Mikefule
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,282
- Location
- Lincolnshire UK
I revisited Carl Wark yesterday. Carl Wark is an ancient feature commonly interpreted as a "hill fort" although it is unconventional in design. It is in the Peak District National Park a few miles out of Sheffield. Historically, it was in the county of Derbyshire but I believe that it is now part of South Yorkshire.
I have known about and walked over Carl Wark many times over the last couple of decades. It is in an area of easily accessible moorland, not far from the landmark roadside boulder known as Toad's Mouth (often referred to as Frog's Gob.) Toad's Mouth is a simulacrum: from some angles, it represents a toad's head. I have known Toad's Mouth longer than I have known of Carl Wark, and the purity of the simulacrum was ruined for me many years ago when I saw that someone had added an eye.
Carl Wark is very different from any other hill fort I have visited. It has some of the features of a promontory fort — almost like an inland peninsula fort — with three sides defended mainly by naturally steep rock, and the most vulnerable side (the west) reinforced with a rampart. The result is a roughly rectangular enclosure around 180 metres by 60 metres, enclosing 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres). The following diagram was copied from Wikipedia.
For simplicity in the descriptions below, I have "rotated" the fort a few degrees anticlockwise so that the long sides are imagined to run exactly east-west.
The northern aspect of the fort is "defended" solely by the steepness of the natural rock, as is the eastern aspect, which overlooks the Burbage Brook, a tributary of the Derbyshire Derwent.
Looking east along the northern aspect of Carl Wark, showing the steep natural defences. The Burbage Brook flows left to right past the trees.
The southern flank of the fort is largely protected by the slope and natural rocks, but this has been reinforced with some deliberately placed large rocks. This is discernible from certain angles but not from others. It is only the almost-regularity of the top row of rocks which gives the game away to an interested observer.
The only very obvious defensive structure is the boulder and earth rampart at the western end of the fort, which defends the promontory where it overlooks the saddle between the fort and nearby Higger Tor. Higger Tor looks down at the fort, but does not present a threat as it is substantially out of bowshot.
The boulder rampart is about 40 metres long, up to 3 metres high, and almost perfectly straight. It is not quite the "Cyclopean masonry" beloved of Lovecraft, but the individual stones would each require a small team to move and position them. They are sufficiently uniform in size and shape that the builders must have invested considerable effort in selecting and transporting them to the site.
The boulder rampart on the western end of the fort. The steps in the foreground are modern.
Behind the boulder rampart is an earth or turf bank. On the basis of no evidence but gut feeling, I suspect that the earth rampart is older, and may have once supported a palisade of some kind. The boulder wall appears to me to be too intact to be as old as some commentators have suggested.
The rampart seen end on, camera facing more or less south. This is a sort of "cross sectional view".
To the left is the earth/turf bank, and to the right is the boulder rampart.
I said that Carl Wark is "commonly interpreted as a hill fort." However, there is no strong consensus. As is traditional, there are those who insist on assigning it a "ritual purpose".
It is clear to me that Carl Wark is a defensible site, and that the earth and turf embankment and the stone rampart serve to strengthen the weakest flank.
It is unsurprising that it is not on the much higher Higger Tor as its location makes it less exposed to the weather, and it has easy access to the river for drinking water. It is sufficient for defensive purposes that it is high enough and steep enough that it would be difficult to storm, and although it is overlooked in terms of "line of sight" it is not vulnerable to bowshot from a higher point. Why build further up when this site is high enough, and probably more convenient?
However, the age of the fort is unclear. Some people assume it is "iron age" because that was a time when many hill forts were built. Some see similarities to other bronze age structures. Others suggest that it was either Romano-British or early mediaeval: the period that we used to call the dark ages.
Excavation has produced some evidence suggesting a date around the 5th or 6th century AD. However, there is even a body of opinion that the site may have neolithic origins.
My own view is that it is likely to be early mediaeval, when hill forts tended to be smaller and more focused on the immediate military needs of defence in times of war. By way of contrast, iron age hill forts tended to be larger and were occupied settlements in peacetime as well as wartime.
If Carl Wark had been a settlement, I would expect there to be stone hut circles broadly similar to those at Grimspound (Dartmoor). Building stone would be readily available for dry stone and turf walls, and the ground is too hard and rocky for it to be practical to dig multiple post holes for timber structures.
It seems likely that, like most ancient monuments, the site was developed and modified, perhaps over generations, and even over centuries. An easily defensible site in the bronze age would have remained so into the early mediaeval period. The strategic importance of the site would inevitably have changed, of course, but its suitability as a stronghold would not.
One fanciful explanation is that Carl Wark was used by Sir Lamorak, one of Arthur's knights of the round table. An obvious difficulty with this is that both Arthur and Sir Lamorak are at best "legendary" if not outright fictitious. However, those who argue that "the historical Arthur" was a war leader in post Roman Britain, there is at least some reason to believe that the fort was built, repaired, or reinforced around that period, when there was a lot of fighting going on.
The name Carl Wark is also disputed. It appears in various spellings. Carl is Saxon for "man" and Caer is old Welsh/Celtic for rampart or castle. Wark could be a dialect pronunciation of "work" or possibly of "walk".
One explanation is that Carl is the "Old Man" or the Devil and that the fort is therefore "the work of the Devil". That sounds like nonsense to me. Many ancient monuments have stories of the Devil associated with them, but when they do, the reference in the name is usually more obvious.
I'd go with it having a meaning roughly equivalent to "The man made stone work": a simple descriptive name rendered obscure by brevity and the passage of time.
I'd certainly recommend a visit to this area, passing through Carl Wark. Nearby, you will find the Longshore Estate, the Fox House Inn, and the legendary Grindleford Station Café, all within easy walking distance.
