Hamilton Hill,

Sutton in Ashfield

Ursilla Spence

Contents
Summary
1. Introduction
2. Site description, topography and geology
3. History of Land-use cartographic and documentary references
4. Hamilton Hill place name evidence.
5. Hamilton Hill within the wider landscape.
6. Consideration of possible site types
7. Conclusions

Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Tim Allen and English Heritage for the commission, and to the site
owners, Robert and Jane Thompson for their help, encouragement and patience.

Written By

Read by

Signed off

UMS

EG

UMS

Report date and

Revisions
2010, 2012, 2015

Cover: extract from Sandersons map of Twenty Miles round Mansfield, 1835

Summary
This report pulls together the results of several different pieces of work in an
attempt to understand better the archaeological resource of Hamilton Hill, Sutton in
Ashfield. Hamilton Hill is clearly something specific, but does not fit readily into any
typical class of monument, and the topographic survey undertaken highlights this.
In undertaking this work, we have become aware of a number of research issues
which focus on our limited understanding of early medieval administrative
structures. In particular, how areas were managed by pre-Danelaw local
government, and how these were affected by the Danelaw and the Conquest.
Domesday Book entries for Nottinghamshire make occasional reference to
hundreds, while the shape and size of some of the Wapentakes recorded at
Domesday seem unfeasible in practical terms. Nevertheless, Hamilton Hill bears
similarity to a class of monument about which we are learning more all the time; the
early medieval meeting place, moot or thing. As with previous studies of this
particular monument, this report can offer no definitive answers, except possibly in
terms of ruling out with some confidence certain types of monument class. In
addition, the work has provided baseline data on ground conditions, particularly
relevant in the areas where modern ground slumping is evident, and has provided
fixed survey points which will allow a measure of monitoring control over ground
movement into the future.

1. Introduction
Hamilton Hill is a prominent landscape feature dominating a thin and diminishing green
wedge between the urban sprawls of Mansfield, Kirkby in Ashfield, and Sutton in Ashfield,
and centred on OS NGR SK 520555894. It is a scheduled monument (Nt133317), poorly
understood, but variously identified as a motte, gallows or gibbet, prehistoric burial mound,
or moot site, and lacking definitive evidence to be any of these. It lies within the parish and
district of Sutton in Ashfield, but close to the boundary of the parish and district of
Mansfield. It is ovoid in plan, with steeply sloping sides and a reasonably level hill top. The
hill top has a roughly triangular depression approximately 2m deep, within which is a
circular mound the upper surface of which is generally level with the hill top, i.e. it does not
rise above the hill top. There are a number of pit-like hollows which are generally circular
on the hill top with further pits and more irregular creases on the hill sides, while on the
eastern slope of the hill there are clear signs of ground slippage or subsidence. The site
owners report that the rate of subsidence has increased over the last few decades. EH
commissioned NCC Archaeology in 2007 to undertake fresh survey and investigation of
the site, in an attempt to understand better the archaeological resource, the possible
causes of subsidence, and to propose recommendations for the future management of the
site as appropriate.
The work undertaken includes desk based assessment, detailed topographic survey, the
fixing of 6 heavy duty survey pegs to allow ground slumping to be monitored and the
excavation of three test pits. This work was undertaken by Emily Gillott, Andy Gaunt, Ben
Crossley and Ursilla Spence, of Nottinghamshire County Council1. In addition ground
penetrating radar survey and magnetometer survey was undertaken by Peter Masters of

Spence, 2010 (a) and (b)

Cranfield University2. There are separate reports for the geophysical surveys, the test
pitting and the topographic survey, and reference should be made to these. To avoid
repetition, only selected material from those other reports is included in this one. The
conclusion of the project is that we still do not know what past uses Hamilton Hill has had,
and that while we can identify the probable cause of the ground slippage remediation may
not be feasible or even necessary. However, means are now in place by which it will be
possible to monitor the rate of subsidence, which is now thought to be localised and
probably unlikely to affect the most important parts of the site for the foreseeable future.

