary of understanding rather than key research into the topic (though further paragraphs, omitted, do address how findings at Trusty's Hill conform with this picture). But I do think it makes a useful data-point for where current mainstream professional archaeological opinion presently sits on vitrification, which I think may be useful input for us in considering how to present and balance the topic to be in line with WP:DUE, as well as considering what are considered to be the most relevant citations in this area.

(Toolis & Bowes (2017), p. 132 / kindle locations 3716-3736; 3767-3774); cf also [3]:

"Experiments have shown that vitrification – the melting and fusing together – of stone ramparts took substantial man-power, timber resources for added fuel, experience, skill, and a great deal of time to accomplish (Childe & Thorneycroft 1938, 53–5; Ralston 1986, 25–38). The evidence from empirical experiments and from a range of archaeological sites clearly indicates that this was a destructive not a creative process, and deliberate not accidental. Often it was incomplete and coincided with the abandonment of a site, but crucially it always coincides with the burning of a timber-laced rampart core (Mackie 1976, 208–9; Ralston 1986, 18 & 38).

"The occurrence of timber beam slots in the vitrified walls at Dun Lagaidh in Wester Ross and at Cullykhan in Aberdeenshire show that timber-laced ramparts were required for vitrification to occur (Mackie 1976, 209; Ralston 2006, 153). However, unburnt timberlaced ramparts, such as Castle Law at Abernethy in Perthshire (Christison & Anderson 1899, pl. 1), illustrate that timber-lacing was not a construction device simply to enable a conflagration. The same patterns of burning and limited vitrification are evident in timber-laced earth and stone ramparts as well, such as at the contemporary sixth–seventh century fort at Clatchard Craig in Fife (Close-Brooks 1986, 132), but it is only in timber-laced drystone ramparts that substantial vitrification, and then only of the rubble core, is evident.

"Experimentation and archaeological evidence have demonstrated that setting rampart timbers alight was not casually achieved. The act of vitrification depended on pulling down the stone facing of a rampart to expose the core, continually piling a considerable amount of timber and brushwood against individual timbers of the internal framework, and setting fire to these with a favourable wind (Mackie 1976, 210; Ralston 1986, 38; Close-Brooks 1986, 132). It was not something that could be readily achieved in the heat of battle (Ralston 1986, 38) especially as vitrification is often apparent on the interior, not exterior, side of such ramparts. The need to spend sufficient time and energy to destroy a rampart is historically attested by Julius Caesar’s observations on the difficulty of setting alight a stone-faced timber-laced rampart (Wiseman & Wiseman 1980, 145). The implication is that a fort had to be overrun by an invading force to allow sufficient access and time to achieve a fully vitrified rampart. Indeed, the high visibility of this act may have been more important than the actual destruction of the ramparts themselves. It has been observed during modern experimentation that the sight of a timber-laced rampart in the process of vitrification ‘edged by flames and glowing red in the night’ for weeks or even months was a spectacular advertisement of power and the total destruction of the defeated regime (Ralston 1986, 38).

"... While it is beyond reasonable dispute that vitrified ramparts, such as those at Trusty’s Hill, are the result of deliberate arson, some contend that this deliberate destruction may mark the self-inflicted ritualised abandonment of a site (Bowden & McOmish 1987, 79). However, this interpretation lacks credibility given the repeated references to the besieging and destruction of forts by fire that begin to be recorded in a variety of annals from the seventh century onwards (Graham 1953, 72; Thomas 1961, 70; Alcock 1988, 31). Instead, there is a consensus that vitrified ramparts are the result of punitive destruction after the capture and pillaging of a hillfort, in order to permanently raze it in a spectacular exhibition of power (Childe & Thorneycroft 1938, 55; Nisbet 1974, 4–5; MacKie 1976, 206–10; Ralston 1986, 38; Close-Brooks 1986, 132; Audouze & Büchsenschütz 1991, 97; Armit 1997, 59; Harding 2004, 87; Ralston 2006, 163; Harding 2012, 189)."

Earlier, at p.108 (kindle 2768-2771), there is also this comment on timber-lacing:

"timber-laced ramparts such as at Trusty’s Hill were not merely an elaborate garden fence, but were designed with a significant defensive function. Encountering timberlaced stone ramparts during his conquest of Gaul, Julius Caesar remarked that these greatly hampered his legions; the relatively flexible internal timberlacing serving to withstand their battering rams while the stone faces prevented the timber from being set alight (Wiseman & Wiseman 1980, 145)."

References:

• Childe, V. G. & Thorneycroft, W. (1938) The experimental production of the phenomena distinctive of vitrified forts. Proceedings of the Society Antiquaries of Scotland 72, 44–55. / ADS
• Mackie, E. W. (1976) The vitrified forts of Scotland. In D. W. Harding (ed.) Hillforts: later prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland, 205–35. London, Academic. ISBN 0123247500
• Ralston, I. (1986) The Yorkshire Television vitrified wall experiment at East Tullos, City of Aberdeen District. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 116, 17–40.
• Ralston, I. (2006) Celtic Fortifications. Stroud, Tempus. ISBN 0752425005
• Close-Brooks, J. (1986) Excavations at Clatchard Craig, Fife. Proceedings of the Society Antiquaries of Scotland 116, 155–6.
• Wiseman, A. & Wiseman, P. (1980) Julius Caesar: the Battle for Gaul. London, Book Club Associates. ISBN 0879233060
• Bowden, M. & McOmish, D. (1987) The required barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 76–84. Abstract (ADS)
• Graham, A. (1953) Archaeological gleanings from Dark Age records. Proceedings of the Society Antiquaries of Scotland 85 (1950–51), 64–91.
• Alcock, L. (1988) The activities of potentates in Celtic Britain, AD 500–800: a positivist approach. In S. T. Driscoll & M. R. Nieke (eds) Power and Politics in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland, 22–46. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0852245203
• Nisbet, H. C. (1974) A geological approach to vitrified forts part I: The archaeological and scientific background. Science & Archaeology 12, 3–12.
• Audouze, F. & Büchsenschütz, O. (1991) Towns, Villages and Countryside of Celtic Europe. London, BCA/Batsford. ISBN 0253310822
• Armit, I. (1997) Celtic Scotland. London, Batsford . ISBN 0713475382
• Harding, D. W. (2004) The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Celts and Romans, natives and invaders. Abingdon, Routledge. ISBN 113441787X Limited preview New edition (2017)
• Harding, D. W. (2012) Iron Age Hillforts in Britain and Beyond. Oxford, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199695245 Limited preview

Jheald (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)