{"id":431,"date":"2014-07-08T23:22:28","date_gmt":"2014-07-08T22:22:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/?page_id=431"},"modified":"2014-07-12T00:08:44","modified_gmt":"2014-07-11T23:08:44","slug":"1650-carn-fadrun","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/edern\/early-defensive-enclosures\/1650-carn-fadrun\/","title":{"rendered":"(1650) CARN FADRUN"},"content":{"rendered":"

(1650) CARN FADRuN (Figs. 85-7, plates 4, 5, 6) is a hill of
\nigneous rock which forms the dominating feature of western
\nLleyn. Its sides rise steeply for more than 200 ft., and are
\nbroken by rocks and scree, but the ascent, though difficult, is
\nnot generally impossible. A little above the 1,000 ft. contour
\nthe slope becomes gentler, and the top of the hill has a large
\narea which is nearly level at about 1,120 ft. above D.D. Along
\nthe W. side the ground rises again to form a rocky ridge with
\nits summit marked by a trigonometrical station at 1,217 ft.
\nabove D.D.
\nThe top ofthe hill is defended by the remains of two strong
\nstone walls, probably representing two periods of pre-Roman
\nfortification, a smaller fort of about 12 acres having been
\nsucceeded by a larger of about 26 acres. These defences are
\nprobably to be associated with the stone hut-circles which
\noccur on the hill. In addition to these round buildings there arc
\nnumerous small huts ofirregular shape cut into the ruins ofthe
\nearlier rampart, and associated with irregular enclosures.<\/p>\n

These resemble the huts at Tre’r Ceiri (Vol. 11, No. I056)
\nwhich have been assigned to the latter part of the Roman
\nperiod. Finally, the highest part ofthe W. ridge has been made
\ninto a fortress by the construction of a stone wall. This can
\nalmost certainly be identified as the ‘castle of the sons of
\nDwain’ mentioned in II 88 as having been newly built. 1
\nSome ofthe rectangular foundations nearby shouldprobably be
\nassociated with this castle.
\nIn addition to the huts within the early defences, numerous
\nround and irregular foundations, some with enclosures, occur
\non the slopes of the hill.
\nIn the absence ofexcavation2 this analysis ofthe remains rests
\non their surface appearance, and may conveniently be used
\nas a basis for the detailed description. Sites are identified where
\nnecessary by their approximate true bearing and distance in
\nfeet from the trigonometrical station on the summit (the
\nbearing of the long sides of the general plan (Fig. 85) is 345\u00b0).
\nThe earliest structure is a robbed and ruined cist (at 77\u00b0,
\n580 ft.). It appears to have measured about 8 ft. (at 30\u00b0) by
\n4 ft., the sides being formed of large slabs set on edge; the E.
\nhalf is ruined. A scatter of loose boulders suggests the former
\npresence of a cairn robbed to build the adjacent rampart.
\nThis burial was presumably of the Bronze Age, its only
\nconnection with the hiilfort being the accident of location.
\nIn both early periods of occupation, the ramparts were of
\nthe same character, formed by strong walls of unmortared
\nrubble with almost vertical faces of large blocks. These walls
\nnow appear as banks of loose boulders with traces of facing
\nvisible in places; a well-preserved stretch of outer face, of the
\nearlier period, is visible N. of the summit (at 20\u00b0, 100 ft.;
\nplate 6). The ramparts seem to have averaged about IO ft.
\nin thickness, but to have varied between 8 ft. and r5 ft. There
\nis no direct evidence for their relative date from junctions or
\noverlapping, but the inner wall can be regarded as the earlier
\nbecause it is more ruinous than the outer (Plate 6) and has
\nbeen much robbed, so that in places, particularly on the E. of
\nthe hill, it is no longer traceable; the outer rampart, on the
\nother hand, taken in conjunction with natural features, still
\nforms a complete defensive circuit.
\nThere appear to have been one N. and one S. gate in each
\nperiod. They are so ruined that no details oftheir construction
\nare visible. The N. gateway of the second period (at 240\u00b0,
\n730 ft.) has now a revetment lining each side of the passageway,
\nbut this was built after the wall had fallen into ruin;
\nit may be modern, but is perhaps more likely to be associated
\nwith the construction of the irregular huts. The gap in the E.
\nside ofthe earlier rampart (at 95\u00b0,730 ft.) is a later breach.
\nBy analogy with other forts in Caernarvonshire (e.g. Garn
\nBoduan, No. r523) these defences should probably be associated
\nwith round huts, which are frequent on the slopes of the
\nhill, although only nine or ten can be identified. within the
\nlarger defended area. They range from IS ft. to 25 ft. in
\ndiameter, with walls 3-4 ft. thick, generally faced with laid
\nmasonry but sometimes with orthostats. Some may have been
\nobliterated by the irregular huts. One (at 135\u00b0, 770 ft.) seems
\nto have been robbed of all its large stones, and another (at 3\u00b0,
\nr60 ft.) has been subdivided by a cross-wall (cJ. Nos. 59 and 61
\nat Tre’r Ceiri, Vu!. 11, No. r056).<\/p>\n