2. Site Description, topography and geology.

Hamilton Hill is in Sutton in Ashfield District Council within the County of Nottinghamshire.
It is centred on SK 5205 5894 and just within the historic boundary of Sherwood Forest,
close to its western boundary. At its highest point, which is not the summit of the manmade mound, it rises to 168.2m AOD. Hamilton Hill is an outlier of the rolling Robin Hood
Hills to the south, but is separated from them by generally level ground which surrounds it,
which serves to emphasise its singularity and dominant position in the landscape. Half a
kilometre away to the west and north of the Hill is the course of the river Maun. To the
south rises the Cauldwell Brook, and a number of subsidiary tributaries of this watercourse
run east of the Hill before joining the Maun on the outskirts of Mansfield. In effect, the Hill
is all but encircled by the Maun and its tributaries. The geology of Hamilton Hill is the
Nottingham Castle formation of the Sherwood Sandstones.

Fig 1, Topographic survey.

2

Masters, P,

The base of Hamilton Hill is incompletely circled by a bank which on the north side is
accompanied by an internal ditch. The bank on the south side of the hill may be concealed
by the mature and dense hedgerow which appears to follow its expected course. Ground
subsidence is evident on the hill slopes where irregular depressions are gradually
appearing. The site owners, who have known the site for decades, report that the rate of
subsidence is increasing. The topographic survey (Fig 1.) shows that the areas of
subsidence appear as discontinuous depressions that tend to follow linear trends.
A track or footpath has developed up the hill, leading to the roughly triangular depression,
within which the mound stands. The south western corner of the depression appears to
have been altered, possibly with quarrying activity in the relatively recent past. The current
site owner remembers people digging sand from the hill, and this may be associated with
that kind of activity. The mound is circular, around 26 m at its base, and about 2m high.
There are signs of shallow excavation activity into its rounded top, which may well be
antiquarian excavations. As noted previously, the highest point of the hill is not the top of
the mound, but is rather an area of the hill top to the west of the mound. This is marked on
the 1st Edition 25 OS map as the summit of the Hill, standing at 522.2 AOD (Fig 2).
There are a number of small pits on the hill top, mostly circular or semi-circular. The grass
cover is variable, tussocky in places, with finer grasses elsewhere. Brambles and nettles
grow in many of the pit features. The vegetation is typical of acid grassland. There are
occasional mature trees.

Fig. 2. 1st Edition 25:1mile OS (1882)

3. History of Land-use cartographic and documentary references

Hamilton Hill is unfortunately one of the areas not covered by the maps in Bankes 1609
survey of Sherwood Forest3, and cannot be certainly identified from the accompanying
text. The Kirkby map comes tantalisingly close, showing the close around Kirkby
Hardwick, the parish boundary between Kirkby in Ashfield and Sutton in Ashfield, and to
the north of the boundary (which is just over a kilometre from Hamilton Hill) the map is
marked Sutton Waste. To the West Kirkby Hardwick appears as a substantial house with
three ranges, and next to it the source of the river Maun is marked Mans Hedd.
William Seniors map of 1610 of the manor of Sutton does not show Hamilton Hill.
Chapmans map of 1774 of the County of Nottinghamshire seems to provide the earliest
cartographic reference to Hamilton Hill4. On this the hill is named, and appears to be
shown as rough grassland (Fig 3), however the scale of Chapmans map predicates
against showing any but the open fields, wastes and commons and significant blocks of
woodland.

Fig. 3. Chapman, 1774

The 1801 Enclosure map for Sutton in Ashfield shows Hamilton Hill to be unwooded
(although other sites are shown as wooded) and in the ownership of Samuel Unwin, the
owner of the nearby Sutton Mills. The low level ground around the hill appears
unenclosed. This ownership is of interest in that around 1760 Unwin had built Sutton Hall,
a large brick built residence a little upstream of his mills, and had the grounds landscaped
into a miniature park, clearly visible on Sandersons Map of 1835 (Fig. 4).

3
4

Mastoris & Groves

Chapman, 1774

Fig. 4. Sanderson, 1835.

