Abstract:The variability of Wessex hillfort form, use and development has long been noted, but not satisfactorily explained. This paper seeks to explain this variability and suggests that each hillfort may have had its own distinctive history of use, dependent upon the nature of the hillfort community -the people who visited, inhabited and used the hillfort. This paper starts by using grid-group analysis to define identities that can be found among modern communities -such as that of spectators of contemporary professi… Show more
“…On one side are those who consider hillforts to be the elite residences of tribal leaders and central places of social, economic, political, and religious systems (Cunliffe, 1984b; Karl, 2011; Driver, 2013). On the other side are those who regard hillfort societies as very communal in emphasis and ideology, lacking marked social distinctions (Collis, 1981; Sharples, 1991a, 2010; Hill, 1996; Lock, 2011; Davis, 2015). In an important contribution, J.D.…”
Section: The Early and Middle Iron Age In Wessex Southern Britainmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This position, in Britain at least, has been extensively critiqued in recent years. Boundary construction, for instance, has been interpreted as a largely symbolic act defining the relationship between the communities involved (see especially Sharples, 2010), whilst I, amongst others, have highlighted that the internal layouts of many British hillforts appear to emphasize social conformity rather than promote social differences (Davis, 2015). In this sense, hillforts in Britain have come to be interpreted as an expression of the prestige of a community rather than of an individual (Collis, 2010; Sharples, 2010; Lock, 2011; Davis, 2013).…”
The Iron Age in temperate Europe is characterized by the emergence of hillforts. While such sites can be highly variable, they also share many characteristics, implying cultural linkages across a wide geographical area. Yet, the interpretation of hillforts has increasingly seen significant divergence in theoretical approaches in different European countries. In particular, Iron Age studies in Britain have progressively distanced themselves from those pursued in continental Europe. This article attempts to address this issue by analysing the evidence from two of the best-known hillforts in Europe: Danebury in Wessex, southern England, and the Heuneburg in Baden-Württemberg, south-western Germany. The article highlights a number of key similarities and differences in the occupational sequences of these sites. While the differences indicate that the hillforts are the creation of very different Iron Age societies, the synergies are argued to be a consequence of communities evincing similar responses to similar problems, particularly those resulting from the social tensions that develop when transforming previously dispersed rural societies into increasingly centralized forms.
“…On one side are those who consider hillforts to be the elite residences of tribal leaders and central places of social, economic, political, and religious systems (Cunliffe, 1984b; Karl, 2011; Driver, 2013). On the other side are those who regard hillfort societies as very communal in emphasis and ideology, lacking marked social distinctions (Collis, 1981; Sharples, 1991a, 2010; Hill, 1996; Lock, 2011; Davis, 2015). In an important contribution, J.D.…”
Section: The Early and Middle Iron Age In Wessex Southern Britainmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This position, in Britain at least, has been extensively critiqued in recent years. Boundary construction, for instance, has been interpreted as a largely symbolic act defining the relationship between the communities involved (see especially Sharples, 2010), whilst I, amongst others, have highlighted that the internal layouts of many British hillforts appear to emphasize social conformity rather than promote social differences (Davis, 2015). In this sense, hillforts in Britain have come to be interpreted as an expression of the prestige of a community rather than of an individual (Collis, 2010; Sharples, 2010; Lock, 2011; Davis, 2013).…”
The Iron Age in temperate Europe is characterized by the emergence of hillforts. While such sites can be highly variable, they also share many characteristics, implying cultural linkages across a wide geographical area. Yet, the interpretation of hillforts has increasingly seen significant divergence in theoretical approaches in different European countries. In particular, Iron Age studies in Britain have progressively distanced themselves from those pursued in continental Europe. This article attempts to address this issue by analysing the evidence from two of the best-known hillforts in Europe: Danebury in Wessex, southern England, and the Heuneburg in Baden-Württemberg, south-western Germany. The article highlights a number of key similarities and differences in the occupational sequences of these sites. While the differences indicate that the hillforts are the creation of very different Iron Age societies, the synergies are argued to be a consequence of communities evincing similar responses to similar problems, particularly those resulting from the social tensions that develop when transforming previously dispersed rural societies into increasingly centralized forms.
“…The issue is not the number of excavations, but rather it is a problem with the scale and nature of those excavations. Only two large-scale research excavations have been undertaken in the region in the last 50 years – at Caerau Hillfort (Davis & Sharples 2014; 2015) and Llanmaes (Lodwick & Gwilt 2007) – but both are still ongoing and neither is yet fully published. The vast majority of other recent excavations have been evaluations undertaken in advance of development.…”
Section: The Settlement Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is likely that Castle Ditches, Llantwit Major can also be added to this group as a significant amount of the interior may have been lost to coastal erosion (Whittle 1992). The only site to have been excavated on an extensive scale is Caerau Hillfort (Davis & Sharples 2014; 2015). This has demonstrated that the hillfort was probably constructed in the Early Iron Age ( c. 500 BC ) and was intensively occupied, possibly until the 1st century BC . Fig.…”
Section: The Settlement Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is clear that a concerted programme of radiocarbon dating is desperately needed in order to establish a convincing chronological framework for the Iron Age in the region. Recent work at Llanmaes (Gwilt & Lodwick 2009b) and at Caerau Hillfort (Davis & Sharples 2014; 2015) will go some way to rectify this situation, but a retrospective campaign assessing the dating evidence of old assemblages could also bear significant fruit.…”
Section: Assessing Later Prehistoric Cardiff and The Vale Of Glamorganmentioning
Over the last 20 years interpretive approaches within Iron Age studies in Britain have moved from the national to the regional. This was an important development which challenged the notion that a unified, British, Iron Age ever existed. However, whilst this approach has allowed regional histories to be told in their own right there has been far too much focus on 'key' areas such as Wessex and Yorkshire. Our knowledge of the 'gaps' in-between these regions is uneven across the country and seriously distorts our understanding of the period. This situation is particularly acute in Wales where there is a paucity of very large material and structural assemblages. As with many 'in-between' areas although developer-funded archaeology has increased the baseline dataset the interpretation of that data has not developed in parallel. This paper will demonstrate that to more fully understand the integrated regional composition of Iron Age Britain we must give detailed consideration to the evidence from these 'gaps'. By bringing together for the first time all of the available aerial photographic, chronological, faunal, palaeobotanical and excavated data in one of these 'gap' areas, southern Glamorgan, this paper will show that through the careful analysis of the available evidence we are able to gain an understanding of different areas' distinctive regional characters and move beyond our over-reliance on a small number of key regions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
