Monument record 1677/1/1 - Hunsbury hillfort ramparts (Morphed Aerial Archaeology Interpretation)

Earthwork: Small scale excavation

{2} Illustration of Hunsbury hillfort entitled "A Plan and Views of the Military Work called Hunsborough near Northampton".Text by Mr Urban - identifies 4 entrances "all belonging orignally to the work". "That on the east is the largest. The south entrance is for the most part hid by the underwood, which covers the hill from the east entrance all around the south side. The ditch is very bold and grand round the the whole circumference…..The present proprietor, it is reported, intends to sow the whole plot with furze for a fox covert".

{3} The camp is almost circular, being slighly oval in shape, enclosed by a dry fosse, originally twenty but now fifteen feet in depth and fifty-five in width. There was originally an agger or breast-work on the inner edge of the fosse but this had nearly disappeared after centuries of ploughing.

{4} The fort now consists of a roughly elliptical area, 1.6ha in area, bounded by an inner rampart and central ditch and with an outer rampart on the northwest, north and northeast sides. Almost the same picture is recorded by Morton and by Bridges. The inner rampart is the largest of the remaining defences and is now a steep-sided feature with a markedly narrow summit, usually less than 0.5m across. It rises to a height of 3.7m above the interior and 4.5m above the ditch. These dimensions taken from the present shape of this rampart are, however; unlikely to bear any relationship to the original form. Except on the east the rear of the rampart has been cut away by the ironstone quarrying in the interior which has not only produced the steep-sided appearance but, as the land there is up to 2m lower than it was prior to quarrying, has also made it appear much higher. The original form is also obscured by what appears to be a small hedge bank on top of the rampart in places. On the south east side, where the quarrying did not take place and where, therefore, the original internal land surface still remains, the internal rampart hardly exists at all. The present low scarp is partly a hedge bank and partly a negative lynchet produced by modern and perhaps ancient cultivation of the interior.
The central ditch remains intact around almost the entire circuit of the fort. As a result of the external and internal quarrying it is difficult to ascertain its exact depth below the natural ground surface but it is probable that it was about 2m deep. A number of low banks and scarps crossed the bottom of the ditch on the east and north east and there is a small pit just north of the south east entrance. No date or purpose can be assigned to these.
Immediately north east of the north west entrance the ditch has been partly filled by later material for a distance of about 30m. To the south of the same entrance the ditch appears to be blocked completely by later spoil in two places, so that the inner and outer ramparts have the form of a single broad-topped feature with a large hole in the centre. However, traces of the outer rampart’s inner edge still just survive, showing that the material is a later dump. This material, as well as that in the ditch bottom to the north, can be assigned to the period of ironstone quarrying.
The outer rampart does not survive on the south west and south, having been probably destroyed by the old drift-way which follows the parish boundary between Hardingstone and Wootton. On the east only a low bank 0.5m high remains and this is perhaps in part an old hedge bank. The original rampart may have been destroyed by or for cultivation. On the north east, north and north west this outer rampart still exists 2-2.5m above the bottom of the ditch inside it. The outer face of this rampart has, however, been largely cut away by ironstone quarrying. The result of this is that although the rampart is now up to 4m high above the present ground surface in the north west this is at least 2m below the original land surface. Indeed, the lower part of the apparent rampart is a near vertical face of undisturbed ironstone, marking the edge of the old quarry. This rampart, like the inner one, is now much higher and steeper than it was originally.
There are now three entrances through the ramparts and the same number certainly existed before the ironstone quarrying commenced. It is no longer possible to be certain whether any of these are original. Dryden, who saw the site during the quarrying process thought that the north entrance was not original but that the other two were. One apparent reason for this opinion was that he thought that the old drift-way once passed through the fort and that it was later diverted round it to the south. The south east entrance may be original. The adjoining ditches terminate against the sloping causeway in cusped ends and there is certainly no sign of later alterations. The north west entrance is very different. It is a straight cut through the ramparts with its surface level with the quarry floors both inside and outside the fort and with vertical faces of ironstone visible in the ends of the ramparts. This indicates that it was used during the quarrying phase as a tramway access point. There is, however, good evidence that this entrance actually dates from the period of quarrying. Dryden, while describing three entrances as existing before the quarrying commenced, also says that ‘about 1880 . . An entrance was made in the north west into the camp about 70 feet to the north of the old entrance. This figure of 70ft (21.3m) is important for it shows that the older entrance lay at a point where the ramparts are now joined together by a large amount of later spoil. It seems likely that this earlier entrance was completely blocked in 1880 and a new entrance cut a few metres to the north.
The north entrance is also a straight cut with ironstone rock exposed in the ends of the ramparts and with low banks blocking the ditch termination. The width (3.5m), parallel sides and level surface suggest that, though perhaps an older entrance, it was re-cut to take a tramway during the ironstone quarrying. Nevertheless, the fact that the original ground inside and outside the fort at this point is 0.25m below the surface of this entrance suggests that it had been abandoned before the quarrying was completed.
Within the defences the original land surface probably sloped gently down from the south east to the north west. The ironstone quarrying altered this situation completely for the works commenced to the south of the new entrance and ‘digging nearly up to the edge of the scarp . . . Gradually wheeled round to the north, working from the entrance as a pivot’ (Dryden). Between 3m and 5m of material was removed in the operation but, because the ironstone ran out towards the south east, a small area in the south east corner of the interior was left unquarried. Today most of the land within the defences is uneven but the unquarried section is still visible in the south east, its west edge marked by a long scarp up to 2m high. In view of the discoveries made during the quarrying this fragment of the undisturbed interior is of considerable archaeological importance.

