| Summary : A fortification of earth and stone walls on a spur of land at the junction of two small creeks, where they join a short arm of the river Erme. There are two periods of construction. Firstly a rectangular work occupying the north east end of the spur, and secondly a much larger work occupying the whole spur and incorporating all but the south west side of the smaller work in its perimeter. A stone wall defence survives 74.2 metres long, 3 metres wide and up to 2.7 metres high. Excavation in 1968 found a samian sherd suggesting the early feature may be a Roman fort.The phase 1 enclosure is probably Romano-British. However, a Romano-British civilian settlement has no morphological parallel in the south-west, and the Oldaport site would be out of character with such an interpretation. Therefore the second phase of stone construction must be considerably later. The earliest evidence of stone secular building in England comes from the palace site at Northampton (late 8th/early 9th century), and it is not until the 10th century that stone was again used in defensive works. It is unlikely then that the Phase II stonework dates to before the 10th century. By analogy, the work appears to be a burh of the reign of Aethelraed II |
More information : (SX 632492) Fort (NR) (1)
'Oldaport' is a fortification of earth and stone walls on a spur of land at the junction of two small creeks, where they join a short arm of the river Erme (see plan). Two periods of construction can be recognised:- firstly a rectangular work occupying the NE end of the spur, and secondly a much larger work occupying the whole spur and incorporating all but the SW side of the smaller work in its perimeter. The main surviving feature is the stonewall defence of the larger work, originally 7ft. thick and still 9ft. high in places, though mostly reduced to footings and traces. A limited excavation in 1968 on the SE side confirmed two separate stages of construction and showed that the earlier and smaller work was probably of earth alone. The only dating evidence was "a much abraded sherd of probable Samian ware, recovered from the topsoil". In an earlier trial excavation in 1938 (a) only the remains of a comparatively recent dwelling house were found on the site of the more southerly of the two 'towers' noted by Sir John Dryden (b) (and published on OS 25").
The name 'Oldaport' dates back to at least the early 14th century(La Yoldeport, 1310; La porte, in parochia de Modbury in 1332) and it seems possible that this was indeed a fortified port, since the Erme is navigable; the more westerly of the creeks was in use by barges as late as 1844, and the arm of the Erme into which the creeks run forms a natural harbour. The regularity and acreage (2.6, similar to Nanstallon) of the smaller work and the find of the (?) Samian sherd suggest a Roman fort or fortlet. The larger work could be Roman, Dark Ages or Medieval (Roman seems improbable though). (2)
R H Worth, following Dr William Woollcombe, suggests that the alleged 'fort' was a fortified manor house with adjoining park, probably Norman, and the original site of Oldaport house (SX 64 NW 17). (3)
Roman coarse pottery and samian have been found on the site. (4)
SX 633494: Oldaport camp, listed under 'Camps and Settlements'. (5)
SX 633493. Oldaport camp. Certain features of this site appear to have changed or not to have been recorded before. The whole centre of the enclosed area has been cultivated and a hedge removed. Two small banks outside the large ditch across the promontory appear to be unrecorded but do not appear to be new features. The bank behind the main wall certainly supports a defensive function though the masonry of the wall does not look Roman. A very slight platform was observed in the centre of the promontory from which Brent Hill is visible. If it should be that Oldaport is Roman then a signal station is tentatively suggested. The site remains enigmatic. (7.11.83). (6)
Centred at SX 63344934. Oldaport occupies a long narrow and steeply sloping spur of land on a NE/SW axis which descends from a fairly flat plateau at about 46m OD to a heavily silted creek of the river Erme. It is bordered to the NW by a silted creek and watercourse and to the SE by a narrow stream; the creek, as suggested, would once have provided a safe anchorage. The area is overlooked on all sides by higher ground; to the North there is a prominent promontory rising to 63m OD and to the S & W steep rounded hills up to 114m OD.
The most notable survival at the site today is a crudely coursed but impressive wall which crosses the neck of the spur at SX 63514943 is now 74.2m long, 3m wide and still stands to a height of at least 2.7m. It is built from many types of stone including quartz and the exposed parts are crudely mortared. At its centre there is a significant earthen bank (against the SW side). Outside the wall and running more or less parellel with it, are two banks (depicted on the 1968 plan (2). Of predominately earthen construction they are from 6.0m to 8.2m wide and from 0.4m to 0.8m high. No ditches are evident and they have been destroyed in part by a narrow linear quarry o the SE Side; stone from this quarry may have been used to construct some of the Oldport farm buildings. These banks add depth to a defensive line drawn across the narrow neck of the spur but their form is unusual.
The steep fringes of the spur have been fenced off and are now heavily overgrown; no traces of the walling noted by 2 around the perimeter were recognised. The spur interior has been fairly intensively cultivated and the small orchard and enclosure bank on the crest have been removed along with the hedge which bisected the site. The interior was under tall mowing grass at the time of investigation and the rectangular work (2) was not apparent.
The sites of the `towers' depicted on the OS 1:2500 plan dated 1951 (see SX 64 NW 2, 3) are evident only as amorphous depressions; there is no evidence of masonry nor other identifiable features either at their sides or along a line between them etc.
The steeply sloping ground to the N, W and S seem to be an unlikely settlement site and the severely restricted visibility and the overlooked position of the spur must cast doubt on the signal station and fort classifications.
Further research is required. The Tithe Map offers no significant field names for this area.
Surveyed at 1/2500. (7)
Paul Rainbird has surveyed the site and undertaken extensive documentary research on Oldaport, and agrees with previous authors that the walling is of two phases, and more extensive than previously recorded. Oldaport is not documented in Domesday, but the Exon Domesday that nine manors in the vicinity had been wasted by Irish raiders and had not recovered by 1086. The earliest documentary evidence for oldport is in the 1310 Feet of Fines.
The phase 1 enclosure is probably Romano-British. However, a Romano-British civilian settlement has no morphological parallel in the south-west, and the Oldaport site would be out of character with such an interpretation. Therefore the second phase of stone construction must be considerably later. The earliest evidence of stone secular building in England comes from the palace site at Northampton (late C8/early C9), and it is not until the 10th century that stone was again used in defensive works. It is unlikely then that the Phase II stonework dates to before the 10th century.
In 847 King Aethelwulf of Wessex records assigning a tract of land in a charter. This records a boundary in the valley below Oldaport, and although noting natural features in the valley, no reference is made to Oldaport, suggesting that it did not exist then. It is also unlikely to be Norman, it clearly not being comparable to Norman fortifications. Thus phase II would appear to be Late Saxon.
While it would be tempting to assign Oldaport to the Edwardian phase of burh construction, a key element of the location of Edwardian burhs, control of a downstream bridging point , is missing.
However, the response of Aethelred II to the threat of the Vikings to Wessex was to refurbish exiating burhs with stonework, as at Cricklade, Lydford, Wareham and Christchurch. A second response was to create new burhs, often refortifying good defensive sites, such as Cissbury and Old Sarum and Cadbury Castle. Radford has noted that stone was used from the beginning in the defensive constructions after 1000.
The evidence from the burhs of Aethelred equates exteremely well withwith that from Oldaport in that they:
Utilize pre-existing earthworks;
are constructed of stone and mortar;
are notable for the poor survival of any historical record;
are comparable in scale and method of wall construction, (at least in the case of Cadbury where it is best known);
have comparable internal areas. Oldaport encloses approximately the same area as Old Sarum, is much smaller than Cissbury, and rather larger than Cadbury. (8) |