“…Wheeler's model for Iron Age warfare continued to be developed and elaborated into the 1990s by Michael Avery (eg, 1986;1993). Avery saw changes in rampart and entrance design as a response to progressively more sophisticated assault tactics of 'stoning and fire' (Avery 1986).…”
Section: The 'Military' Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In Avery's model the early 'wall-and-fill' ramparts were intended to protect defenders from simple rush attacks with hand-held weapons such as swords and spears (Avery 1986;1993). No particularly sophisticated tactical devices are observable in their design.…”
Section: The 'Military' Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Avery saw changes in rampart and entrance design as a response to progressively more sophisticated assault tactics of 'stoning and fire' (Avery 1986). Early Iron Age ramparts, of 'wall-and-fill' type, were in his view intended essentially to create a vertical barrier.…”
Following Wheeler's excavations at Maiden Castle, the multivallate hillforts of Wessex came to be seen as responses to a specific form of warfare based around the massed use of slings. As part of the wider post-processual ‘rethink’ of the British Iron Age during the late 1980s and 1990s, this traditional ‘military’ interpretation of hillforts was increasingly subject to criticism. Apparent weaknesses in hillfort design were identified and many of the most distinctive features of these sites (depth of enclosure, complexity of entrance arrangements, etc) were reinterpreted as symbols of social isolation. Yet this ‘pacification’ of hillforts is in many ways as unsatisfactory as the traditional vision. Both camps have tended to view warfare as a detached, functional, and disembedded activity which can be analysed in terms of essentially timeless concepts of military efficiency. Consideration of the use of analogous structures in the ethnographic record suggests that, far from being mutually exclusive, the military and symbolic dimensions are both essential to a more nuanced understanding of the wider social role of hillforts in Britain and beyond.
“…Wheeler's model for Iron Age warfare continued to be developed and elaborated into the 1990s by Michael Avery (eg, 1986;1993). Avery saw changes in rampart and entrance design as a response to progressively more sophisticated assault tactics of 'stoning and fire' (Avery 1986).…”
Section: The 'Military' Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In Avery's model the early 'wall-and-fill' ramparts were intended to protect defenders from simple rush attacks with hand-held weapons such as swords and spears (Avery 1986;1993). No particularly sophisticated tactical devices are observable in their design.…”
Section: The 'Military' Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Avery saw changes in rampart and entrance design as a response to progressively more sophisticated assault tactics of 'stoning and fire' (Avery 1986). Early Iron Age ramparts, of 'wall-and-fill' type, were in his view intended essentially to create a vertical barrier.…”
Following Wheeler's excavations at Maiden Castle, the multivallate hillforts of Wessex came to be seen as responses to a specific form of warfare based around the massed use of slings. As part of the wider post-processual ‘rethink’ of the British Iron Age during the late 1980s and 1990s, this traditional ‘military’ interpretation of hillforts was increasingly subject to criticism. Apparent weaknesses in hillfort design were identified and many of the most distinctive features of these sites (depth of enclosure, complexity of entrance arrangements, etc) were reinterpreted as symbols of social isolation. Yet this ‘pacification’ of hillforts is in many ways as unsatisfactory as the traditional vision. Both camps have tended to view warfare as a detached, functional, and disembedded activity which can be analysed in terms of essentially timeless concepts of military efficiency. Consideration of the use of analogous structures in the ethnographic record suggests that, far from being mutually exclusive, the military and symbolic dimensions are both essential to a more nuanced understanding of the wider social role of hillforts in Britain and beyond.
“…Aunque tal vez ya no fuera así en los últimos momentos de la Edad del Hierro y es posible que el arco, y otras armas similares, estuvieran en uso entre los pueblos indígenas de Europa occidental. No deberíamos asumir a priori que los «pueblos bárbaros» no hayan podido aprender a emplear y a fabricar este tipo de máquinas (u otras diferentes) en sus enfrentamientos con los romanos (Avery 1986).…”
Section: El Problema Del Empleo De Artillería Ligera En El Asalto a Punclassified
El oppidum de Monte Bernorio es conocido como una de las ciudades fortificadas de la Edad del Hierro más importantes del cantábrico. Domina una importante encrucijada de pasos a través de la Cordillera Cantábrica que permite la comunicación entre la submeseta norte y la zona central de la franja cantábrica. La conquista de este oppidum resultó esencial, como demuestran las recientes campañas de excavación arqueológicas, durante las campañas militares que el emperador Octavio Augusto desencadenó contra Cántabros y Astures. Se presentan en este trabajo nuevas informaciones relacionadas con la conquista del núcleo por parte de las legiones romanas y de los restos de armamento localizados en las excavaciones, en especial de los proyectiles de artillería empleados en el ataque. La presencia de proyectiles de artillería de pequeño calibre indicaría el empleo de este tipo de máquinas en época altoimperial.The oppidum of Mount Bernorio is known as one of the most prominent fortified sites in the Iron Age in the Cantabrian coast. It dominated an important crossroads across the Cantabrian Range that connected the North Sub-plateau and the central area of the Cantabrian Strip. The conquest of this oppidum became essential during the military campaigns of the Emperor Octavio Augusto against the Cantabrians and the Asturians, as the recent archaelogical excavations campaigns have shown. This piece of work reveals news related to the conquest of the site by the roman legions, as well as the remains of arms found during the excavations, especially the artillery projectiles used for the attack. The evidence of artillery projectiles of small-bore caliber could prove the use of this kind of machines in the Early Imperial Age.
“…56-68;Milner, 1999, pp. 118-120, 123-126;Rice and LeBlanc, 2001;Solometo, 2006), subsistence regimes (e.g., Larson, 1972), and social organization (e.g., Avery, 1986;Earle, 1997;Parkinson and Duffy, 2007;Schaepe, 2006, pp. 693-700).…”
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.