To what extent were Iron Age hillforts primarily defensive structures? (original) (raw)
Related papers
W. O'Brien 2017 The development of the hillfort in prehistoric Ireland
Hillforts are one of the best known, and certainly the largest, monuments of the later prehistoric period in Ireland. Their immense size testifies to the significance these central places held in economic, political and ideological terms for societies of the later Bronze Age. Hillforts were centres for high-status residence, ceremony and assembly, and a visual expression of power in the landscape. Their occurrence is another manifestation of a warrior culture that spread across Eu-rope during the later second millennium BC. This paper presents the results of a recent investigation of hillfort chronology in Ireland. The first examples were built c.1400–1200 BC during the Middle Bronze Age, and the number of hillforts grew significantly during the twelfth and eleventh centuries BC into the Late Bronze Age. The possibility of hillforts dating to other periods of Irish prehistory is also considered in relation to hilltop enclosures of the Early Neolithic and Iron Age. The hillfort played an important role in the emergence of complex societies in late prehistoric Europe. The imposing size and landscape setting of these great enclosures reflect the significance they held, from their military associations to their use as central places of assembly and elite residence with important economic , social and ceremonial functions. The building of hillforts was connected to a new type of political structure and centralized leadership in social formations often classified as 'chiefdoms'. Within these societies, hillforts represented a conspicuous display of power in the landscape. This paper presents the results of recent archaeological fieldwork in southern Ireland, which examined different manifestations of the hillfort phenomenon during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. The significance of hillforts The purpose of hillforts is much debated across Europe, with opinion divided between researchers who regard them as defensive strongholds, and those who argue for wider meaning in economic, social and ideological terms. The physical barriers presented by these sites represent control of a culturally significant place Abstract Introduction
Archaeologia Aeliana XXI, p15-28, 1993
A s u r v e y o f Lordenshaws hillfort and its environs was undertaken by R C H M E in D ecem ber 1990 at the request o f Northum ber land N ational Park. The field drawings, plan and descriptive account have been deposited in the National A rchaeological Record (reference number N Z 09 N E 2). The hillfort is located at N Z 0545 9925 upon the Fell Sandstones o f Garleigh Moor. The site lies at a height o f 268 m above O D , and has been constructed upon a locally prominent spur o f the Sim onside Hills which has panor amic views along Coquetdale and eastwards to the coast. The archaeological investigation o f Lorden shaws and its im m ediate environs has been sporadic. M ackenzie (1825, 80) reproduced a sketch plan o f the fort-misleadingly labelled a "plan o f Burgh Hill Camp"-drawn by a Mr. E. Smith o f Rothbury, which appears to be the earliest depiction o f the earthworks. Later in the nineteenth century G reenwell excavated two cairns near the fort which were "still undisturbed" (G reenw ell and R olleston 1877, 430). H edley (1889, 226-30) surveyed the fort and the hollow-way to its E in 1888, but om itted the other elem ents o f its landscape context. H e depicted the fort in simplified form: the evidence o f the inner defences, the later overlying settlem ent in the SE, and the fort interior were all shown with little detail. H ow ever, this paper was one o f the first to draw attention to the adjacent exam ples of prehistoric rock art (1889, 229-30). D ixon, who had collaborated with H edley on the survey o f Lordenshaws, reproduced the plan in 1903 in "U pper C oquetdale" , together with a sketch of the E entrance drawn by his brother (1903, 142). A com prehensive record o f the local rock art was prepared by N ewbigin who drew attention to the newly discovered exam ples to the E o f the fort (1932). It was not until the appearance of volum e X V of the Northumberland County History in 1940 that a new survey o f the fort was attem pted (H ope D odds 1940, 30-2). The depiction is relatively accurate and, unusually for its period, the fort is placed in its landscape setting with the principal boundaries and track ways shown, although certain relationships be tween these features are m isleading. This work also summarized much o f the documentary history of the surrounding area. Subsequent publications have concentrated on the rock art (Beckensall 1974; 1983; 1992). The fort and its outworks Lordenshaws is a sub-circular, multivallate work with two opposing entrances which has an overall diameter o f som e 140 m. The inner enclosure has a sub-oval, alm ost D-shaped plan, measuring internally roughly 70 m from NW to SE by 45 m transversely (figs 1 and 2). The outerm ost defences, though partly dis turbed by later features in the E and SE, are the best-preserved and m ost prominent. The outer ditch, which has a very sharp V-shaped profile, is up to 9*0 m wide in places, and ranges in depth from 1*4 m in the W to 2*5 m on the N perim eter. A counterscarp bank, although intermittent in the SW, is w ell pre served in the N , surviving up to 1*3 m in height.
