The Mystery of the Vitrified Forts

About sixty prehistoric stone forts in Scotland have vitrified walls, where the stone was melted into glass. How was it done?

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Ancient Mysteries, General Science

Skeptoid #326
September 4, 2012
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
Also available in French

Vitrified Forts
Closeup of vitrified rock
in a Scottish fort.
Public domain photo

For over 250 years, archaeologists studying ancient Scottish ruins have reported a type of construction said to defy explanation. About sixty of these rough stone wall enclosures have been found throughout Scotland, and even a few scattered across mainland Europe. Most are prehistoric. Called vitrified forts, they're notable for a unique and surprising feature. The rocks that make up the walls were originally stacked dry, with no mortar; but have been fused together into a solid surface through a process called vitrification, the transformation into glass. How can rock be melted into glass using prehistoric technology? Some say that it can't because the temperatures required to do it are far too high, and that the only plausible explanation is an ancient atomic blast.

Stories of primitives possessing advanced technologies are not new here on Skeptoid. We run into them pretty routinely; and from what I've seen, they're usually a sort of shortcut detour from doing the extra work required to actually solve a mystery: "Strange glass-walled forts in Scotland? Ancient atomic blast. The ancients possessed modern superweapons. End of mystery."

Not only does that usually turn out to be factually wrong, it also deprives us of whatever the truly fascinating question is — and the answer, assuming we have one yet; and we don't always. But at least we learn what we don't know and why we don't yet know it.

So here's the way we should explore the mystery of the vitrified forts. I like to break it down into a four step process:

First, and most important, find out whether the observed mystery actually exists. Are there really ancient glassy forts across the Scottish countryside? And if there are, are they truly as reported?

Second, assuming we find that the vitrified forts do exist, check the archaeological literature and see what's known about them. See if the real experts have already answered these questions. How were they made? Why were they made?

Third is a step we take if the experts don't have a solution, which might well be the case. We look at the atomic blast conjecture. Are the forts truly consistent with that, and will we find any evidence to support the claim? Although this step can often seem silly, it's not at all. Think how cool it would be if that did turn out to be the case. Think of the neat stuff we'd learn about how to detect whether an atomic explosion happened somewhere. Think of the ramifications for our understanding of history.

Fourth and finally, we take an assessment and establish our provisional conclusion. It's entirely possible that we end up concluding the answer's not known. That's also a positive outcome, because it raises exciting possibilities for what the next steps should be.

So let's begin with our first and most important question. Do vitrified forts exist, ancient stone walls with their sides melted into glass? This one's pretty easy to answer, because there's plenty of archaeological literature about them. Yes, they do exist, and the popularly given number of about sixty known examples in Scotland is correct. Some are small grassy lumps, hardly recognizable; some are large and exposed enough that visitors can walk right up and examine them. They're great, sloping piles of stone, often built on hilltops, and enclosing an area that we usually presume was to be defended. Timbers were often used to reinforce the walls from within, and from these timbers we've been able to get radiocarbon dating telling us when the forts were built. Most were built or repaired in various centuries during the first millennium BCE, around 700 to 300 BCE.

The vitrification is not easy to spot. It doesn't look like glass; it looks like the native white rocks embedded in a sort of darker asphalt. Sometimes there are lava-like bubbles in the darker vitrified stone, and sometimes there are solidified drips; but without knowing what you're looking at, it's unimpressive visually. If you do know what you're looking at, it's really something else.

This brings us to our second step, finding out what's already known about the forts. When studying the vitrified forts, context is a crucial consideration. We must understand the technological context in which the forts were built. The first millennium BCE was smack dab in the middle of the British Iron Age, a historical era named after the smelting of ore into iron. Metalworking, forging, and vitrification were well known to the people of the age. It was not a mysterious technology. The melting of rocks to serve the purposes of mankind was the technological focus of the period. And even in this early date, it was not a new concept. The Iron Age was preceded by the Bronze Age. Mankind had been melting ore for perhaps 10,000 years, ever since (nobody really knows for certain) accidental discoveries were made in pottery kilns.

So when the archaeologists study the vitrified forts and report that we don't know how they were made, all we're saying is that we don't know exactly what method was used. We're not saying that it is a surprising or inexplicable accomplishment. Any number of methods could have been used; we just don't know which. The vitrified rocks require about 1100°C to vitrify in the observed manner. So let's take a quick look at what various researchers have discovered.

The most famous experiment, widely trumpeted in virtually all writings about the vitrified forts, was performed in 1934 and repeated in 1937 by Wallace Thorneycroft and Vere Gordon Childe who built a fire against an experimental stone wall, built to the observed specifications. As described in the 1966-67 edition of The Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland:

The experimental wall was 6 ft. wide and 6 ft. high, with horizontal timbers interlaced with stone slabs. After ignition through brushwood fires around the wall face, the wall began to burn and after three hours it collapsed. The core of basalt rubble became red hot, probably reaching 800 to 1200°C, and after excavation the bottom part of the rubble was found to be vitrified, with rock droplets and casts of timber preserved. The experiment proved that a timber-laced wall of this character could become vitrified through fire, but the explanation of the reasons for such widespread treatment of these Iron Age forts remains uncertain.