Link to an earlier post on "the walking thread" with some description and photos of Carl Wark.
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/the-walking-thread-–-all-seasons.67125/
I have known about and walked over Carl Wark many times over the last couple of decades. It is in an area of easily accessible moorland, not far from the landmark roadside boulder known as Toad's Mouth (often referred to as Frog's Gob.) Toad's Mouth is a simulacrum: from some angles, it represents a toad's head. I have known Toad's Mouth longer than I have known of Carl Wark, and the purity of the simulacrum was ruined for me many years ago when I saw that someone had added an eye.
Carl Wark is very different from any other hill fort I have visited. It has some of the features of a promontory fort — almost like an inland peninsula fort — with three sides defended mainly by naturally steep rock, and the most vulnerable side (the west) reinforced with a rampart. The result is a roughly rectangular enclosure around 180 metres by 60 metres, enclosing 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres). The following diagram was copied from Wikipedia.
For simplicity in the descriptions below, I have "rotated" the fort a few degrees anticlockwise so that the long sides are imagined to run exactly east-west.
The northern aspect of the fort is "defended" solely by the steepness of the natural rock, as is the eastern aspect, which overlooks the Burbage Brook, a tributary of the Derbyshire Derwent.
Looking east along the northern aspect of Carl Wark, showing the steep natural defences. The Burbage Brook flows left to right past the trees.
The southern flank of the fort is largely protected by the slope and natural rocks, but this has been reinforced with some deliberately placed large rocks. This is discernible from certain angles but not from others. It is only the almost-regularity of the top row of rocks which gives the game away to an interested observer.
The only very obvious defensive structure is the boulder and earth rampart at the western end of the fort, which defends the promontory where it overlooks the saddle between the fort and nearby Higger Tor. Higger Tor looks down at the fort, but does not present a threat as it is substantially out of bowshot.
The boulder rampart is about 40 metres long, up to 3 metres high, and almost perfectly straight. It is not quite the "Cyclopean masonry" beloved of Lovecraft, but the individual stones would each require a small team to move and position them. They are sufficiently uniform in size and shape that the builders must have invested considerable effort in selecting and transporting them to the site.
The boulder rampart on the western end of the fort. The steps in the foreground are modern.
Behind the boulder rampart is an earth or turf bank. On the basis of no evidence but gut feeling, I suspect that the earth rampart is older, and may have once supported a palisade of some kind. The boulder wall appears to me to be too intact to be as old as some commentators have suggested.
The rampart seen end on, camera facing more or less south. This is a sort of "cross sectional view".
To the left is the earth/turf bank, and to the right is the boulder rampart.
I said that Carl Wark is "commonly interpreted as a hill fort." However, there is no strong consensus. As is traditional, there are those who insist on assigning it a "ritual purpose".
It is clear to me that Carl Wark is a defensible site, and that the earth and turf embankment and the stone rampart serve to strengthen the weakest flank.
It is unsurprising that it is not on the much higher Higger Tor as its location makes it less exposed to the weather, and it has easy access to the river for drinking water. It is sufficient for defensive purposes that it is high enough and steep enough that it would be difficult to storm, and although it is overlooked in terms of "line of sight" it is not vulnerable to bowshot from a higher point. Why build further up when this site is high enough, and probably more convenient?
However, the age of the fort is unclear. Some people assume it is "iron age" because that was a time when many hill forts were built. Some see similarities to other bronze age structures. Others suggest that it was either Romano-British or early mediaeval: the period that we used to call the dark ages.
Excavation has produced some evidence suggesting a date around the 5th or 6th century AD. However, there is even a body of opinion that the site may have neolithic origins.
My own view is that it is likely to be early mediaeval, when hill forts tended to be smaller and more focused on the immediate military needs of defence in times of war. By way of contrast, iron age hill forts tended to be larger and were occupied settlements in peacetime as well as wartime.
If Carl Wark had been a settlement, I would expect there to be stone hut circles broadly similar to those at Grimspound (Dartmoor). Building stone would be readily available for dry stone and turf walls, and the ground is too hard and rocky for it to be practical to dig multiple post holes for timber structures.
It seems likely that, like most ancient monuments, the site was developed and modified, perhaps over generations, and even over centuries. An easily defensible site in the bronze age would have remained so into the early mediaeval period. The strategic importance of the site would inevitably have changed, of course, but its suitability as a stronghold would not.
One fanciful explanation is that Carl Wark was used by Sir Lamorak, one of Arthur's knights of the round table. An obvious difficulty with this is that both Arthur and Sir Lamorak are at best "legendary" if not outright fictitious. However, those who argue that "the historical Arthur" was a war leader in post Roman Britain, there is at least some reason to believe that the fort was built, repaired, or reinforced around that period, when there was a lot of fighting going on.
The name Carl Wark is also disputed. It appears in various spellings. Carl is Saxon for "man" and Caer is old Welsh/Celtic for rampart or castle. Wark could be a dialect pronunciation of "work" or possibly of "walk".
One explanation is that Carl is the "Old Man" or the Devil and that the fort is therefore "the work of the Devil". That sounds like nonsense to me. Many ancient monuments have stories of the Devil associated with them, but when they do, the reference in the name is usually more obvious.
I'd go with it having a meaning roughly equivalent to "The man made stone work": a simple descriptive name rendered obscure by brevity and the passage of time.
I'd certainly recommend a visit to this area, passing through Carl Wark. Nearby, you will find the Longshore Estate, the Fox House Inn, and the legendary Grindleford Station Café, all within easy walking distance.
Link to an earlier post on "the walking thread" with some description and photos of Carl Wark.
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/the-walking-thread-–-all-seasons.67125/