Monument record MDO3713 - Hambledon Hill, Child Okeford

A hillfort formed by multiple ramparts and ditches around the northern spur of a prominent hill. The earthworks follow the form of the hill closely, to form a rather irregular, narrow enclosure; the interior is about 31 acres.

In 1894, digging apparently in the central area produced Romano-British and earlier material, including pottery, quern fragments and sling-stones. <1>

Early classic account. <3>

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. <4>

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. <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. 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 and OS air photographs. <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. <13>

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 accommodate 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. <13>

Subsequent to the RCHME survey, a small excavation and augering were carried out to test three possibilities <14>. 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. <14>

Work was undertaken in 2006 to repair parts of the north-west rampart disturbed by badgers. The work was observed by Terrain Archaeology. No features or deposits of archaeological significance were observed. <15>

Mercer, R J, 1979, Hambledon Hill 1979 Interim Statement (Monograph). SDO21190.

Stewart, D, 2014, Hambledon Hill Camp, Dorset. A Geophysical Survey (Unpublished document). SDO21393.

<1> Cunnington, E, 1895, Hambledon Hill, Dorset. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 156-158 (Article in serial). SDO20570.

<2> Ordnance Survey, Ordnance Survey 1 to 25 inch scale map, 1900 (Map). SDO18020.

ST 84511270 Camp (NR)

<3> Crawford, O G S and Keiller, A, 1928, Wessex from the Air, 44-45 (Monograph). SDO12591.

<4> Farrar, R A H, 1952, Archaeological Fieldwork in Dorset in 1951, 81 (Article in serial). SWX2107.

<5> Ordnance Survey, Ordnance Survey Map 6in, 1962 (Map). SWX1540.

ST 84531268 Hillfort (NR)

<6> Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), 1970, An Inventory of Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset, Volume III (Central) Part 1, 82-83 (Monograph). SDO146.

'(22) Hambledon Hill Iron Age Hill-fort (845125) is one of the most impressive earthworks in southern England (Plate 129); its multiple ramparts, enclosing an area of 31 acres, occupy the whole of the prominent N. spur of the hill between 460 ft. and 623 ft. above O.E. (see illustration on p. xxxix of the preface). The sequence of development and the abundant occupation remains within the fort are of particular interest, as is its close proximity to the even larger hill-fort on Hod Hill (Stourpaine (10)). No recent or extensive excavations have been made on the site, but in 1894 Edward Cunnington dug into the interior, apparently in the central section, and produced Romano-British and earlier material, including pottery, quern fragments and sling-stones (Dorset Procs. XVI, 1895, 156-7). The Durden Catalogue mentions Roman articles from Hambledon, including iron saws, bronze fibulae, knives and several coins of Constantine. Abundant Iron Age 'A' pottery has been found under the inner rampart near the N. entrance. Quarrying has partly destroyed this entrance but elsewhere the hill-fort has escaped serious damage. At the extreme N. of the hill-fort 'Celtic' fields (Group (62)) protrude from under the defences. A full description of the earthworks appears in Wessex from the Air, by O. G. S. Crawford and A. Keiller (1928), pp. 44-55.

Topography has largely determined the bow-shape of the hill-fort, which adheres closes to changes in direction of the northern spur. The latter is level, but long, narrow and steep-sided, permitting expansion in one direction only, to the S. 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 further emphasised by the remains of two earlier cross-ramparts within the interior. The fort measures 3,000 ft. W. and often much less. In consequence, the proportion of rampart length to enclosed area, 2,300 yds. of inner rampart to 31 acres, is in marked contrast to Hod Hill where 2,050 yds. of rampart enclose 52 acres. With the exception of the flat spur top, at its broadest in the southern section, much of the interior of the fort is on a pronounced slope, particularly in the N. section.

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. For much of their circuit the ramparts have been produced by scarping the steep natural slope, thus involving the minimum of building. The surviving crest of the rampart rarely exceeds 4 ft. in height on the inside, and whole stretches of the inner rampart are merely terraces, but from outside these ramparts present a formidable obstacle, measuring up to 70 ft. on the scarp. Immediately inside the inner rampart runs a continuous quarry area in the form of a terrace cut into the slope; this no doubt made movement easier within the interior and gave cover to the defenders as well as providing material for the rampart. At the S. end of the hill-fort, where slopes are gentler, the defences are of normal bank and ditch construction, the inner bank rising 30ft. above its ditch bottom; here the internal quarry ditch is deeper and less regular. Beyond the counter-scarp bank are massive outworks, comprising twin banks and ditches, crossing the neck of the spur where it joins the main mass of the hill, the most vulnerable point of the defences.

