Monument record 1677 - Hunsbury Hillfort

Earthwork and buried remains of a multivallate Iron Age hillfort occupied from the 4th to 1st centuries BC and retaining evidence for rampart construction and intensive occupation of the interior. This is the type-site for the 'beehive' type quern. Scheduled. Part of the Hunsbury Hill Complex

{1} Scanned copies of photographs taken from Northampton Museum Archaeological Archive Dryden collection. Both show the interior of Hunsbury Hill fort and the effect of the quarrying there. One appears to have been taken in the 1880's prior to the cessation of the quarrying. The other shows the over grown quarry face and the presence of cereal crop - presumably dating to late 19th to early 20th century.

{2} Brief mention of the site.

{3} Defences - The fort now consists of a roughly elliptical area 1.6 ha. in area, bounded by an inner rampart and central ditch and with an outer rampart on the NW, N and NE sides. Almost the same picture is recorded by Morton (1712, 537) and by Bridges (1791 I 358). It is possible that there was an outer ditch, and one is mentioned as having been found `in the external ironstone diggings' in an account of 1891 (Baker 1891-2, 66), though whether this was an external ditch to the fort is not clear; other lengths of ditch were discovered early in this century to the NW and SW of the fort, about 90 yards from the inner ditch (George 1915-18, 3; OS 2 IN map 1901 edn) On an air photgraph (in NMR) are vague cropmarks just outside the fort on its SE unquarried side. These may represent an outer system of ditches. Elsewhere, if they ever existed, they have been entirely removed by ironstone quarrying. The defences have been sectioned three times. The first was in 1880 when a tramway access was cut through the NW side. Dryden (1885-6, 55) made drawings and a brief note on the exposed faces but these only indicate that the ditch was of U-shape and had been cut to a depth of just over 3m into the underlying ironstone and that the inner rampart stood just under 3m above the external ground surface. The other sections were cut in 1952 by R.J.C Atkinson as part of a small excavation on the site. The results have not been published in full and the following account is based on notes made on a lecture given by Atkinson in 1968 (in NM Records). Two trenches were cut across the inner rampart and ditch on the NE and the SE sides at the points where the outer rampart no longer survivies. The NE cutting revealed that the ditch had originally been about 8m deep and that the rampart behind it was timber-laced. The SE cutting was more informative, shwoing that the original ditch had been recut and the timber-laced rampart had been converted into one of glacis construction. This later rampart had been extended over the back of the ealier one and overlay a pit and 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. Two orientated skeletons buried in the second phase of the rampart were discovered but no evidence of date was recovered.

Entrances - There are three entrances through the ramparts and the same certainly existed before the ironstone quarrying commenced. It is no longer possible to be certain whether any of these are original.

The Interior - Within the defences the original land surfaces probably sloped gently down from the SE to the NW. The ironstone quarrying altered this situation completely for the work commenced to the S 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 1885-6, 55). Between 3m and 5m of material was removed in the operation but, because the ironstone ran out towards the SE, a small area in the SE 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 SE, its W 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. Considerable amounts of pottery survive, including some fine examples of globular bowls with the distinctive `Hunsbury curvilinear' decoration. Although the presence of vessels decorated with applied cordons, extensive finger-tipping and incised geometric decoration may indicate activity on the site prior to the later (La Tene) Iron Age, the bulk of the pottery probably dates to no earlier than the 5th century BC. In view of the very small quantity of `early' material, and its very wide date range, it seems more reasonable to regard it as broadly contemporary with the later Iron Age pottery from the site rather than as indicative of a substantial phase of pre-La Tene occupation. The absence of Belgic material is, in an area with a high density of Belgic sites, also probably of some chronilogical significance. The earliest Belgic wares in this region appear from the later 1st century BC, and the Hunsbury pottery may, therefore, predate the final decades of the 1st century BC, certainly c.AD 25 at latest.

