Norton Camp large univallate hillfort


Heritage Category:
Scheduled Monument
List Entry Number:
Date first listed:
Date of most recent amendment:


© Crown Copyright and database right 2021. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100024900.
© British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited 2021. All rights reserved. Licence number 102006.006.
Use of this data is subject to Terms and Conditions.

The above map is for quick reference purposes only and may not be to scale. For a copy of the full scale map, please see the attached PDF - 1008467.pdf

The PDF will be generated from our live systems and may take a few minutes to download depending on how busy our servers are. We apologise for this delay.

This copy shows the entry on 21-Jan-2021 at 05:22:17.


The building or site itself may lie within the boundary of more than one authority.

Somerset West and Taunton (District Authority)
Norton Fitzwarren
National Grid Reference:
ST 19613 26267

Reasons for Designation

The fort at Norton survives as a good example of its class despite agricultural use and alteration of the defences. The hollow ways approaching it are rare on a site of this scale. Small excavations have shown that deposits from the Neolithic to the Romano-British periods survive at the site, and aerial photographs reveal that a concentration of enclosures and settlement features is present beneath the ground. Excavation has also shown that underlying the Iron Age deposits is a Middle Bronze Age enclosure. Such enclosures are very rare with less than ten examples known nationally, and these provide an important record of the period. Such evidence as is available suggests that they were important sites located on the boundary of several ecological zones, providing a contact point for different socio-political groups. It seems likely that this role was carried on into the Iron Age at Norton, as the site lay on the border between two main tribal groupings. Aerial photographs indicate a henge-type monument 1km to the north, emphasising the continuity of this `central place' from Neolithic to Iron Age times. Local folklore has it that Norton was a town of some importance before nearby Taunton was in existence.


The monument includes a large univallate hillfort on a shallow knoll in an undulating lowland vale, and three deep trackways leading to it. The site has a commanding but not strong elevation, with views to the distant surrounding hills. Small excavations have shown that predating the hillfort is a smaller enclosure of Middle Bronze Age date. The hilltop, covering c.5.2ha, is encircled by a broad-topped bank having an external face of up to 3m high, and averaging 1m high internally. The excavations confirmed an external ditch which is still faintly visible in places as a terrace or a shallow hollow. The ramparts have been eroded by later agriculture, and along the south west only a scarp remains. Later field banks run around the foot of the bank, and along the top of it in places. A short stretch of outer bank on the west has been shown to belong to the earlier Bronze Age phase. The area enclosed forms an elongated circle, with the brow of the hill on the west, and a small valley on the east, which perhaps at one time contained a spring providing a water supply. The interior of the fort is approached by three hollow ways up to 6m deep, from the WSW, north, and south east, ending a short way inside the ramparts. That from the WSW is broadest and deepest, and divides into two below the rampart. There is now a steep face at the end of these ways into the fort, but aerial photographs show that they originally extended into the interior, and they have been partially blocked by agricultural levelling, and possibly by the collapse of entranceworks such as bridges or gateways. There are a number of other gaps in the ramparts, of which most are modern, but excavation indicated that the entrance on the west, which appeared to be on the site of an entrance to the previous Bronze Age enclosure, may have continued in use in the initial hillfort. On the eastern side of the fort is an opposite gap, now overgrown, and in its original form the fort may have had a more usual arrangement of opposing east/west entrances. Where the small valley crosses the defences on the east there is a broad gap, closed by the later field bank, and it seems that this was an access into the interior at some stage. Small-scale excavations on the western edge of the hillfort have revealed occupation phases from Neolithic to Romano-British. An Early Neolithic presence is indicated by finds of flint scrapers, knives and pottery. Aerial photographic evidence of a Neolithic henge 1km to the north hints at the area being a ritual centre. In the Middle Bronze Age, the top of the hill was enclosed by a ditch with an external bank and perhaps also an internal bank. This Middle Bronze Age phase is dated by pottery and a hoard of bronze axes and bracelets, and the site appears to have been in permanent occupation. The third phase was represented by Early Iron Age pottery of a type generally found further east. The main hillfort was constructed in the later Iron Age, as a defence for the inhabitants and their livestock. It seems likely that the earlier importance of the site was continued, as the hillfort lay on the border between the Durotriges tribe of the Dorset area and the Dumnonii of Devon and Cornwall. The ditch was recut close to the time of the Roman invasion. The sunken ways approaching the fort date from the Late Iron Age to early Romano-British, and are unusual for a site of this size. The nearest parallels occur on smaller sites in Cornwall where they are interpreted as droveways for livestock into the fort. Occupation continued in the early Roman period, with large amounts of Romano-British pottery from items such as cooking pots, dishes, and storage jars. Gullies, pits and hearths date from this period, and iron slag suggests that smelting was taking place. Aerial photographs have shown a complex of sub-square and circular enclosures beneath the ground within the interior of the fort, which are Romano-British in form. The site seems to have been abandoned by c.AD 100, as later Romano-British finds are absent In later history a legend of a dragon is associated with the fort, and such legends may refer to an occupying West Saxon army, whose standard was a dragon. Local folklore also has it that 'When Taunton was a furzey down, Norton was a market town'. Excluded from the scheduling are all modern fences and sign-boards, though the ground beneath them is included.

MAP EXTRACT The site of the monument is shown on the attached map extract. It includes a 10 metre boundary around the archaeological features, considered to be essential for the monument's support and preservation.


The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system.

Legacy System number:
Legacy System:


Books and journals
'Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Nat.Hist. Society' in Ancient Earthwork at Norton, , Vol. 1 pt.2, (1850), 38-47
Dymond, C W, 'Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Nat.Hist. Society' in Norton Camp, , Vol. 18, (1872), 43-46
Gray, H G, 'Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Nat.Hist. Society' in Excavations at Norton Camp...1908, , Vol. 54, (1908), 131-143
Langmaid, N, 'Current Archaeology' in Norton Fitzwarren, (1971), 116-120
Langmaid, N, 'Current Archaeology' in Norton Fitzwarren, (1971), 116-120
Devon Air Photos RJ 1-4, QZ 3-10, RV 5-8, UK 7-10, (1990)
In local history library, Taunton, CPE UK, (1947)
PRN 43399, (1993)


This monument is scheduled under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 as amended as it appears to the Secretary of State to be of national importance. This entry is a copy, the original is held by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

End of official listing

Your Contributions

Do you know more about this entry?

The following information has been contributed by users volunteering for our Enriching The List project. For small corrections to the List Entry please see our Minor Amendments procedure.

The information and images below are the opinion of the contributor, are not part of the official entry and do not represent the official position of Historic England. We have not checked that the contributions below are factually accurate. Please see our terms and conditions. If you wish to report an issue with a contribution or have a question please email [email protected].