More information : ST 84511270 Camp (NR). (1)
ST 84531268 Hillfort (NR). (2)
Hambledon Hill Iron Age hillfort is one of the most impressive earthworks in Southern England; its multiple ramparts occupy the whole of the prominent north spur of the hill between 460 ft and 623 ft above sea level. Successive enlargement has contributed to the present irregular shape of the fort, which falls clearly into three sections, northern, central, and southern, marked by changes in the alignment of the ramparts and by the remains of two earlier cross ramparts within the interior. The fort measures 3 000 ft overall from north to south but not more than 1000 ft from east to west. The interior measures 31 acres and is enclosed by 2300 yds of the inner rampart, in marked contrast to Hod Hill where 52 acres are enclosed by 2050 yds of rampart. Much of the interior is on a pronounced slope.
The fort is defined by two main ramparts, with external ditches and with further scarping below the outer ditch for the greater part of its length. The surviving crest of the rampart rarely exceeds 4 ft in height on the inside, but measures up to 70 ft on the scarp. Immediately inside the inner rampart runs a quarry area in the form of a terrace cut into the slope. At the south end of the hill-fort, where the slopes are gentler, the defences are of bank and ditch construction, the inner bank rising 30 ft above its ditch bottom. Beyond the counterscarp bank are massive outworks, comprising twin banks and ditches, crossing the neck of the spur the most vulnerable point of the defences.
There are three entrances. The northern, now largely destroyed by a quarry, is sited on a very steep slope, and appears never to have been more than a simple gap. The south west entrance is carefully sited on a local rise in ground level, the inturned ramparts dipping away from it on either side. It is approached from the east along the shoulder of the slope within a hornwork 250 ft long. The south east entrance is not situated on the neck of the spur, but some distance to the north where it faces into a steep combe. It consists of a simple gap through the inturned ramparts and is integrated with south east outworks. Successive attempts to strengthen the defences have involved moving the approach way nearer to the shoulder of the slope and eventually on to a ledge below the shoulder.
The interior features of the hillfort consist mainly of hut platforms: 82 in the north section, 45 in the central, and 80 in the south. They are most clearly marked where the slopes are steep, but cover much of the interior. The platform measure from 15 to 45 ft across and have curving rearward scarps and occasionally the forward edge has been levelled up. A notable hut site is set into the south cross-rampart.
There were at least three main structural phases. The first fortification occupied 12 acres on the north end of the spur, beyond the north cross-rampart, which consists of a single bank and ditch. During the second phase the defences were extended on a different alignment to the south cross-rampart taking in a further 8 acres. The cross-rampart consisted of a more massive bank and ditch separated by a berm.
In the final phase the hillfort was extended to occupy the whole of the spur. The south east and south west entrances were constructed and on the E side of the central section the second phase ramparts were abandoned and others built down hill. The outer main rampart and ditch was added together with the south east outwork. At first it appears to have comprised only the inner bank, the entrance way following the line of the present path. Subsequently this bank
was extended north east and the outer bank and ditch added. Entry was then by means of a narrow ledge below the end of the outwork (3).
In 1894, digging apparently in the central area produced Romano-British and earlier material, including pottery, quern fragments and sling-stones (4).
The Durden Catalogue mentions Roman articles from Hambledon, including iron saws, bronze fibulae, knives and several coins of Constantine. Early Iron Age. 'A' pottery was found by C Bean in the ditches of the fort at ST 84281280 (5). Early classic account (6). (3-6)
ST 84531268. Hambledon Hill (Iron Age) mutlivallate hillfort remains physically as described by RCHM, except that the central section 2nd phase abandoned rampart occurs on the east side of the fort, not the west as stated in the site report (3). An interesting late constructional feature occurs within the outworks on the south east spur at ST 84651232, where the second bank and ditch has been left in a semi-completed state, but whether this strengthening of the tactically weak side of the hillfort took place before or after the remaining outwork construction could not be determined by ground observation.
The earthworks of this imposing hillfort remain in a good state of preservation and hut platforms are well defined. A rather dense scrub cover extends over the eastern defences. The site is under private ownership.
