Monument record 1677/1/1 - Hunsbury hillfort ramparts

The defences of the fort now encompass a roughly elliptical area and comprise an inner rampart and central ditch and with an outer rampart surviving on the northwest, north and northeast sides. Excavations through the inner ramparts suggest that there were two main phases of construction. The earliest phase consisted of a box rampart constructed from the ditch upcast and revetted with a line of wooden posts at the rear. The ditch appears to have been re-cut at a later date and the rampart altered to one of glacis form.

{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. When the gap was cut through the fosse to admit the tramway the interior edge of the fosse (or breastwork) showed traces of an intense fire on the inner slope beneath the surface ans some huge lumps of a vitrified substance were dug up. These are indications of something of the nature of a vitrified glacis, or agger, having been added on some occasion to strengthen the defences.

{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.
Excavation of 1952; 2 trenches were cut across the inner bank & ditch on the north-east and south-east sides of Hunsbury Hillfort. The south-east section showed that the original ditch had been re-cut & the timber-laced rampart had been converted to a glacis rampart. This later rampart had been extended over the back of the earlier one and overlay a pit and a post- hole which were not excavated. This evidence has been used to suggest that there was originally an undefended settlement on the site but it is clear that the evidence of settlement - the pit and post-hole - only predates the second phase of the rampart, not the first.

{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.

{16, 17} Two sections were cut across the bank and ditch in 1952 as part of an archaeological training course.
The north-east cutting showed that the ditch was 5m deep and showed no evidence of recutting.
The rampart: the rampart stood to a max height of 1.7m but was truncated at the rear by previous quarrying and erosion. The core consisted almost entirely of horizontally laid ironstone or sandstone rubble but a layer of burnt limestone occurred on the south side of the cutting at a height of 0.8m-1.04m. The rubble is therefore likely to have derived from the upper levels fo the adjacent ditch. Remnants of a 'limestone wall' occurred at the rear but towards the east gave way to simlar sized pieces of stone. The rampart was timber strengthened and of the eight recorded post holes, five were on the line of the rear revetment. These posts were set in individual holes and not in a continuous trench. They were irregular in alignment and spacing. Two of the post holes found beneath the rampart were roughly at right angles to its alignment and may have formed a row with one of the posts in the rear revetment. A line of burnt material and a possible burnt horizontal timer were seen in assocation with the post holes. The position or nature of the rampart face could not be clearly established. A vertical break in the stratigraphy adjacent to the post hole at the north end might suggest that the front of the rampart was revetted by post-supported timber planking. The post hole at the east end appears to have been embedded in the "stone wall".

The east cutting comprised a flat-bottomed ditch originally 5.5m deep and later recut to almost its original depth but with a V-shaped profile. The rampart had been damaged by 19th century earth-moving, but two phases of construction could be discerned. The core was initially supported by a continuous line of posts at the rear with a possible revetment wall as well. The core of this phase was blue clay obained from the base of the ditch. During the later phase, the posts appear to have been removed and the height of the rampart increased. The ditch may have been re-cut at his time and the rampart rebuilt in glacis form. [when the ditch and rampart form an unbroken slope from top to bottom]
A new section was cut across the internal bank in 1988, the trench was sited on the NW side of the defences at a point where the bank is seriously eroding into an interior lowered by 19th century quarrying. At this point the rampart survives to a height of 1.75m and there was evidence of an earlier rampart as a timber laced box structure, there was further evidence that this had been subjected to intense fire.

The rampart was initially of a box-type with its individual compartments filled with rubble upcast from the digging out of the adjacent ditch.Calibrated radio-carbon dates from burnt wood and charcoal provide a date for the box strucure of between 770-395BC. Some of the timberwork was later burnt, perhaps causing part of the back of the rampart to collapse, and the earthwork could have eventually been renewed as a glacis slope.
The rear revetment: the inner face of the rampart was supported by a stockade of closely-set posts which may have been reinforced or faced with stonework. The posts were set in a continuous trench. The rampart was orignially at least 1.7m high. Pieces of charred work from oak posts were found in situ and there is little doubt that part of the structure was eventually destroyed by fire. Charred wood from a post in the rear revetment was radiocarbon dated to 405-270BC.
The front revetment: the original width of the rampart remains uncertain. Large blocks of sandstone spanned to possible alignment of post holes and at the west end of the trench extended transversely across the rampart. It Is conceivable that the posts at the front were set in a stone revetment but there is little evidence of this. If the post holes represent the line of the front revetment the box rampart would have been around 2.5m wide at this point.
Discussion of post hole and timber alignments. Charred wood in the core of the revetment was radiocarbon dated to 755-395BC.
Later developments: the upper filling of the box rampart was quite different to the layers below and probably represents a separate phase of construction. The filling filled the slots were the lateral timbers had been burnt, rotted or removed. Burnt blocks of limestone, not burnt in situ, were present, suggesting that they repreesnted debris associated with the burning of the box rampart. The layers above the layer of burnt limeston probably represent several phases of collapse and reconstruction.

{19} The results of the excavations of the Iron Age hillfort rampart at Hunsbury Hill in 1988 are reviewed, with the original plan and sections. Three radiocarbon dates from the defences have been recalibrated to enable a restatement of the date of construction of the original box rampart as c. 550-400 cal BC. A radiocarbon date from the continuous inner palisade slot is C.320 - 350 cal BC. This provides no support for the suggestion that it was an initial standalone construction, pre-dating the box rampart. In fact, it may indicate that this revetment was an integral part of the box rampart construction that was subject to later refurbishment.