From Sutton Hall, there would have been pleasant views down to the lake cum mill pond,
past the crenellated Mill buildings which from that angle would probably not have been
obviously industrial in nature, then onto the rolling landscape dominated by the mixed
woodland of Hamilton Hill, right on the horizon. In what was possibly a piece of 18th
century snobbery, Throsby makes no mention of the mill owners pleasant country house
in its rolling acres when he brings the Thoroton entry for Sutton in Ashfield up to date5.
Given the Sanderson map shows the mill-owner following the landscape design tastes and
traditions of the gentry it is tempting to wonder if the mixed coniferous and broadleaved
planting apparent on later maps might not be the result of his following the then
fashionable habit of planting copses on hilltops as part of a wider landscape design.
Sandersons map shows the area around Hamilton Hill as relatively small, rectangular
fields, typical of enclosure fields, which fits with the comment from Throsby in the 1790s
that the parish was chiefly enclosed6 although on the 1801 map the same area is
undivided. Possibly this reflects Unwin making the most of the land which cannot be seen
from Sutton Hall by subdividing the open space into pasture closes. Hamilton Hill Farm is
present by 1918. The OS mapping shows Hamilton Hill as having mixed coniferous and
deciduous tree cover throughout the maps right up to 1938. By 1955 the site is shown as
largely treeless.
We can be fairly certain that Hamilton Hill was within the wastes of Sutton until the area
was enclosed in the late 18th century. Whether it was wooded before enclosure we cannot
know, but the implications of the Chapman and 1801 enclosure map are that it was not.
Certainly around the time of enclosure it was planted with a mix of coniferous and
deciduous trees, and seems to have remained under woodland cover until WWII.

5
6

Thoroton and Throsby, 1797

Ibid.

4. Hamilton Hill place name evidence.

The earliest documentary reference to Hamilton Hill appears to be Chapmans map of
1774. This seems to be the first certain piece of documentary evidence that anyone had
noticed this large sandstone knoll which dominates the skyline for a few kilometres around.
As far as it is possible to tell Hamilton Hill does not seem to have attracted documentary
attention from antiquarians. The exception to this is the local historian G.G. Bonser, who
commented on the lack of investigation or interest in such a prominent landscape feature
when writing in the first half of the 20th C. In a short journal article on The Mam and its
Neighbours he states that the local name for the hill is the Mam7.
Hamilton (or variously Hamildun and Hambledon in the late 19th Century, according to
Bonser) is by no means unusual for a hill name. The first element is translated variously as
bare, scarred, treeless, crooked, rough, rugged, or cut off or level; all of which could apply
here8. The second element is dun or tun. Here dun, or hill, seems more likely than tun, or
village. Both elements are OE.
While Bonser refers to the hill being known locally as the Mam there is no supporting
evidence for this, and the current owners have not heard it so described. The root of this
word is the same as Mam Tor, a common Celtic hill name meaning, not surprisingly,
breast. Gover, Mawer and Stenton make it clear that Mansfield was known from
documents interchangeably as either Mamesfeld, as it appears in Domesday Book, or
Manesfeld through the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries9. They note that a map of the early
13th c. has a place name Mammesheved, the second element of which is derived from
the OE heafod or hill. Potentially, this name has the same roots as the Mans Hedd
shown on the 1609 Bankes survey of Sherwood, just to the east of Kirkby Hardwick and
southwest of Hamilton Hill, implying the head of the river. To confuse things somewhat,
Gover et al note that this must be the same Mammesheued noted in the 1232
Perambulation of Sherwood Forest and go on to say that Mammesheued must be the
high ground to the North West of Kirkby Hardwick. In the corrigenda they note further that
Professor Ekwall suggeststhat Mansfield does contain the river name Maun but that
the name is itself an early back formation from a hill named Mamesheued.
Between Ekwall, Bonser, Gover, Mawer and Stenton, the Mam that gives rise to the
names of the River Maun, and the town of Mansfield is either derived from the Celtic Hill
name Mam, or from a river name whose ultimate history is obscure. Perhaps however,
there are two early place names which share a common Man or Man element but refer to
different topographic features, one Mamesheafod, or Mam/Mans Hill and the other
Mam/Mans head which refers to the source, or head, of the river Maun. A candidate for
Mamesheafod, mam hill, has to be Hamilton Hill. Given the ambiguous nature of what
little evidence is available, this is advanced purely as a working hypothesis, readily offered
for critical consideration.