Archaeological Excavations at Harehaugh hill-fort in 2002
Archaeologia Aeliana, 2012
Excavations at Harehaugh hillfort in Coquetdale, Northumberland, were carried out in 2002 as part of a wider project to determine the rate at which the monument was being damaged by erosion and how this was impacting upon significant archaeological remains. The results of the excavations and an associated, 10-year programme of erosion-scar monitoring indicate that erosion is having a very significant impact upon archaeological remains, some of which remain well preserved with the potential to reveal important information. Although the overall picture remains rather patchy and nothing approaching a complete chronological sequence for the site can yet be attempted, the 2002 excavations have provided significant new insights into the character and phasing of the site. The defences are shown to be of varied construction, possibly in part resulting from episodes of ad hoc repair, but include earthen and stone construction elements with at least one section of well-built stone revetment. Work in the interior revealed evidence for ephemeral structures as well as activities such as metalworking and cook ing. In terms of chronology, radiocarbon dates in the middle and later Iron Age were procured from wood charcoal, but there was insufficient evidence either to support or to challenge accepted notions on the phasing of Northumbrian hillforts. However, it was determined that an interior earthwork, prob - ably part of the earliest enclosure on the site and shown to be much more substantial then previously recognised, probably holds the key to the broad phasing of the site. Finally, some comments are offered on the significance and potential of the hillfort and its environs, and an attempt is made to place it in the context of regional Iron Age studies, particularly in the light of recent contextual surveys of hill - forts in upland Northumberland and discoveries of large lowland sites to the south.
Castle Hill and its Landscape; Archaeological Investigations at the Wittenhams, Oxfordshire
2010
This volume describes the results of archaeological investigations carried out between 2003 and 2006 on behalf of the Northmoor Trust in the parishes of Little Wittenham and Long Wittenham, Oxfordshire. The work included examination of cropmarks, large-scale geophysical surveys, fieldwalking and excavations. Geophysical survey was concentrated in and around the scheduled hillfort at Castle Hill, Little Wittenham (Oxfordshire SAM No. 208), and revealed a smaller enclosure within the hillfort dated by excavation to the late Bronze Age.The survey also suggested that otherwise archaeological features within the hillfort were relatively sparse. A section across the hillfort ditch and rampart did not produce a clear construction date, though in the interior both early and middle Iron Age pits were found, some containing human burials or bones. The hillfort ditch appears to have been cleaned out throughout the Iron Age, the spoil probably used to enhance the outer bank. The hillfort was also used in the late Roman period (4th century AD), when very large rectangular pits were dug, and midden material was piled up behind and over the Iron Age rampart. People were also buried in the interior at this time. Saxon finds were very few, but a medieval pit and a quarry indicate occupation in the 12th/13th centuries AD. Coring of peat deposits beside the Thames north of Castle Hill provided evidence of the environmental succession from the early Iron Age onwards. On the plateau below the hillfort cropmarks and geophysical survey revealed a dense settlement stretching west, to Hill Farm and beyond. This included a late Bronze Age and early Iron Age midden some 50 m across, a middle Iron Age curving boundary ditch down the middle with smaller sub-rectangular enclosures either side, and early and middle Iron Age penannular enclosures, four-post structures and pits. Settlement seems to have shifted southwards and westwards in the middle Iron Age, and late Iron Age or early Roman ditches were also found near to Hill Farm. The Roman settlement was mainly 2nd–3rd century AD, and probably consisted of four enclosures, one of which contained a masonry building (now largely destroyed) with a tiled roof, decorated with mosaic tesserae and painted wall plaster. This enclosure was approached by a ditched trackway, with a second larger enclosure alongside. A third enclosure was partly revealed north of Hill Farm, and a fourth enclosure (not investigated) lay alongside Roman field boundaries west of Hill Farm. Despite earlier finds at Hill Farm, no Saxon evidence was found in these excavations. The project has revealed a unique combination of late Bronze Age hilltop enclosure, external settlement and an adjacent midden. In the early Iron Age the hilltop enclosure was replaced by the hillfort, where feasting occurred, while the adjacent settlement around the midden grew to be one of the largest in the region.The midden was abandoned in the middle Iron Age, and a long boundary ditch may have divided this ancestral area off from settlement to the south and west. There was also more middle Iron Age activity within the hillfort, including a number of human burials. In the Roman period the settlement probably included a small villa, while the hillfort itself was probably reoccupied in the later 4th century AD. Intriguingly both Roman cremations and inhumations were buried around and within the hillfort, suggesting a continuity of burial location spanning 1000 years. Geophysical survey and evaluation trenches were also dug across a cropmark complex at Neptune Wood east of Long Wittenham, revealing an early Iron Age enclosure ditch, a Roman trackway and associated fields, and a pair of large middle Saxon pits or waterholes.