{12} Erosion on the rampart has meant that much of the glacis rampart has been lost revealing reddened soils and patches of vitrified material associated with the assumed destruction of the phase 1 box rampart. A geophysical survey was carrid out to locate areas of possible vitrification on the inner rampart. High magnetic values were recorded from much of the circuit of the rampart. Whilst there was a high correlation with deposits of reddened soils and vitrified material, enhanced magnetic readings were recorded from areas without the reddened soils. The high readings tended to concentrate on, and slightly below, the outer break of slope of the rampart.

<1> Northamptonshire SMR Collection of Aerial Photographs, Used with NMR & CUCAP collections (Photographs). SNN104822.

<2> 1798, The Gentleman's Magazine (1798), p.1020-1021 (unchecked) (Journal). SNN44045.

<3> Baker Rev.R.S., 1891, Hunsbury or Danes' Camp, 21/66 (checked) (Article). SNN46565.

<4> Royal Commission on The Historical Monuments of England, 1985, An Inventory of The Historical Monuments in The County of Northampton, p.277 site 14 (checked) (Series). SNN77383.

<5> Morton J., 1712, The Natural History of Northamptonshire, p.537 (unchecked) (Book). SNN10113.

<6> Bridges J., 1791, The History and Antiquities of Northamptonshire, p.358 (unchecked) (Book). SNN77325.

<7> Dryden H.E.L., 1885, Hunsbury or Danes Camp, and the Discoveries There, (checked) (Article). SNN22391.

<8> GEORGE T.J., 1917, Early man in Northamptonshire with particular reference to the late Celtic period as illustrated by Hunsbury Camp, (checked) (Report). SNN71868.

<9> Doubleday H A (ed), 1902, The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Northamptonshire, p.147 (checked) (Series). SNN100368.

<10> Serjeantson R.M.; Ryland W. (Editors), 1906, The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Northamptonshire, p.399 (checked) (Series). SNN100369.

<11> Fell, C.I., 1936, The Hunsbury Hill-Fort, Northants. A new survey of the material, (checked) (Journal). SNN105242.

<12> Jackson D.; Tingle M., 2004, Hunsbury Hill Fort: A New Survey, Appendix 1 (checked) (Full Report). SNN105160.

<13> Jackson, D. & Tingle, M., 2012, An Archaeological Survey of the Hunsbury Hillfort Defences, 37/125 (checked) (Article). SNN108365.

<14> Ordnance Survey, 1950s/1960s, Ordnance Survey Record Cards, SP75NW5 (checked) (Index). SNN443.

<15> The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1907, Archaeologia (60), p.289-90 (unchecked) (Journal). SNN59447.

Record last edited

Dec 7 2012 2:54PM