Bonser, GG, 1942

Ekwall, 1959
9
Gover, Mawer and Stenton, 1940
8

5. Hamilton Hill within the wider landscape.

We have noted that the Site lies within Sutton in Ashfield Parish, close to its boundary with
the parishes of both Kirkby in Ashfield and Mansfield. Sutton is an elongated parish,
running west- east, and in its shape one can see that it has been cut from the entity that
was Mansfield. Bishop10 has argued that the entry for Mansfield in Domesday indicates
that this manor was, by 1086, all that remained of a much larger multiple estate, one of
several with a specific and close link to Royal support and administration. In Domesday,
Sutton and the neighbouring Skegby are described as outliers to Mansfield with their
taxable assets rolled up with and indistinguishable from those of Mansfield. Sutton remains
part of the sokeland of Mansfield until ca. 1602. However, the map of the manor of Sutton
drawn up by William Senior in 161011 of lands owned by Cavendish does not extend as far
as Hamilton Hill, though areas to its west are clearly identifiable with the Sanderson map.
The nearest recognisable fields lie to the west of Hamilton Hill, and are marked assarts,
implying they have relatively recently been brought into cultivation, and possibly also that
the areas beyond remain waste. These are disparate observations, given to indicate the
sometimes contradictory evidence of the different sources or the interpretations which are
applied to them. Hamilton Hill and its surrounding area still seem to have fallen off the
edge of the map, and indeed, of the manor.
Looking back to the evidence we have for Domesday boundaries, there are some
interesting observations to make.
The Manor of Mansfield and its outliers of Sutton and Skegby at the time of Domesday lay
within the northern division of the Wapentake of Broxtowe. Broxtowe lay between the
neighbouring Wapentakes of Bassetlaw, Thurgarton and the adjacent county of
Derbyshire. The northern part of the wapentake containing Mansfield, Skegby and Sutton
is the most sparsely populated area of the County at Domesday. The meeting place for
the Broxtowe wapentake is relatively securely placed in Broxtowe itself, which is centrally
placed within the southern division. While this was convenient for the men of that part of
the Wapentake, for the men of Mansfield this meant a journey of some 12 miles as the
crow flies (which will bear little resemblance to the road system of the day) through some
of the most sparsely populated countryside in order to attend the meeting. We know that
the Wapentakes were established by the later tenth century12 and often cut across sokes.
Mansfield was a royal Saxon estate, but at Domesday its sokeland was spread across four
separate wapentakes; Broxtowe, Lythe, Oswaldbeck and Bassetlaw. This may imply a
layer of administration which is in the process of reorganising pre-existing hierarchical
territorial arrangements. Before Domesday, however, and presumably for at least some
time thereafter there will have remained a requirement for the sokemen of Mansfield to
continue to pay regular attendance at the soke court. By the twelfth century wapentake
assemblies were on a four week cycle. The evidence implies that there were men who
were being required to fulfil their duty to attend multiple assemblies on a regular basis,
although this situation may have been short lived as changes to the administrative
situation worked their way through. For the Wapentake, at least, this must have placed
considerable burdens on those who were to attend from its furthest limits. Another hint of
pre-wapentake administrative organisation is the presence in the County of small

10

Bishop, 1982
Senior map 1610 ref
12
Stafford, 1985.
11

hundreds13; these small hundreds of 12 carucates.. or multiples thereof, are confined

