# Scottish stone forts burned - to make them stronger



## Brian G Turner (Mar 25, 2016)

A number of stone forts in the Highlands of Scotland show signs of having been burned - surely a sign of attack and destruction?

But now a team of Vulcanologists suggest that the burning was deliberate, and done when the fort was constructed - in order to make the mortar between the stone far stronger:

Want to Build a Strong Fortress? Set It On Fire


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Mar 25, 2016)

The first time it was an accident ...


----------



## Parson (Mar 25, 2016)

I suppose it makes sense, if a major way of breaching a fort was by a battering ram. But would the trade off for stronger mortar at the expense of weakened stone be worth it? ---- And how would the ancients have come to the conclusion in the first place? Its doesn't seem logical, so there would have to have been some sort of "Aha!" moment. Ray might be right, but even then, who would have seen that the walls integrity was more, or even suspected it was more?


----------



## Danny McG (Oct 29, 2016)

So when you consider  the tales of the City Burners in prehistoric times , the ones who spent twenty odd years  putting all the bronze age civilizations to the torch, were they just a bit over enthusiastic?


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Oct 29, 2016)

The idea may have come from pottery kilns.
The early form of these buildings were fired (now its made from superadobe but there was a fired one or two on the site when I went):  CalEarth - California Institute of Earth Architecture   The idea came when the architect noticed some of the oldest surviving structures in the Middle East were kilns.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Oct 30, 2016)

I'm surprised this is being treated as a new theory, since I read a book about this more than twenty years ago.  There was a whole chapter about whether it was done on purpose to strengthen the fort and how it might have been done if that were the case.  I can't remember the title, but I can estimate when I read it, since it inspired me to use a vitrified fort in one of my books and I know when that was.


----------



## Boneman (Oct 30, 2016)

Makes sense in one way - if it didn't collapse when they burned it deliberately, it wouldn't collapse if besiegers tried the same thing. I'm sure Guy Fawkes could have used this in his defence in the attempt to ascertain if Parliament was bomb-proof...


----------



## mosaix (Nov 1, 2016)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> I'm surprised this is being treated as a new theory, since I read a book about this more than twenty years ago.  There was a whole chapter about whether it was done on purpose to strengthen the fort and how it might have been done if that were the case.  I can't remember the title, but I can estimate when I read it, since it inspired me to use a vitrified fort in one of my books and I know when that was.



Ditto. I'm sure I've read this before but can't remember where.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 1, 2016)

I remember hearing (and seeing) this on Arthur C. Clarkes Mysterious world broadcast in 1980 (A program I, as a nine year old, watched avidly)

I think this is the video of the programme discussing it:


Apparently the video won't play through us (I've left it in, in case it does) 




Or type in 'Arthur C. Clarkes Mysterious World Scottish Vitrified Forts' on Youtube and find 
*Scotlands vitrified hill forts- Arthur C.Clarkes biggest unsolved mystery *


----------