There are three entrances, differing in siting and form. The northern, now largely destroyed by a quarry, is sited below 500 ft. O.D. on a very steep slope; it appears never to have been more than a simple gap, the steep slope rendering it difficult of approach. The S.W. entrance is carefully sited on a local rise in ground level, the ramparts dipping away from it on either side. It is approached from the E. along the shoulder of the slope at the foot of the ramparts and consists of a terraced ramp within a hornwork 250 ft. long. It leads up a gentle slope before turning sharply to pass at a steeper slope through the middle and inner ramparts; the latter has a slight inturn. The S.E. entrance is not situated on the neck of the spur, facing the obvious line of approach from the S.E., but some distance to the N. where it faces into a steep combe. It consists of a simple gap through the middle and inner ramparts, the latter slightly inturned, and it is closely integrated with the outworks on the neck of the spur. 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.

With the exception of a long barrow (23) and a round barrow (25), the interior features of the hill-fort consist mainly of hut platforms: 82 in the northern section, 45 in the central section, and 80 in the southern section. They are most clearly marked where the slopes are steep, but cover much of the interior. The most notable concentration of platforms in the S.W. corner of the hill-fort. The platforms vary but little, except in size, floors ranging from 15 to 45 ft. across; basically they are areas levelled into the slope to provide sites for huts. Their curving rearward scarps naturally vary in height with the steepness of the slope. In certain cases the excavated material appears to have been used to level up the floor along the forward edge. The largest hut site is set into the southern cross-rampart and is notable for its high standard of finish. Another large platform stands immediately within the S.W. entrance.

It is obvious from the surface remains that there were at least three main structural phases. The first fortification occupied the most northerly part of the spur, extending as far as the northern cross-rampart. The latter consisted of a single bank and ditch but only shallow traces of the ditch survive. In addition to crossing the neck of the spur the fortification almost certainly enclosed the whole spur end, about 12 acres, on the line of the present inner rampart. In the very beginning, however, it may have been no more than a cross-dyke. During the second phase the defences were extended southwards on a different alignment as far as the southern cross-rampart, taking in a further 8 acres and including the long barrow. The rampart again consisted of a single bank and ditch separated by a narrow berm but this time of more massive proportions. The remaining fragments of bank and ditch have been much altered, the ditch is partly filled and a large hut platform has been inserted into the bank. An entrance may have existed E. of this feature.

In the final phase the hill-fort was extended to occupy the whole spur. The S.E. and S.W. entrances were constructed and on the western side of the central section the second phase ramparts were abandoned and others were built further down the slope. The second main rampart with its external ditch was also added, together with the S.E. outwork. The latter was modified at least once in an attempt to strengthen this weakest point of the hill-fort. At first it appears to have comprised only the inner bank, as far as the marked change in height and direction near its N.E. end; the entrance way would then have followed the approximate line of the present path. Subsequently, the outwork was strengthened by the extension of the inner bank north-eastward to the shoulder of the slope, and by the addition of the outer bank and ditch. Entry was then by means of a narrow ledge, still visible, along the steep slope below the end of the outwork.’

<7> Barrett, G, Various, Field Investigators Comments GB, F1 GB 12-APR-78 (Unpublished document). SDO17369.

<7.1> Ordnance Survey, OS/75/371 30-32 (Aerial Photograph). SDO19427.

<8> Hogg, A H A, 1979, British hillforts: an index, 205 (Monograph). SDO17414.

<9> Mercer, R, 1980, Hambledon Hill. A Neolithic landscape (Monograph). SDO13475.

<10> Mercer, R J, 1985, A Neolithic Fortress and Funeral Center; Scientific American (Article in serial). SDO13895.

<11> Mercer, R, 1986, Hambledon Hill Fieldwork and Excavation Project, The Hillfort Spur, 1986 Interim Report (Unpublished document). SDO16051.

<12> Mercer, R J, 1988, Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England; Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe (Article in monograph). SDO13896.

<13> RCHME: Industry and Enclosure in the Neolithic (Monograph). SWX1665.

<14> Oswald, A, 1997, Archaeological Investigations at Hambledon Hill, Dorset (Unpublished document). SDO20571.

<15> Tatler, S and Bellamy, P S, 2006, Badger Sett Remedial Work, Hambledon Hill, Child Okeford, Dorset. Archaeological Observations and Recording, September 2006 (Unpublished document). SDO13477.

<16> Mercer, R, and Healy, F, 2008, Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. Excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding landscape (Monograph). SDO13474.

<17> Lock, G, and Ralston, I, 2017, Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland [ONLINE], EN3399 (Digital archive). SDO17130.

<18> Bellamy, P, 2019, Hambledon Hill, Child Okeford, Dorset. Archaeological Observations and Recording during Erection of New Signs, October 2019 (Unpublished document). SDO16584.

<19> National Record of the Historic Environment, 206234 (Digital archive). SDO14739.

Record last edited

Apr 7 2025 12:22PM