to Nottinghamshire and adjacent shires. Broxtowe has one such to the south with a
collection of 5 manors which are physically separated from the rest of the Wapentake by
Rushcliffe. Elsewhere in the text is a reference to Hundreds at Blidworth and Plumtree,
while there is a reference in 1838 to Sutton parish being in the Hundred of North Broxtowe
14
. That these small hundreds can be tentatively identified by summing the land
measurements provided in Domesday suggests an administrative layer which was by then
falling or already fallen out of use, possibly a pre-wapentake institution on a more local
scale. The extensive sokelands of places such as Mansfield, still evident at Domesday,
and the more implicit presence of the small hundreds suggests that in some Wapentakes
at least it can be expected that there may be multiple meeting places, serving different
administrative functions and with different dates of origin, and some potentially losing their
identity or local recognition over time. At the time the fieldwork for this report was
completed, there were possibly some 5 possible meeting sites known. Further research
and developer funded work has expanded both the number of known sites, and enhanced
our understanding of their form and archaeological potential. The Nottinghamshire
assembly sites are beginning to display some interesting similarities in both the form of the
individual sites, their archaeological resource, and in their wider landscape attributes. This
is considered further below.
To attempt to understand the archaeology of Hamilton Hill it is necessary to work
backwards, looking at the possible interpretations of the site based on analogous forms
and comparing these with the results of the recent geophysical investigations.
There is little evidence to suggest that the earthworks on the hill top are modern in date.
We have personal recollections of the current site owner that sand or clay was extracted in
the relatively recent past, but this was clearly small scale work. Indeed, it might be worth
considering why the Hill has not been used far more extensively for quarrying, given that
those sloping hill sides would provide a good working face for sand and gravel extraction.
No local tradition is reported for any other works to the Hill, during the lifetime of the
current owner and his father before him. The mound and its surrounding depression are
clearly shown on from the earliest OS mapping. They are not shown on Sanderson, but
this is to be expected, as Sanderson is more interested in showing the woodland than
localised topographic details of landform.

6. Consideration of possible site types

A number of archaeological site types are associated with mounds, and it may be worth
considering these to address their feasibility in this particular case. In this the focus is upon
the mound first, its surrounding depression second and third their relative position on the
hill-top.

Burial Mound
This is the obvious prehistoric monument type to be considered for Hamilton Hill. The
position of the mound just off the summit of the hill might fit with such an interpretation,
13
14

(Morris, 1977, see note S1 and passim)

Hall, ST, 1838, History of Sutton.

10

although the shape of the surrounding depression even allowing for amendment by
recent quarrying seems simply too irregular. Apart from this irregularity it is tantalisingly
akin to the bowl and disc barrows of the Wessex culture, although these are not a common
site type in the East Midlands, and are positively unknown in Nottinghamshire. It also
seems odd that the mound is not just off the highest point, but is actually set below the
surrounding hill top; burial mounds might not take the highest spot on a hill, but they are
normally clearly visible as the most prominent feature against the skyline from some
viewpoint. This is not the case here. Nevertheless, a burial mound has to remain a
possibility. The geophysical survey failed to locate any obvious features one might
associate with burials, but this is perhaps not surprising given that a grave or pit would be
relatively small, and on this subsoil such a feature cut into the sandy soil would be
backfilled with the same material. It may be worth noting that of the three test pits
excavated as part of this work the one closest to the mound was the only one found to
contain a concentration of gryphaea, the fossil remains of bivalve shellfish deposited in the
shallows of Jurassic seas, and familiarly known as Devils toenails. By concentration, what
is meant is that there were >15 in a 1m square test pit, all from the topsoil, while not one
was recovered from the other test pits15. There appears to be no way in which these fossil
shells could have been deposited here by natural geological processes16. In seeking an
explanation of their presence, the possibility that they arrived as part of a load of lime, to
be used as fertiliser, has been considered. While a rational explanation would be welcome,
it is felt unlikely that this argument can be supported. Limestone for use as a fertiliser
usually undergoes chemical and physical processes to ensure efficient release of the
chemicals it contains; these include grinding or milling and burning; the presence of fossils
of 10-20mm + in length would imply these processes were omitted or inefficient.
Secondly, one might expect that if it has arrived as a fertiliser, presumably to sweeten acid
grassland or heath, it would have been spread across the hill. If this were true, one would
have expected to have found additional fossils in one or the other of the other two test pits.
The excavator is adamant that this was not the case.
The presence of fossils in association with prehistoric and early medieval burials has been
noted on occasion17 and where the geological context is less clear cut, may more often
than not have been overlooked. Whether related to burial rites, or some other practice, this
concentration of non-local fossils close to the obviously archaeological feature of the
mound seems likely to indicate that they are there as a result of deliberate activity.