{5} The monument at Hunsbury is situated on the summit of a prominent hill overlooking the Nene Valley and includes the earthwork and buried remains of a multivallate Iron Age hillfort. The defensive earthworks enclose a central area of approximately 1.6ha and include an inner rampart, a ditch, and intermittent traces of a second rampart or counterscarp bank. There are also late 19th century references to an outer ditch and, although much of the surrounding area has been quarried for ironstone, the southern and eastern parts of this outer ditch, which measures approximately 12m wide, are thought to survive as buried features and are included in the scheduling. The inner rampart rises to a height of 3.7m above the interior and, except for its eastern section, the rear of the rampart has been modified by ironstone quarrying in the interior of the site. The inner ditch measures up to 15m wide and, in the north western part of the site, where sections of the ditch have been partly infilled with later material, it will survive as a buried feature. It is now approximately 2m deep, although, in 1952, an excavation across the north eastern defences indicated that it was originally 8m deep and that the inner rampart was of timber-laced construction. In 1988, an excavation in the north western part of the site recovered evidence that the inner rampart replaced an earlier bank which, at some stage, had been burnt. The outer rampart measures up to 2.5m high and is best preserved in the northern part of the site. Its southern and south western sections and the outer ditch have been overlaid by a former driftway. Access into the interior of the hillfort is by means of causeways through the north western, northern and south eastern defences. The north western entrance is considered to have been created by the quarry company in order to provide a tramway access to the interior, whereas the northern or south eastern entrances may mark the sites of original entrances. No internal earthworks associated with the hillfort's occupation are visible, but buried remains will survive in the south eastern part of the interior, an area not affected by earlier quarrying operations. Finds recovered from the site, many from circular pits, include pottery, animal bone, iron currency bars and domestic and industrial artefacts such as quern stones, sickles, tweezers, rings and bracelets. The large quantity of finds constitute one of the most important groups of Iron Age material in the Midlands.

{6} Extensive significant problems: Tree/scrub growth

{10} Radiocarbon dating of carbonised from various sites including Hunsbury Hillfort. The cereal grains had been collected from a quern and was deposited at the Economic Botany collection at Kew by T J George in 1902. Three grains were tested and confirmed the assumed middle Iron Age date.

{11} Drawing, two newspaper cuttings, notes on circular trench and Roman pottery kilns, sketch of pit and letter to Sir Henry, plans, measurements, sections;

{12} [Area centred SP 73805835] HILL FORT [OE]

{13} Hunsbury Hill - An IA Hill Fort, occupied from the 4th cent. BC to the 1st cent BC or AD. Excavations for Iron Stone at the end of the 19th cent yielded great quantities of finds now in the Northants and British Museums. Most of the interior was disturbed by this iron-working, but a small area to the SW remains intact. Fortifications [1936], consist of a single, circular rampart and ditch, with a simple entrance to the SE and possible one in the NW. A second ditch, 80 yds away, was found in 1903. The interior of the fort was riddled with 300 or more pits, of varying sizes - six or seven were walled and one possibly contained a crouched skeleton accompanied by an iron chariot tyre, bridle bit and other pieces of iron. Several unattached skulls were found, one with three holes bored in it. Some 150 querns of the heavy bee-hive type establish a 'Type Site' while the quantity of iron objects and slag suggests early iron-stone working. Finds included flint implements, (some barbed and tanged arrowheads), and pottery and other objects of E.I.A. to Roman date.

{13-17} Hunsbury Hill - An IA Hill Fort, occupied from the 4th cent. BC to the 1st cent BC or AD. Excavations for Iron Stone at the end of the 19th cent yielded great quantities of finds now in the Northants and British Museums. Most of the interior was disturbed by this iron-working, but a small area to the SW remains intact. Fortifications [1936], consist of a single, circular rampart and ditch, with a simple entrance to the SE and possible one in the NW. A second ditch, 80 yds away, was found in 1903.
The interior of the fort was riddled with 300 or more pits, of varying sizes - six or seven were walled and one possibly contained a crouched skeleton accompanied by an iron chariot tyre, bridle bit and other pieces of iron. Several unattached skulls were found, one with three holes bored in it.
Some 150 querns of the heavy bee-hive type establish a 'Type Site' while the quantity of iron objects and slag suggests early iron-stone working.
Finds included flint implements, (some barbed and tanged arrowheads), and pottery and other objects of E.I.A. to Roman date.

