Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland

SC3698 Dalmahoy Hill, Midlothian

LiDAR 1m DTM Hillshade

LiDAR 1m DTM Hillshade

Satellite Imagery

Satellite Imagery

Scroll left/right to view further images.

HER:  City of Edinburgh No record found (None)

NMR:  NT 16 NW 1 (50318)

SM:  1213

NGR:  NT 1355 6693

X:  313550  Y:  666930  (OSGB36)

Summary

The small fort on the rocky summit of Dalmahoy Hill lies at the core of a series of outer enclosures, the walls of which follow natural terraces between outcrops and block off access up and down the gullies on the SE and SW flanks of the hill. The fort crowning the summit is oval on plan and measures about 43m from N to S by 25m transversely (0.08ha) within a heavily robbed robbed wall some 3.6m in thickness. Where runs of outer face survive on the E and S, this wall has measured at least 3m in height and there is an entrance on the NE, opening externally onto a terrace with traces of walling around its lip and an outer entrance. While the RCAHMS investigators who first drew up a plan of the fort in 1926, recognised this outer entrance and traces of walling between the outcrops around the W flank, it was not until 1948 that the full extent of the outer enclosures taking in the whole hilltop was recognised, including a major enclosure extending for about 200m along the ridge to the ENE, and a series of lesser walls combining with the outcrops to enclose the terraces stepping down from the fort on the W. The overall area enclosed measured some 360m in length from ENE to WSW and extends to about 2ha. The plan was traced out by Robert Stevenson and led him to identify the summit fortification as a citadel within an arrangement of contemporary outer enclosures, thus giving rise to the concept of a 'nuclear fort', a type that has become synonymous with early medieval fortifications. While the wall extending along the SE flank of the ridge-top is between 2.4m and 3m thick, the walls on the W appear of slighter construction, and Stevenson himself conceded that some of the lesser banks forming enclosures at the foot of the SW flank were possibly agricultural, but Feachem (1955, 78-9, fig 6; 1963, 137-8) at first accepted the broad outline of the hypothesis, albeit that he he subsequently considered the visible remains of the small summit fort to be a later insertion into what was probably an earlier Iron Age fort. This latter hypothesis seems inherently more likely today, but the full extent of this earlier fort is much less certain. It presumably took in the summit of the hill and the ridge to the ENE, and had one entrance in its SSE side opening into the gully on the E side of the summit, with perhaps a second at the N end of the gully, though the course of the perimeter on the NW side of the ridge is far from clear. Another entrance route seems to have mounted the W flank of the hill via a second gully, passing through at least two of the enclosure walls on this side, but without any obvious route to the entrance of the summit fort. Unlike the Dunion (Atlas No.3368), the obvious parallel for a large prehistoric fort formed of multiple enclosures, there are no traces of round-houses within any of the enclosures and the structure noted on the summit of the ridge by Stevenson is perhaps more likely to be the remains of a robbed cairn.

Status

Citizen Science:  

Reliability of Data:  Confirmed

Reliability of Interpretation:  Confirmed

Location

X:  -376675  Y:  7536105  (EPSG: 3857)

Longitude:  -3.3837299363819935  Latitude:  55.887764391829556  (EPSG:4326)

Country:  Scotland

Current County or Unitary Authority:  City of Edinburgh

Historic County:  Midlothian

Current Parish/Community/Council/Townland:  Ratho

Monument Condition

None

Condition:
Extant  
Cropmark  
Likely Destroyed  

Land Use

None

Current Use:
Woodland  
Commercial Forestry Plantation  
Parkland  
Pasture (Grazing)  
Arable  
Scrub/Bracken  
Bare Outcrop  
Heather/Moorland  
Heath  
Built-up  
Coastal Grassland  
Other  

Landscape

Hillfort Type

None

Type:
Contour Fort  
Partial Contour Fort  
Promontory Fort  
Hillslope Fort  
Level Terrain Fort  
Marsh Fort  
Multiple Enclosure Fort  

Topographic Position

Position:
Hilltop  
Coastal Promontory  
Inland Promontory  
Valley Bottom  
Knoll/Hillock/Outcrop  
Ridge  
Cliff/Plateau-edge/Scarp  
Hillslope  
Lowland  
Spur  

Dominant Topographic Feature:  None

Aspect:
North  
Northeast  
East  
Southeast  
South  
Southwest  
West  
Northwest  
Level  

Altitude:  246.0m

Boundary

N/A


Dating Evidence

Dalmahoy was used by Robert Stevenson as a case study in his exposition of the character of early medieval fortifications, the appearance of a series of enclosures around a citadel leading him to coin the term 'nuclear fort'; the view taken here is more sceptical in either identifying all the outlying enclosures as fortifications or that the represent a coherent and contemporary scheme. Nevertheless, Feachem notes that a gold stud cap and several fragments of moulds of early medieval date were picked up in one of the surrounding enclosures (Feachem 1963, 136-7), but in the absence of excavation, there are neither stratified artefacts nor radiocarbon dates to provide a chronology for the defences.