Motte
It has also been postulated that this mound might be a small motte18. In terms of the wider
landscape at the time of the Conquest, this hypothesis certainly has some potential.
Hamilton Hill is in Sutton in Ashfield parish, but both Sutton and Skegby at the time of the
Conquest were outliers of the important royal Saxon estate of Mansfield, and transfer to
William thereafter. There are no documentary records to hint at a motte here, but this is
not uncommon for the earliest of the earthen defences. While its self effacing position
within the surrounding depression seems uncharacteristic for the practicalities of a motte,
the strongest argument against this hypothesis may be the relatively small size of the
15

Gillott, E, pers comm..

Carney, J, pers comm..
17
Oakley, K, 1965
18
Sumpter, T, 19XX
16

11

mound, at roughly 26m in diameter. The results of the geophysical survey do not offer any
suggestion of substantial structures, or hint at human occupation activity.
Windmill Mound
In favour of this possibility it can be noted that the mound is of dimensions which could fit
with those of a mill mound. The hill-top location is certainly windswept. There is no
documentary evidence for a mill here, but the absence of evidence certainly is not
evidence of absence.
Against the theory would seem to be the fact that the mound has been raised within the
surrounding hollow, and the top of the mound is not the highest point of the hill. In addition
a mill would need substantial engineering works, such as post holes for timbers, to secure
the structure, so that the lack of evidence for such features from the geophysical survey
would seem to predicate against this as a favourite option, although it may well have been
a short lived adaptation (as it appears in no documentary records) to some pre-existing
site.
Gibbet/Gallows, moot or place of assembly, shrine
Although these are often different sites, they are considered here together as the evidence
(limited though it is) feasibly fits Hamilton Hill for one if not all three at differing times.
The earliest sites appear to be the shrines. The literature on the archaeology and history of
early meeting places, execution sites, and shrines bears striking testament to the complex
range of variables from which the peoples of these islands in the early medieval period
selected when choosing their significant sites. In doing so, unfortunately, they seem to
have left little in the way of concrete archaeological evidence. Religious activities tended
to focus in the first instance on natural landscape features of groves, hills, lakes and
springs, and to some of these sites at least accreted a secondary role as an assembly
place. Alternative foci19 might be pre-existing barrows, or the more recent burial mounds of
prominent individuals. Still others have place name evidence suggesting man made timber
or stone structures, possibly using any of the aforementioned natural features; Place
names of the Swineshead or Manshead type.may refer to animal and human heads set
up as landmarks or cult objects20. Here we have a classic example of the contrary nature
of what may be taken for evidence; a placename for which there is direct local relevance
but which has been interpreted very differently. Nevertheless this does suggest an
alternative view of the placename evidence for the area. Realistically, it will be difficult to
prove that Hamilton Hill started life as a shrine, but it would be useful to remember that the
Hill is a prominent landscape feature, whose base is almost encircled by the rising of three
of the tributaries of the River Maun. The possible links between the river name, the quoted
local name for the hill and Mansfield have previously been noted
Grimm notes a Germanic tradition that the shrines also acted as the focus of popular
assembly21, and one may assume that at some point this incorporated the role of place of
punishment. The nature of assemblies must have changed and developed, nevertheless,
there is evidence for some sites acting as all three of these site types, possibly most
19