By that, they meant whether the vitrification was done deliberately by the builders, accidentally in a fire, or deliberately by attacking forces. Unfortunately this is an anthropological question, the certain answer to which is lost to history. Is it the result of an attack? Vitrification by attackers did not breach or destroy the walls, nor make them easier to scale. Builders may have done it on purpose; why, we don't know. It did not make the wall stronger or more difficult to breach. It was not always done; and even on most vitrified forts, it was usually done inconsistently in various patches. It could have been as simple as that the practice was traditional or ceremonial, or even merely aesthetic. We know it was done; we're just not sure why. All this suggests is that the reason is unknown, not that it was necessarily extraordinary.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

Some evidence suggests that on a few forts, the vitrification was done from within the wall, during construction. Such walls were usually built with solid stone facings on the inner and outer sides, with rubble filling in the center. During construction, fires could have been built in the center of the wall, covered with turf for insulation, and allowed to vitrify the stone faces. Rubble could then be filled in, and construction would move up to the next level where the process would repeat. Other vitrified walls show evidence that the fire was built against the outside of the wall, as Thorneycroft and Childe did in their test. Keep in mind also that Thorneycroft and Childe were archaeologists with minimal stone melting skills, while the men who vitrified the forts two and a half millennia before them were expert professionals whose knowledge was based on centuries of experience.

It's important to keep in mind that wherever an Iron Age fortification was under construction, the supporting infrastructure of workers and local people would certainly have included blacksmiths, whose furnaces of the day reached some 1300°C. There was no lack for expertise in the arts of building smelting fires or keeping them hot.

And so without a complete explanation for the forts from archaeology, we proceed to step three, evaluation of the fringe conjecture that ancient atomic blasts were used to produce the vitrification. This suggestion is unnecessary. The temperatures required were well within the capabilities of the technology of the day, and have been repeated experimentally. And, of course, the elephant in the room is that atomic weapons were not available 2500 years ago — or, to be precisely scientific, not known to have been available. At the earliest experimental atomic blast, the Trinity test in 1945, the temperature reached 5.5 million Kelvins, 4,000 times hotter than what was needed to vitrify stone forts, and left blatantly obvious chemical signatures that nobody has yet reported finding at a vitrified fort site. This is all to say nothing of the virtually insurmountable task of rearranging practically all known human history to accommodate such a twist.

Some have also suggested that some variant of Greek fire may have caused the effect. Greek fire was an ancient weapon employed by the Byzantines about 1000 years later, but some sources have Athenians using something similar during the time of the vitrified forts. Although its exact composition is not known, Greek fire was probably simple petroleum collected from natural wells in the Middle East, useful in naval warfare for its ability to float on water while burning. Although vaguely plausible as an explanation, Greek fire would have been logistically difficult to transport such a great distance to serve a purpose that could have been served more easily by local wood, and likely would not have burned nearly hot enough nor long enough to vitrify the rock.

This brings us to our final step, assessing what we've learned, and establishing a provisional conclusion. Like all science-based conclusions, it's provisional because it's always subject to new information that may arise. We've learned that the technology required to create the vitrified forts was not extraordinary. Nothing found at the sites requires any re-examination of the history of knowledge. The questions that do remain are sociological. Why were the forts vitrified, and who vitrified them? I'm happy to report that we don't know yet, and that this is one more item to add to our list of mysteries still to be solved.

Brian Dunning

© 2012 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Childress, D. Lost Cities of Atlantis, Ancient Europe, & the Mediterranean. Stelle: Adventures Unlimited Press, 1995. 390-396.

Coles, J. "Experimental Archaeology." Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1 Jan. 1966, Volume 99: 15.

Editors. "Vitrification of Hill Forts." Brigantes Nation. Brigantes Nation, 10 Aug. 2002. Web. 2 Sep. 2012. <>

Maclagan, C. Hill Forts, Stone Circles, and Other Structural Remains of Ancient Scotland. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1875.

Thorneycroft, W., Childe, V. "The Experimental Production of the Phenomena Distinctive of Vitrified Forts." Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1 Jan. 1938, Volume 72: 44-55.

Williams, J. An Account of Some Remarkable Ancient Ruins. Edinburgh: William Creech, 1877.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "The Mystery of the Vitrified Forts." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 4 Sep 2012. Web. 5 Aug 2015. <>


10 most recent comments | Show all 69 comments

Just out of interest, while people were so hard it building walls out of the local rock and setting fire to them to see what happened. Has it occurred to anyone out there in alternative history world to heat up some of that original stuff to check IT'S melting point relative to the original rock, not to mention how corrosive it is at temperature? Some people can run to David Icke or Von-Dai...whatever his name is, but I'll opt for a chemist and maybe the man who's spent a lifetime re-lining the melting vessels in a steel foundry to give me the answer to this one.

glen lima, bermuda
April 13, 2014 10:38am

What is (or, I should say, what WAS) the climate like in the areas where these exist? Cold winters? More than wondering how it was done, I keep wondering WHY it was done. A heating method, perhaps, to keep humans (or aliens!) warm and comfortable?