\"garn1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"garn2\"<\/a>\"garn3\"<\/a>
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Apart from the defences, however, the most conspicuous
\nfeature of the site is the mass of small huts, irregular or roughly
\nquadrilateral, which have been formed in the natural scree and
\nin the ruins of the earlier rampart (Plate 4).3 Associated with
\nthese are irregular enclosures formed by low banks of piled
\nstones (Plate 6). The character of these remains can best be
\njudged from the two plans showing limited areas to a larger
\nscale (Figs. 86, 87). The huts resemble those on Tre’r Ceiri
\nwhich are probably of the latter half of the Roman period
\n(Vol. H, p. 102b), and the enclosures are similar to the extramural
\nenclosures there, but on that si.te the huts lie within
\nthe fort and the enclosures are outside the main rampart. The
\nlong building close to the footpath (at 75\u00b0, 360 ft.) seems later
\nthan an enclosure wall, and two other structures (at 58\u00b0,190 ft.
\nand 155\u00b0, 280 ft.) are probably, from their regular plan, later
\nthan the mass of irregular huts. On surface evidence, it is
\nimpossible to say whether these three are to be associated with
\nthe 12th-century castle on the summit or whether they represent
\nthe remains of later hafodau.
\nThe latest defences on the hill are those which strengthen the
\ncrag forming the summit (Fig. 86). Although no mortar has
\nbeen used, and they show little similarity to any known
\nmedieval work, there can be little doubt that these represent
\nthe ‘castle of the sons of Owain’ mentioned by Giraldus
\nCambrensis.4 The form of the ground gives a rough resemblance
\nto a motte and bailey, but it seems unlikely that the
\nposition was selected on this account.
\nAccess to the summit is difficult except on the N.E., where
\nthe lowest courses of a wall remain in places. A short stretch
\nof facing stones one course high also survives on the S. Apart
\nfrom these, any structure which may have occupied the summit
\nhas left no surface traces. On the lower ground to the S.,
\nhowever, the remains are better preserved. Near the N. end
\nof the E. wall (at 150\u00b0, 80 ft.) was the entrance, a simple gap
\nabout 6 ft. wide. It seems to have been deliberately blocked in
\nantiquity, and only the S. revetment of the entrance passage
\nis visible. To the S. the wall is well-preserved, about 8 ft.
\nwide and standing about 3 ft. high externally; the parapetwalk
\nsurvives for most of its length. The masonry is smaller
\nthan that of the early ramparts and spalls have been used in
\nplaces between the larger stones. The remainder of the circuit
\nis morc ruinous, and part of the W. side has collapsed and is
\nno longer distinguishable from the scree upon which it was
\nbuilt. It is not clear whether the circular hollow near the middle
\nofthat side (at 1910
\n, IIoft.) is original or whether it is a recent
\ndisturbance; the latter seems more probable.
\nThe only other feature within the defences is the Well
\n(at 23\u00b0, 415 ft.), a pit about 2 ft. square by 18 ins. deep, lined
\nwith slabs. There is no evidence as to its date.
\nOther structural remains to be associated with the hillfort
\noccur on the slopes ofthe hill. Terraced trackways ascend the
\nhill in zig-zags to the N. and S. gateways in the outer rampart.
\nThe terracing does not continue beyond these points, and they
\nare therefore probably of the second period of construction.
\nThat on the S. is particularly well built and graded. Round
\nhuts exist on all sides except the E., but the greatest concentration
\nis on the N. and N.W. The huts here are constructed like
\nthose within the defences, but form levelled platforms in the<\/p>\n

steep hillside, and range from 10 ft. to 25ft. in diameter. They
\nare generally very well preserved. Groups of small irregular
\nhuts also occur, mainly on the N. and S.E. Those on the N. are
\nenclosed by an irregular rampart forming a loop with its
\nends on the main outer wall. On the S.E. also there is a length
\nof similar but slighter rampart terminating on masses of scree.
\nIt contains two gateways (at II7\u00b0, II90 ft. and II9\u00b0, 1210 ft.),
\nboth simple gaps 5-6 ft. wide. On S. and S.E., also, are two
\nareas of irregular enclosures.
\nI Giraldi Cambrensis Opera (Rolls Series, 1868), VI, p. 123 ‘dua
\ncastra lapidea de nova sita fuerunt; unum … Deutrait; alterum ..\u2022
\nin capite Lhein, quod erat filium Oenei, cui nomen Karnmadrun.’
\n2 There has been no scientific excavation and the amount of disturbance
\nby casual visitors is fortunately small.
\n3 Plate 4 at IIOo, 830 ft. from .1, looking S.W.
\n1 See n. I above.
\n39N.E.
\nSH 27323504 13 v 58 39 N.E. Unnoted
\nSH 28003520
\nCondition: ruined but undisturbed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(1650) CARN FADRuN (Figs. 85-7, plates 4, 5, 6) is a hill of igneous rock which forms the dominating feature of western Lleyn. Its sides rise steeply for more than 200 ft., and are broken by rocks and scree, but the ascent, though difficult, is not generally impossible. A little above the 1,000 ft. contour […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":13,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/431"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=431"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/431\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":471,"href":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/431\/revisions\/471"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/13"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/crwydro.co.uk\/edern\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}