Meaney, 1995
Blair, 1995
21
Quoted in Meaney, 1995
20

12

obviously Yeavering, which has amphitheatre, shrine structures and execution cemetery,
though the contemporaneity of these disparate functions may not be clear. Reynolds
comments that formal judicial execution grounds came into existence during the late
seventh or early eighth centuries in England. Execution sites have distinct characteristics
of location: placing on hundred or estate boundaries; the re-use of earthworks, principally
barrows; close proximity to route ways and elevated locations.22 While Hamilton Hill
could fit the bill in all respects, these characteristics also fit more than a few assembly
places.
Sumpter tentatively posited Hamilton Hill as the site of a gibbet or gallows or a moot in the
earlier report of 199323. In the 18th century, a gallows stood by the main road between
Nottingham and Mansfield, and from documentary evidence it is known that the sight of it
was the first intimation one was nearing Mansfield. This site has long been associated
with a prominent mound just off the A60, at NGR SK 54695697. Recent work by NCC
community archaeologists, comprising topographic survey and a re-consideration of
various documentary sources indicates that not only is this almost certainly the site of the
18th and19th century gallows, but it is probably also the site of the Gallow tre hil of the
1437 Belvoir map24. This site in Thieves Wood therefore almost certainly accounts for the
place of execution for Mansfields manorial court from the medieval into post medieval
periods. If Hamilton Hill was an execution site it would presumably have to have an early
Medieval date, and probably ought to be associated with the policing functions of soke,
hundred or wapentake rather than the Royal manor. It is not clear from the literature how
often or commonly the policing role of these institutions involved capital punishment,
although there are certainly areas in the country which have good evidence for such
sites25.
From the fieldwork undertaken as part of this commission, there is nothing to lend strength
to the idea that Hamilton Hill is an execution site. There are no obvious post settings for a
gallows obvious from the geophysical investigation. The other obvious by-product of an
execution site is graves. There is no hint of these from the geophysical investigation, but
again perhaps this is not a surprise. Shallow graves cut into sandy soils and backfilled
with sand and sandy topsoils will be hard to spot. In this case, excavation might be of no
assistance either, as in these acid contexts skeletal material will decay rapidly, leaving soil
stains at best. The very obvious practical advantage to a sandy hill top as a burial site for
societys outcasts is that grave digging would be very easy, the soils are light and easily
worked, as at Blyth Law, the Abbot of Blyths gallows site (SK641 847)
The attributes Reynolds notes for judicial execution sites can also apply to assembly sites,
particularly before the seventh and eighth centuries and the growing desire for spatial
separation of these judicial and administrative functions. It is worth thinking about the
form of the earthworks at Hamilton Hill. To quote Sumpter26 The fact that the mound is
lower than the surrounding hill top may well lend support to the concept this is a speaking
platform (whether or not this was its original purpose). A commanding high position may
have advantages for showing off the outcomes of wrongdoing, but have distinct drawbacks
if a speaker fights against the prevailing wind. The mound is in effect windproofed from the
22

Reynolds,
Sumpter, 1993
24
Gaunt &Gillott, 2010.
25
Reynolds, 2009
26
Sumpter, 1993
23

13

west and south west, and the audience likewise have some degree of shelter. Meaney
notes that The mound is the archetypal assembly point, because it gives good
opportunities for announcements, for speech making and for impressing inferiors. He who
has control of a mound needs no soapbox27.
Work on other assembly sites in the County has begun to demonstrate a general pattern
for their choice of location and their overall form. Further work on this subject is needed,
but in general terms the known sites assumed to be moot sites in the County are found on
the tops of hills, with (assuming limited tree cover) between 180 and 360 degree views of
the surrounding area (Blyth Law (Blyth), Speller Hill (Aslockton), Spellow Hill (Colston
Bassett), Thynghowe (Perlethorpe cum Budby), Moot House Pit (Tithby), and Broxtowe
(Bilborough)). Most of the sites are close to at least one parish boundary. There is now
evidence for man-made mounds atop the hills at Blyth, Thynghowe and by Moot House
Pit. At the most recently discovered new site, in Colston Bassett parish, Roman settlement
seems to have provided a focus for the later assembly place. Beside the site known as
Moot House Pit, Stukeley records a mound alongside the Fosse Way; this is almost
certainly the Bronze Age burial mound, later used by the Romans (possibly as a look out
post), before being re-used as a focus of a late Roman and early Saxon cremation
cemetery, and excavated during dualling of the A46. Bodies are known from Blyth Law, but
it is assumed this was because it was the Abbot of Blyths gallows in the 14th C. A mound
on a hill with good all round views and close to parish boundaries seems to be the basic
requisite. Pre-existing archaeology may also be preferable. Hamilton Hill appears not to
have the latter criterion, but it certainly has the former.

