Fort?

For the second time recently I've visited an archaeological site, which is marked on OS maps as a 'fort', only to find the label on the map didn't really fit what I saw on the ground. I wonder if the sites recorded by the RCHM in the early part of the last century might benefit from reevaluation in light of developments in archaeological techniques and theory. I didn't see a fort. I saw an oblong come oval enclosure delineated by a ditch and rampart, other than one end of the oval which was open with no visible defences. The 'defences' are represented by a relatively shallow ditch with quite a flat bottomed in places, backed by a rampart maybe 2m or so high and topped by a very slight bank. With such slight defences and the open end, I just don't see it as a fort. Something else was happening here. What ever uses it might have served, it's in a lovely setting. Overgrown Hazel coppice with a scattering of deciduous Oak and Ash, until recently the floor would have been carpeted in swathes of Bluebells and Ramsons, their remnants are all about. There's an active Badger set just within the enclosure, near the phallic Oak, evidence of other inhabitants and the sound of bird song fills the canopy. It's a very alive place. It's a place that calls you to sit and chill awhile.