{20} Plans & sections & drawings by Dryden;

{21} A plan in Northampton Public Library, dated 1798, shows the Hunsbury hillfort shaped like a playing card shape, with entrances to the east and northwest. Another plan dated 1837, now in Northampton Museum, shows the fort with three entrances; the additional entrance to the northeast was thought to be modern because the ditch was not completely filled, whereas the northwest entrance was said to be old. The bank and ditch were said to have been planted (with trees?) by that time.
In 1874 Dryden noted that the bank had been long spread and showed little relief, and that the east entrance was at that time 12ft wide. Quarrying for ironstone took place within the hillfort between 1880 and 1886 and much of the interior was then destroyed. A quarry face appears to have left exposed close to the back of the rampart on the north side, but elsewhere the quarried area was backfilled and quarry spoil could have been thrown on to the rampart itself. A new tramway entrance was made on the northwest side which was reported to be 70 yards north of the old entrance. The spoil from this appears to have been deposited in the ditch to the south.
Two sections were cut across the defences in 1952 under the direction of Professor Atkinson and at this time photographs show grass growing on the rampart and much less tree and shrub growth than there is today. This suggests that grazing may have kept the vegetation down until that time. Just prior to 1952 the eastern entrance was widened by a “bulldozer” to enable better access for farm machinery. This widening resulted in the front of the rampart being cut away to the north of the entrance and this can be seen on the section of Professor Atkinson’s east cutting. The hilifort is now situated in parkland and footpaths and cycle tracks have accelerated the erosion of the earthworks. Sections cut across the rampart by the writer in 1988, and by Professor Atkinson in 1952, show that on the north side the back of the rampart has seriously eroded in the section where quarrying presumably left an open face. In this area the height of the surviving rampart is now extremely variable and its central point is staggered in relation to the rear revettment.
Survey of Hunsbury Hillfort ramparts.

{22} Condition survey of the ramparts

{23} Trial trenching within the hillfort located the quarry edge, showing that the surviving unquarried area within the hillfort is larger than previously imagined. Three narrow trenches were cut to assess the surviving height and nature of the ramparts.
The cut to the north-east: the top of the rampart is undulating, but averages c1m above the quarry face. The face of the rampact comprises orange clay and ironstone. The rampart seals a buried soil, c0.1m thick.
The cut to the south: The rampart here survives to a height of 1.6m and was composed of similar clay and grits to that exposed in trench 1 (1677/1/5). There is a thin layer of charcoal at the base of the rampart but no obvious buried soil. There is no evidence of any of the layers from the phase 2 rampart surviving here. The homogeneous nature of the make-up suggests the surviving rampart is probably part of the core of the phase 1 structure.

The cut to the west: The undulating top and surviving height of the rampart here compares with that occurring in trench 1 (1677/1/5). Above the quarry face burnt stones and red earth occur in the rampart suggsting layers occurring at the back of the internal revetment survivie here (possibly phase 2?)


{25} Condition survey of the ramparts.

<1> Northamptonshire HER Collection of Aerial Photographs, Used with NMR & CUCAP collections (Aerial Photograph(s)). 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.

<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> Ryland, W, Adkins, D, and Serjeantson, R M, 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, 37/113-127 (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.

<16> JACKSON D., 1994, Excavations of the hillfort defences at Hunsbury, Northampton, in 1952 and 1988, 25/9-10 (checked) (Article). SNN76105.

<17> Musgrave E.C.; Tingle M. (editors), 1991, Archaeology in Northamptonshire 1990, 23/108 (checked) (Article). SNN100325.

<18> Pike, A (ed), 1989, South Midlands Archaeology: CBA Group 9 Newsletter (19), 19/27 (checked) (Journal). SNN100659.

<19> Andy Chapman & Dennis Jackson, 2023, A review of the structure and date of the Iron Age hillfort rampart on Hunsbury Hill, Northampton (Article). SNN116513.

<20> Dryden H.E.L., 1842-1895, Dryden Collection, Parish Files (checked) (Archive). SNN115.

<21> Jackson, D., 1997, An Archaeological and Botanical Survey of the Hunsbury Hillfort Defences, (checked) (Typescript Report). SNN43948.

<22> FREKE D., 1998, HUNSBURY HILL CAMP, NORTHAMPTON CONDITIONS SURVEY, (checked) (Report). SNN62842.

<23> Jackson D.; Tingle M., 2004, Hunsbury Hill Fort: A New Survey, p.4 (checked) (Full Report). SNN105160.

<24> Jackson D.; Tingle M., 2004, Hunsbury Hill Fort: A New Survey, Appendix 1 (checked) (Full Report). SNN105160.

<25> Jackson D.; Tingle M., 2004, Hunsbury Hill Fort: A New Survey, Appendix 3 (checked) (Full Report). SNN105160.

<26> ATKINSON R.J.C., 1987, Letter re. excavation of Hunsbury hillfort, (checked) (Letter). SNN46566.

<27> Northampton Museum Records, Lecture Note (unchecked) (Uncertain). SNN126.

<28> Morton J., 1712, The Natural History of Northamptonshire, p.537 (unchecked) (Book). SNN10113.

<29> Dix B., 1992, Recent Work in Northamptonshire Archaeology, 24/121 (checked) (Article). SNN104441.

Record last edited

Jan 13 2026 9:08AM