Gramaw, Savannah
May 30, 2014 3:15pm

Lightning can cause vitrification... So if the builder knew that from observing nature, they could then plant a log or pole to use as a lightning rod and within few seasons, they could have had free vitrification upon their hill top forts

Doc Lemm, Ocean Shores, WA
December 21, 2014 8:02am

What's the evidence (oh scientist) that they were forts? Human remains? Weapons? Privies, garbage heaps? Are they of any archeological interest aside from being vitrified, and distinguishing them from other old forts? Or evidence that their use as forts (if and where established) coincided with the time of the vitrification?

I like the coronal mass ejection theory, remnants of an earth-scorching episode.

astrodreamer, NY
February 7, 2015 12:51pm

While I don't dismiss the idea that these forts may actually be a lot older than appears and their vitrification may be due tot eh 'earth ruining' work of Satan in the years before the Flood I have to suggest that the vitrification may make them reflective and similar to the one in Ireland?

Rose White, West Yorkshire
March 17, 2015 1:29pm

That pix is Brian not Rose!

What is important to understand about the vitrified forts is the great quantity of wood or other fuel needed to do the job!
In UK there was unlikely to have been such vast quantities of wood - I'm of the old generation who used to gather wood for our 5th November Guy Fawkes bonfire and while the fires got hot we didn't see vitrified bricks etc in the ashes - and also I lived right next to a brickworks and their old fashioned kiln used coke which does burn hot - so I am dubious of the woodfired vitrification.
In Canada an old nickel? mining operation used ore piled on masses of wood for initial smelting but Canada has vast forests.

Rose White, West Yorkshire
March 17, 2015 1:55pm

I just came back from the vitrified fort at Dunagoil, on the Isle of Bute.

What about dragons? Seems obvious to me. :>

Dorcas Loone, Isle of Bute
April 14, 2015 9:47am

IT REALLY IS A PROOF of previous industrial time[s] ... amongst "others" [no further comment about "others" - for now ;) ] ... yet :
1. the atomic blast possibility HAS TO BE REMOVED ... anyone that has seen atomic bombs recors would know that the pressure wave destrois everything in its "way" ;
2. I - for one - consider it is highly posibile it was made using ionic implantation - pulse method [the pulse shreds metal alloys into "ionic dust" and it melts rock and bronze] ... and last historic "age" seems to have started from "bronze age" without a serious proof of "imediate" "rock age" prior to "bronze age";

;) M.ortus signum cum, Resita
July 8, 2015 10:57am

I am an archaeologist who has excavated several vitrified forts (Sheep Hill, Finavon and Dun Lagaidh). I wrote a chapter about them in 1976 ('The vitrified forts of Scotland', in D.W. Harding (ed) Hillforts: later prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland. Academic Press: London. pp. 205-35). Why is this not referred to? My chapter explains that vitrified forts are burned examples of timber-framed forts and explains the evidence in favour of this view. I don't think anyone should speculate on vitrified forts without being familiar with all the excavated evidence.

Euan MacKie, Old Kilpatrick
July 27, 2015 3:04am

Wasn't scotland covered with mighty forests? like the ancient Caledonian Forest that once covered the Scottish Highlands.
Its said Iceland has lost 90 percent of its forests do to the vikings, and that they burned massive areas of forests in scotland.
The core of basalt rubble became red hot, probably reaching 800 to 1200°C.
Which happen to be the temperature of a forest fire or wildfire,
Quote from (
An average surface fire on the forest floor might have flames reaching 1 metre in height and can reach temperatures of 800°C (1,472°F) or more. Under extreme conditions a fire can give off 10,000 kilowatts or more per metre of fire front. This would mean flame heights of 50 metres or more and flame temperatures exceeding 1200°C (2,192°F).

Andri, Reykjavik
July 31, 2015 9:38am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid

Listener Feedback: Natural History
Skeptoid #478, Aug 4 2015
Read | Listen (11:36)
Wag the Dogman
Skeptoid #477, Jul 28 2015
Read | Listen (13:03)
The Chess-Playing Mechanical Turk
Skeptoid #476, Jul 21 2015
Read | Listen (11:21)
Listener Feedback: History vs. Pseudohistory
Skeptoid #475, Jul 14 2015
Read | Listen (11:44)
Solfeggio Frequencies
Skeptoid #474, Jul 7 2015
Read | Listen (13:10)
#1 -
The Baldoon Mystery
Read | Listen
#2 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#3 -
The Legend of the Flying Dutchman
Read | Listen
#4 -
Read | Listen
#5 -
The Haunted Dybbuk Box
Read | Listen
#6 -
Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Read | Listen
#7 -
The Many Voices of Frank's Box
Read | Listen
#8 -
The Death of Rasputin
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.