{18} A vast collection of material from Hunsbury is held in Northampton Museum, and incorporates rare objects including the 'Hunsbury Scabbard' (which originated the type). The small finds are of both I.A. 'A' and 'B' cultures, but the latter predominate. Final conclusions indicated an undefended settlement of I.A. 'A'; later defended in I.A. 'A' with defences modified in I.A. 'B'. Sitting on the Jurassic Ridge it is presumed to have lost its importance as a trading centre in the 1st cent AD.
The Hill Fort is now farmed within: it consists of bank, ditch and counterscarp. Iron working has lowered the interior, giving the main rampart a false height. The outer ditch (authy 2b) is not visible, either on the ground or on air cover. Resurveyed at 1/2500.

{19} Hill Fort (SP 738583) usually known as Hunsbury stands on the summit of a rounded but prominent hill, on Northampton Sands, at 110m above OD. The surrounding land slopes only gently in all directions, but the position affords extensive views over Northampton and the whole of the upper Nene Valley to the N, NE and NW as well as to the S and E.

{20} (SP 738583). Hunsbury. Listed in gazetteer as a univallate hillfort covering 1.7ha.

{21} The RCHM Inventory {3} includes further description of the earthworks, entrances and finds from the hillfort and surrounding area, RCHM plan and earthwork profiles, and a bibliography of 18th, 19th and 20th century sources up to 1976.

{22} Due to the threat of extensive erosion of the rampart on the north side, an excavation was carried out in 1988 on that area. The investigated area was 29m north of the present entrance on the western side of the hillfort.
The rampart was initially of a box type with its individual compartments filled in with marl and sandstone rubble which would have limestone wall also acting as a walkway. There is little doubt that this structure was eventually destroyed by fire. The only pottery and animal bones came from the original ground surface and this limestone wall.
Sandstone blocks spanned a position on a line with the front post revealed during the 1952 excavation. It is possible that posts at the front were set in a stone revetment although no slabs survived in slots.
The position of a series of transverse timbers was indicated by burning, standing stones, and channels of reddish brown loam which had apparently filtered down or tumbled into the voids left by decated timber.
The upper fill of the box rampart probably represents a separate phase of construction (figs.9 and 10). Eventually the back of the rampart collapsed above the limestone layer. In some places there is evidence for rebuilding of the structure after the burning event. The finds:- 30 sherds only of pottery, all in a shelly fabric with comparable dating for the early-middle Iron Age.

{23} Additional reference with plan.

{28} 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.

{29} The report revisits the work undertaken in 1985 and looks in detail at the non-ferrous metalwork recovered during a watching brief on ironstone quarrying. The metallurgical study demonstrates that Hunsbury was occupied through the major part of the Iron Age and possibly into the early Roman period. Influneces can be seen from the south-west with material demonstrating traditional Wessex traits; but from inhabitants, or visitors, were also exposed to influences from the north and north-east.

<1> Cadman, G., 1998, SMR Report Form, (checked) (SMR Report Form). SNN49784.

<2> Foster P, 1998-9, Late Iron Age/Early Roman Northamptonshire: A Study in the Use of Ceramic Analysis to Investigate Social, Economic and Landscape Changes., (unchecked) (Article). SNN104033.

<3> Royal Commission on The Historical Monuments of England, 1985, An Inventory of The Historical Monuments in The County of Northampton, p.277-283 site 14 (checked) (Series). SNN77383.

