(NU 08112532) Ros Castle Camp. (1)
An ovoid earthwork with single earthwork and external ditch; at the south end a slight trench is visible in the rear of the rampart. (2)
A 6ft wide entrance lies in the north-east side, marked with boulders and slabs set on edge. On either side of the entrance the rampart is turned outwards.
The best preserved portion of the rampart is north of this entrance. Here the rampart and ditch have an overall width of 34 feet.
What may have been another entrance lies to the south. The foundations of a beacon, which formerly occupied the summit, lie within the fort. (2)
Hill Fort. (3)
This earthwork, a typical Iron Age hill fort of the contour type, encircles the summit of the highest hill for some miles. The defences consist of a single rampart of earth and stones, with the remains of a ditch on the south and east.
On the west side the rampart has been formed by scarping the natural slope. In the south-east quadrant the rock outcrop has been included in the defences and continuing westwards behind the rampart forms a depression referred to as 'a trench in the rear of the rampart'.
The rampart varies in height from 0.2m to 1m internally, and from 1.5m to 3m externally. The ditch has a maximum depth of 0.6m. The entrance to the north-east has out-turned defences, while the possible entrance to the south-west may be the result of land slip or erosion. There are two circular depressions, possibly the remains of hut dwellings, in the interior of the fort, which is heather-covered.
The nearest present water supply is the small stream to the south-west.
On the east side of the wall that runs through the fort, and on the highest part of the hill, is a platform of large undressed blocks measuring 6m x 2m x 0.6m high. There is no apparent trace of this platform on the west side of the wall where a deep snowdrift prevented full investigation. This platform is apparently the remains of the beacon referred to.
A plaque on OS trig pillar states that 'Ros Castle Camp' was presented to the National Trust in 1936 as a memorial to Sir Edward Grey. (4)
Listed as pre-Roman Iron Age multivallate (forts, settlements and enclosures). (5)
Generally as described by F1, except that the platform of undressed blocks taken to be the remains of a beacon, abuts, and is not overlain by, the wall, which suggests that it is comparatively modern. On the other hand, the northerly hut site mentioned by F1 is a platform on a small knoll, rather than a depression, and would appear more likely to be the site of the beacon. Published survey (25 inch) revised. (6)
F1's classification as a contour fort appears to be based on the situation rather than the remains which on the whole do not merit such identification. The enclosure bank has no great strength nor has the site any strong natural defence and there is no reason to suppose that it represents anything other than a settlement. The interior is heather-covered and no certain evidence of occupation could be detected though the depressions noted by F1 and another to north-west of the entrance could denote the sites of three huts. (7)
Plan at 1:500 and account by RCHME 12th August 1989. (8)(9)