6. Conclusions
This project has provided new information about the topography of Hamilton Hill. It has
shown through gradiometry and GPR that there are no obvious previously unknown
anthropogenic features on the hill top such as massive post holes indicative of a gallows or
gibbet, but has identified linear ditch-type features which might fit well with the results of
the test pitting. The three test pits clearly demonstrate there is an underlying geological
cause for the localised subsidence, where bands of softer sandstones are more
susceptible to water percolation and animal burrowing, which has possibly been
precipitated by the effects of 20th c deforestation and the increasing impact of climate
change. The test pitting also indicates that the geology of the area of most archaeological
potential, the hill-top, seems to consist of the harder yellow sandstone. While monitoring of
the subsidence needs to continue, this may mean that in fact the situation is more stable
than had previously been thought. The topographic and geophysical surveys seem to
predicate against further consideration of Hamilton hill as a motte or typical prehistoric
burial mound. The presence of the fossil gryphaea in the depression around the mound,
but in neither of the other test pits, is odd, and suggests what might be considered nonnormative anthropogenic behaviour.
What archaeological evidence can prove that this was a place where men stood to speak
or sat to listen to discussions on local issues? No post holes, pits, ditches are necessary.
A mound is useful, and if a hill top is involved, some wind protection is a good idea. The
known assembly sites are beginning to show distinct practical similarities, while their
27

Meaney,1995.

14

original choice may have been guided by the interaction of any number of variables in the
natural landscape of the day. Hamilton Hill has parallels with an increasing number of
assembly sites, while there are growing signs that local government in the early medieval
period may have undergone significant changes over time; changes for which existing
documentary and topographic information can only provide limited and intriguing hints. Of
all the possible explanations for the site, a place of early medieval assembly seems overall
the most likely. Further work on the meeting places of the County is needed, and a
gazetteer of the currently known sites would be an excellent starting point.

Bibliography
15

Bishop, MW, 1982, Multiple Estates in Late Anglo-Saxon Nottinghamshire, TTS lxxxxvii
Blair, J 1995, Anglo-Saxon shrines and their prototypes, Anglo-Saxon Studies in
Archaeology and History 8.
Bonser, GG, 1942, The Mam and its neighbours, TTS, xlvi,
Ekwall, E, 1936,The Oxford Dictionary of English Place Names, Oxford
Gaunt, A and Gillott, E, 2007, Archaeological and Topographic Survey of a mound
in Thieves Wood, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NCC Unpublished Report
Gover, GEB, Mawer, A and Stenton, FM, 1940, Place Names of Nottinghamshire, Vol 17
EPNS
Hall, S.T., 1838, A History of Sutton in Ashfield , quoted in Lindley, L.
Masters, P, 2010, Ground Penetrating Radar Survey at Hamilton Hill, Mansfield,
Nottinghamshire, Cranfield Forensic Institute Report No 033
Mastoris, S. and Groves, S. 1997. Sherwood Forest in 1609. A Crown Survey by Richard
Bankes. Thoroton Record Series xl.
Meaney, A, 1993, Gazetteer of Hundred and Wapentake Meeting Places of the Cambridge
Region, Proc Camb Ant Soc lxxxii
Morris, J, 1977, Domesday Book 28 Nottinghamshire, Philimore
Reynolds, A, 2009, Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs, OUP
Roffe, D, Phd Thesis, Nottingham and the Shire, http://www.roffe.co.uk/phd/phd080.htm
Spence, U, 2010, Topographic Survey of Hamilton Hill, NCC Unpublished report
Spence, U, 2010, Test Pitting at Hamilton Hill, NCC Unpublished report
Stafford, P 1985 The East Midlands in the Early Middle Ages. Leicester: Leicester
University Press
Sumpter, T, 1993, Hamilton Hill, Sutton in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, JSAC Unpublished
report
Thoroton, R, ed Throsby J, 1790, History of Nottinghamshire, reprinted NCC

Maps
Chapman, J, 1774, Nottinghamshire, reprinted 2003 by NCC
OS Mapping various
Sanderson, G, 1835, Map of twenty miles round Mansfield, reprinted 2001 by NCC
Senior, W, 1610, Manor of Sutton in Ashfield

16