<4> Baker Rev.R.S., 1891, Hunsbury or Danes' Camp, 21/53-74 (checked) (Article). SNN46565.

<4> Pitt-Rivers, A.H.L.F., 1892, Cranborne Chase Excavations III, (unchecked) (Uncertain). SNN59478.

<5> ENGLISH HERITAGE, 1986, DOE Scheduled Ancient Monuments: Northamptonshire (Parts 5-8) (Schedule). SNN104787.

<6> Historic England, 2016, Heritage at Risk: East Midlands Register 2016, p. 54 (Report). SNN110747.

<7> Historic England, 2017, Heritage at Risk: East Midlands Register 2017, p. 61 (Report). SNN111090.

<7> Historic England, 2018, Heritage at Risk: East Midlands Register 2018, p. 61 (Report). SNN111434.

<8> GEORGE T.J., 1904, Journal of Northants Natural History Society and Field Club, p. 204-206 (Journal). SNN22242.

<9> Barnes, I, 1985, The Non-Ferrous Metalwork from Hunsbury Hillfort, Northants (Dissertation). SNN77221.

<10> Marshall, P, Pelling, R, Bronk Ramsey, C, Dunbar, E, Hajdas, I, Palstra, S, & Reimer, P, 2023, Radiocarbon Dating of Carbonised Plant Macrofossils: Woodcutts, Iwerne, Rotherley, Durrington Walls, Cuckoo Stone, Coneybury Henge, Lockington, Thanet Earth and Hunsbury Hillfort, p. 16-17 (Report). SNN115509.

<11> Dryden H.E.L., 1842-1895, Dryden Collection, DR/25/133/16-21,23,24,25,27-30 (Archive). SNN115.

<12> Ordnance Survey Map (Scale/date), OS 6" 1923-50 (Map). SNN112944.

<13> 1936, The Archaeological Journal (93), P. 57-100 (Journal). SNN59443.

<14> 1912, The Archaeological Journal (69), P. 421-432 (Journal). SNN59448.

<15> The Society of Antiquaries, 1885, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, P. 175 (Journal). SNN103684.

<16> Collins A.J., 1931, The Antiquaries Journal, P. 82 (Uncertain). SNN2447.

<17> Uncertain, 1940, The Antiquaries Journal (Uncertain). SNN44386.

<18> Colquhoun, FD, 1964, Field investigators comments, March 1964 (Notes). SNN115250.

<19> Colquhoun, FD, 1969, Field investigators comments, 4-MAR-1969 (Notes). SNN112950.

<20> Hogg, AHA, 1979, British Hillforts: an index, P. 190 (Journal). SNN114272.

<21> LEE, E S., 1991, RCHME Recorder, 13-APR-1992 (Note). SNN114837.

<22> Jackson D, 1993-4, Iron Age and Anglo Saxon Settlement and Activity Around the Hunsbury Hillfort, Northampton (Article). SNN104120.

<23> Serjeantson R.M.; Ryland W. (Editors), 1906, The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Northamptonshire, P. 399-400 (Series). SNN100369.

<24> Royal Air Force, Vertical Aerial Photography, A/P (RAF VAP CPE/UK/1994 1181-2; V58-RAF-1122, 0332-4) (Photographs). SNN104890.

<25> Aerial Photograph, A/P (CUAP HF-54) (Photographs). SNN112974.

<26> Historic England, Undated, SIR H DRYDEN, 872918 (Archive). SNN116458.

<27> Historic England, Undated, Hunsbury Hill Archive (Archive). SNN116459.

<28> Andy Chapman & Dennis Jackson, 2023, A review of the structure and date of the iron age hillfort rampart on Hunsbury Hill, Northampton (Article). SNN116513.

<29> Ian Barnes, 2023, Hunsbury Hillfort, Northampton: A typological and metallurgical study of the non-ferrous metalwork (Article). SNN116512.

Record last edited

Feb 3 2025 8:57PM