Reliability:  D - None

Principal Activity:
Pre 1200BC  
1200BC - 800BC  
800BC - 400BC  
400BC - AD50  
AD50 - AD400  
AD400 - AD 800  
Post AD800  
Unknown  

Other Activity:
Pre Hillfort:   Five cupmarks have been noted on a stone on the summit (Naddair 1989)
Post Hillfort:   None

Evidence:
Artefactual:   Stray finds of a gold stud cap and several fragments of moulds of early medieval date are reported by Feachem (1963, 136-7)
Morphology/Earthwork/Typology:   Supposed 'nuclear fort'

Investigation History

Photographed by John Dewar (held by RCAHMS) in 1967 and 1971, and RCAHMS Aerial Survey Programme in 1976, 1998 and 2005 The relatively low Scheduled Monument Number suggests that Dalmahoy was first Scheduled round about the same time as neighbouring Kaimes in 1924, but according to the summary appearing on the Historic Environment Scotland Decision Portal it was not added to the Schedule until 1998

Investigations:
1st Identified Written Reference (1893):   Noted by Frederick Coles and James Cunningham (Coles 1896, 273)
Earthwork Survey (1927):   Plan and description (RCAHMS 1929, 162-3, no.217, fig 200; RCAHMS MLD 29/1-2)
Earthwork Survey (1949):   Plan and description by Robert Stevenson (1949, 187-91, fig 1)
Earthwork Survey (1955):   Redrawn from Stevenson by Richard Feachem, who subsequently mentions that an early medieval gold stud cap and several fragments of moulds were picked up in one of the surrounding enclosures (Feachem 1955; 1963, 136-7)
1st Identified Map Depiction (1958):   OS 6-inch map
Other (1965):   Resurveyed at 1:2500 by the OS
Other (1998):   Scheduled
Other (2008):   Re-Scheduled

Interior Features

Featureless

Water Source

None

Source:
None  
Spring  
Stream  
Pool  
Flush  
Well  
Other  

Surface

None

Interior Features (Surface):
No Known Features  
Round Stone Structures  
Rectangular Stone Structures  
Curvilinear Platforms  
Other Roundhouse Evidence  
Pits  
Quarry Hollows  
Other  

Excavation

None

Interior Features (Excavation):
No Known Excavation  
Pits  
Postholes  
Roundhouses  
Rectangular Structures  
Roads/Tracks  
Quarry Hollows  
Other  
Nothing Found  

Geophysics

None

Interior Features (Geophysics):
No Known Geophysics  
Pits  
Roundhouses  
Rectangular Structures  
Roads/Tracks  
Quarry Hollows  
Other  
Nothing Found  

Finds

None

Interior (Finds):
No Known Finds  
Pottery  
Metal  
Metalworking  
Human Bones  
Animal Bones  
Lithics  
Environmental  
Other  

Aerial

NO APPARENT FEATURES

Interior Features (Aerial):
APs Not Checked  
None  
Roundhouses  
Rectangular Structures  
Pits  
Postholes  
Roads/Tracks  
Other  

Entrances

See main summary

Total Number of Breaks Through Ramparts:  
4:   There are numerous gaps in the perimeter caused partly by the character of the topography

Number of Possible Original Entrances:  
2:   Single entrance in the summit fort, but with others in the outlying enclosures

Guard Chambers:  

Chevaux de Frise:  

Entrances:
1. Simple Gap (North east):   In the summit fort and with a gap in an outer wall immediately below it
2. Over-lapping (South east):   In the large ridge enclosure to the ENE of the summit fort, opening into a gully and with the E wall terminal apparently turning inwards to expose the visitor's right side.
3. Simple Gap (North west):   Into the opposite end of the gully of entrance 2
4. Oblique (South west):   via a gully on the SW, the character of the topography creating an inturned terminal on one side that exposes the visitor's right side

Enclosing Works

A small inner fort with a substantial wall, and lesser walls intermittently visible forming a series of outer enclosures

Enclosed Area:
Area 1:   0.08ha.
Area 2:   2.0ha.
Total:   2.0ha.

Total Footprint Area:  Noneha.

Ramparts

None

Multi-period Enclosure System:
✗   None

Ramparts Form a Continuous Circuit:
✓   This model does not fit the intermittent character of the outer defences particularly well so they have been omitted in favour of the inner fort on the summit

Number of Ramparts:  
NE Quadrant:   1
SE Quadrant:   1
SW Quadrant:   1
NW Quadrant:   1
Total:   1

Morphology

Current Morphology:
Partial Univallate  
Univallate  
Partial Bivallate  
Bivallate  
Partial Multivallate  
Multivallate  
Unknown  

Detailed Morphology:
Partial Univallate  
Univallate  
Partial Bivallate  
Bivallate  
Partial Multivallate  
Multivallate  

Surface Evidence

None

Enclosing Works (Surface):
None  
Earthen Bank  
Stone Wall  
Rubble  
Wall-walk  
Evidence of Timber  
Vitrification  
Other Burning  
Palisade  
Counter Scarp Bank  
Berm  
Unfinished  
Other  

Excavated Evidence

None

Enclosing Works (Excavation):
None  
Earthen Bank  
Stone Wall  
Murus Duplex  
Timber-framed  
Timber-laced  
Vitrification  
Other Burning  
Palisade  
Counter Scarp Bank  
Berm  
Unfinished  
No Known Excavation  
Other  

Other

Gang Working:
✗   None

Ditches:
✗   None

Number of Ditches:  None

Annex:
✓   If the outer enclosures are truly elements of the fort, they might be considered as annexes

References

Coles, F R (1896) 'Notes on the fortified site on Kaimes Hill'. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 30 (1895-6), 269-74

Feachem, R (1963) A guide to prehistoric Scotland. Batsford: London (pp 135-6)

Naddair, K (1989) 'Dalmahoy hillfort (Ratho parish), cup mark site'. Disc Exc Scot (1989), 51

RCAHMS (1929) The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Scotland. Tenth report with Inventory of Monuments and Constructions in the Counties of Midlothian and West Lothian. HMSO: Edinburgh

Stevenson, R B K (1949) 'The nuclear fort of Dalmahoy, Midlothian, and other Dark Age capitals'. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 83 (1948-9), 186-98



Terms of Use

This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and should be cited as:

Lock, Gary and Ralston, Ian. 2024. Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland. Available at: https://hillforts.arch.ox.ac.uk


Document Version 1.1