Monument record 757 - Probable Iron Age Hillfort & Saxon Burh at Whittlebury

Large oval enclosure identified as an Iron Age hillfort which appears to have been in use until the Saxon period.

{1} There is now definitive proof for the occupation of the hilltop around the church from the Iron Age period. This adds credence to the idea that the focal enclosure suggested by the modern road pattern and aerial photographs dates from this period. The site may be categorised as a small hillfort, and it is the presence of this banked and ditched enclosure which gives Whittlebury its second name element "burh" ie. A fortified place.
There is enough evidence to suggest that the enclosure was occupied into the Romano-British period although the nature of this occupation might be questioned and the likelihood of the hillfort retaining its original function is remote. Evidence from Kingsfield Piece points to further occupation in the Roman period away from the enclosure.
The location of finds of early/middle Saxon handmade pottery from the south of the village (Lodge Park) and from Kingsfield Piece, as well as from the enclosure might indicate a dispersed pattern of settlement now subsumed beneath the extent of the modern village. At Kingsfield piece the possibility of continuity of occupation from the Roman to the early medieval period is intriguing and uncommon in the Whittlewood area as a whole.
Early medieval pottery found within the enclosure points to the re-use of the hillfort as a burh, the probable location of the witan or council held by King Aethelstan in 930.
Imported wares of pre-conquest date (St Neots ware) may point to an organic development outside the burh to the east, in the area of early enclosure as identified on the 1608 map of the village, which spreads eventually to cover the northern part of the modern village.
To the south of the village however, the absence of material dating between 1000-1250 and the ubiquity of pottery dating thereafter clearly indicates that this extension to the village appears to have taken place from the mid-C13th and may well have been planned and undertaken in a single phase.

{3} On a level small plateau, with good all-round long-distance views. Very close (2.5km) to a further IA hillfort site at Old Tun Copse, near Paulerspury. Both these sites may also relate to long-distance communication routes.
The visible remains are degraded by former ploughing, which probably explains why this site was only identified as an Iron Age hillfort quite recently. Most of the available archaeological facts are covered in the 2003 report by Leicester University, included in the Appendices; the findings of the report may be summarised as follows:
Significant quantities of Iron Age material recovered from immediately southeast of the church, coupled with the curious loop in the Silverstone road, itself mirrored by severely degraded earthworks in the pasture fields south of the church, define the former existence of a late prehistoric enclosure occupying this topographically strong location (the site affords extensive 360o views). This enclosure may have remained the focus of activity into the Roman period since coins and pottery have been found here, whilst low levels of pottery from other test pits indicate an open ploughed landscape, and a second concentration of pottery west of the village points to the presence of other small pre-village settlement foci. Early to Middle Saxon handmade wares (AD 400-850) have also only been found within the perimeters of the enclosure suggesting that this feature survived into the early medieval period.
The identification of the western extent of a large oval enclosure, defined by a massive bank and ditch sequence, coupled with the location of at least eight round houses, four grain pits within the northern churchyard, one of which containing a structured deposit, and quantities of Iron Age pottery from many of the test pits and other excavations, locates the church of St Mary’s within an Iron Age hillfort. The roundhouses suggest permanent occupation, whilst the charred grain from the pits points to arable cultivation in the vicinity.
Finds of Romano-British date, including a coin and pottery, albeit in small quantities suggests that activity here extended beyond the natural life of the hillfort, although the nature of this activity is unclear. The use of the western hillfort ramparts as a medieval headland positively proves that the feature survived into the medieval period, and is almost certainly the burh referred to in the placename Whittlebury (witlanbyrig). The shelter and protection offered by the hillfort defences also point to its use in the tenth century as the location for the royal witan; although little ceramic
evidence can be added to support this, "The Ordinance of the bishops and reeves of the London District (VI Athelstan {930AD}) Para 12.1" (Referred to in English Historical Documents 500-1042AD, edited by Dorothy Whitelock), mentions an instruction made by King Athelstan at Whittlebury in what must have been the same year. Whilst it does not mention that the Witan was actually held in the hill-fort, by typical activity at the time it would have been a virtual certainty that it was. The surveyors do not think that the absence of contemporary Saxon ceramics is any justification to exclude it – we believe that it is extremely likely that King Athelstan held a Witan here in AD 930.

{4} The identification of the western extent of a large oval enclosure, defined by a massive bank and ditch sequence, coupled with the location of at least eight round houses, four grain pits, one of which contained a structured deposit, and quantities of Iron Age pottery locates the Church of St Mary as standing within an Iron Age hillfort. Roundhouses suggest permanent occupation, whilst the charred grain from the pits indicates arable cultivation in the vicinity.
Finds of Romano-British date, albeit in small quantities, suggests that activity here extended beyond the natural life of the hillfort. The use of the western ramparts as a medieval headland demonstrates that the feature survived into the medieval period, and is almost certainly the burh referred to in the placename of Whittlebury. The shelter and protection offered by the hillfort defences also point to its use in the C10th as the location for the royal witan, although there is little ceramic evidence to support this notion.

{5} Trial trench excavation was undertaken at Home Farm in an attempt to identify the north-western arc of the hillfort ditch. No features or deposits of archaeological interest were observed and no artefacts were revealed.

<1> National Monuments Record Air Photo Collection, (unchecked) (Aerial Photograph(s)). SNN105177.

<2> Jones, R L C, 2005, Report on Test Pits In and Around Whittlebury Village: June to August 2002, p.18-19 (checked) (Report). SNN105176.

<3> Hatton G.; Hayward D., 2014, Whittlebury, Northants, p.10 (part checked) (Report). SNN109943.

<4> Jones R.L.C.; Pears B., 2003, Excavation and Geophysical Survey at St Mary's Church, Whittlebury, Northamptonshire (Draft), p.10 (checked) (Interim Report). SNN105857.

<4> Jones, R L C, 2004?, Excavation and Geophysical Survey at St Mary's Church, Whittlebury, Northamptonshire (Draft), p.10 (checked) (Report). SNN112081.

<5> Whelan, A., 2018, Land at Home Farm, Whittlebury, South Northamptonshire: Archaeological evaluation, March 2018 (Report). SNN111246.

<6> Jones, RFJ, 2004, An Iron Age hillfort at Whittlebury, Northants (Article). SNN114163.

Record last edited

Sep 18 2024 11:24AM