Revised at 1:2500 on MSD in conjunction with RCHM plan (3) and OS air photographs (a). (7)
ST 841 126. Hambledon Hill. Listed in gazetteer as a hillfort with 3 phases of development. Phase I, univallate, covered 3.0ha; phase II, also univallate, covered 5.2ha and phase III, multivallate, covered 10ha. (8)
(ST 8451 1270) Between late May and late August 1996 the Cambridge and Exeter offices of RCHME carried out an earthwork survey and aerial photographic interpretation of the complex of monuments on Hambledon Hill (see also ST 81 SW 17) as part of the project to record Industry and Enclosure in the Neolithic period. The hillfort was also surveyed, at the request of English Heritage, and the landowners English Nature. Extensive ground photography of this and the other monuments on the hill was undertaken; see negatives AA96/2861, 2862, 2863, 2864, 2865, 2868, 2870, 2872 (9).
The hillfort is essentially as described by the previous sources. However, the 'Phase I univallate hillfort' has been re-interpreted as a probable Neolithic enclosure, following excavation by Roger Mercer (9a) (see ST 81 SW 59). Mercer has also argued convincingly that the 'berm' between the bank and ditch of the rampart previously described as 'Phase 2' is due to the re-use of (presumably) Bronze Age lynchets (see ST 81 SW 24) to form the Iron Age defences. The final phase ramparts are bivallate with a counterscarp; the unfinished multivallation on the south-eastern end of the spur and the hornwork outside the SW gateway appear to be later modifications. They remain overgrown on the E side of the hill and are being significantly damaged in places (mostly on the W) by badgers and rabbits. Two marl quarries (ST 81 SW 67) cut into the IA earthworks at the northern end of the spur.
The interior, a total area of 12.3ha, was densely occupied; traces of 365 certain and possible house platforms were identified by the new survey. Much of the area which appears to be 'blank' on the previous RCHME survey has been levelled by ?Post-Medieval ridge and furrow (ST 81 SW 69); consequently the houses on the steeper slopes are generally better preserved. Two tracks were identified leading into the interior from the SW gateway, and a third, with large enclosed compounds backing onto it, running along the summit of the ridge to the N of the long barrow (ST 81 SW 11). The houses towards the N end of the hill (such as one excavated by Mercer and found to date to the C6th-C5th BC (9a)) appear to be generally larger, while those in the S half are sometimes paired and/or associated with compounds similar to those at Hod Hill, dated to the C1st BC. The quarry hollow immediately within the inner rampart clearly provided a relatively sheltered place for occupation, and the house platforms sited in it are frequently somewhat larger, with banks abutting the rampart defining associated compounds. In many cases, circular patches of nettles and thistles within the platforms probably indicate high phosphate levels. The platform of the 'notable hut' set into the abandoned early cross-rampart at ST 8455 1256, noted by Source 3, is some 18m in diameter and the building may well have been non-domestic in function. The RCHME survey suggests that it may have been sited in the gateway of the early rampart, and that the rampart was massively modified to accomodate it. A second notable circular structure was sited at the junction of the the two trackways leading from the SW entrance at ST 8443 1234, immediately overlooking the gateway. The platform is relatively large, c.12m in diameter, and is flanked by two mounds, one on the far side of each trackway. The position and form of the building platform may again indicate high status or a non-domestic function. A third building complex of interest lies at ST 8447 1243; two house platforms of equal size lie adjacent within a single compound, with platforms for possible ancilliary structures immediately to the rear.
In the SE corner of the ramparts at ST 8461 1237, a rectangular hollow some 29m long by 20m wide and up to 1.6m deep may originally have been dug as a quarry for the rampart, which is most massive at this point. Subsequently, it may have been used as a dew pond, since the profile is smoothed as if by water and the farmer reports that the base seems to be lined with clay, and is damp in winter.
Several Bronze Age round barrows lay within the area later enclosed by the hillfort (see ST 81 SW 12, 56, 58).
For further information, see RCHME level 3 report, which includes interpretative plans, photographs, profiles, digital ground models and detailed textual description and discussion of the earthworks. Also see earthwork plan at 1:1000 scale with management overlay, held in archive. (9)
Subsequent to the RCHME survey, a small excavation and augering were carried out to test three possibilities (10). Firstly, a mound at the northern end of the hill was augered to determine whether it was natural or artificial (perhaps a midden). The investigation showed that it is natural, with a depth of only 10cms-25cms of hillwashed soil overlying the natural chalk. Secondly, the putative pond identified at the southern end of the hill was augered in search of the clay referred to by the farmer; large flints were encountered near the surface and the results were inconclusive.
Lastly, a small trench was excavated through the bank of the outer rampart, at the point where it is mutilated by the post-medieval quarry at the north-eastern end of the hill. This revealed two constructional phases, but no buried soil as hoped for. There were no finds. (10) |