Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T13:58:54.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Re-interpreting the Danebury Assemblage: Houses, Households, and Community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2013

Oliver Davis*
Affiliation:
CAER Heritage Project, School of History, Archaeology & Religion, Cardiff University Humanities Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff University, CF10 3EU UK Email: DavisOP@cardiff.ac.uk

Abstract

Cunliffe's excavations at Danebury have revealed an Iron Age settlement in extraordinary detail. Its inhabitants have come to represent, in the popular literature at least, the idealised hillfort community of warriors, craftsmen, farmers, and their families in a hierarchically ordered settlement system. This model has been vigorously challenged, although largely from a theoretical perspective, and there has been little contextual re-analysis of the dataset. This paper seeks to re-examine the Danebury structural assemblage and question why Iron Age people came together in this place, and how those that did come perceived their place within wider group identities. By examining patterns of activity within the interior of Danebury this paper demonstrates that the nature of the community that resided in the hillfort changed considerably over the course of the Early and Middle Iron Age. In particular, it is argued that Danebury was occupied by a permanent population. The organisation of domestic space, however, was tightly managed. In the early period occupation was characterised by single round-houses of individual household units emphasising their distinctiveness by spatial isolation and variability in round-house design. A dramatic change in the nature and intensity of occupation came in the late period. A large number of ‘identikit’ round-houses were tightly packed into the quarry hollows in the lee of the ramparts. This probably represents households from the surrounding settlements moving into the hillfort. It is also argued that the communal construction and maintenance of Danebury's defences would have been a way for a dispersed population to have reproduced a sense of community. Participation may also have been a mechanism of maintaining networks and relationships with other households in the long term

Résumé

Réinterprétation de l'assemblage de Danebury: Maisons, foyers et communauté, d'Oliver Davis

Les fouilles de Cunliffe à Danebury ont révélé une occupation de l’âge du fer dans ses moindres détails. Ses habitants en sont venus à représenter, au moins dans la littérature populaire, un idéal de la communauté des forteresses de sommet de colline, guerriers, artisans, agriculteurs et leurs familles dans un système d'occupation organisé hiérarchiquement. On a vigoureusement remis en question ce modèle, bien que ce fut surtout d'un point de vue théorique, et il n'y a que peu de réanalyses contextuelle des groupes de données. Cet article entreprend de réexaminer l'assemblage structurel de Danebury et cherche à savoir pourquoi les peuples de l’âge du fer se sont rassemblés à cet endroit et comment ceux qui y sont venus percevaient leur place à l'intérieur de groupes identitaires plus étendus. En examinant les modes d'activités à l'intérieur de Danebury, cet article démontre que la nature de la communauté qui résidait dans la forteresse a considérablement changé au cours de l’âge du fer ancien et moyen. On argumente, en particulier, que Danebury était occupé par une population stable. L'organisation de l'espace domestique était, toutefois, fermement géré. Au début de la période, l'occupation se caractérisait par des maisons rondes individuelles abritant une seule unité familiale et mettant en évidence leur caractère distinctif par un isolement spatial et des variations dans le plan des maisons rondes. Un changement spectaculaire dans la nature et l'intensité de l'occupation survint à la période finale. Un grand nombre de maisons rondes ‘portrait-robot’ furent étroitement entassées dans les creux de la carrière à l'abri des remparts. Ceci représente probablement des foyers venus d'occupations environnantes s'installer dans la forteresse. On argumente aussi que la construction et l'entretien en commun des défenses de Danebury aurait été, pour une population dispersée, une manière de recréer un sens de la communauté. Cette participation peut aussi avoir été un mécanisme pour maintenir, à long terme, les réseaux et les relations avec d'autres foyers

Zussamenfassung

Reinterpretation des Danebury Ensembles: Häuser, Haushalte und Gemeinschaft, von Oliver Davis

Cunliffes Ausgrabungen in Danebury haben eine eisenzeitliche Siedlung außergewöhnlich detailliert freigelegt. Ihre Einwohner stellen mittlerweile, zumindest in der populären Literatur, das idealisierte Gemeinwesen einer eisenzeitlichen Befestigungsanlage dar mit Kriegern, Handwerkern, Bauern und ihren Familien in einem hierarchisch gegliederten Siedlungssystem. Dieses Modell wurde energisch in Frage gestellt, wenn auch vor allem auf theoretischer Grundlage, während die Datenlage kaum neu kontextuell analysiert wurde. Dieser Beitrag zielt auf eine Neuuntersuchung des strukturellen Ensembles von Danebury und auf die Beantwortung der Fragen, warum Menschen der Eisenzeit an diesem Ort zusammenkamen, und wie jene, die hierher kamen, ihren Ort innerhalb größerer Gruppenidentitäten verstanden. Durch die Untersuchung von Aktivitätsmustern im Inneren von Danebury demonstriert dieser Beitrag, dass der Charakter der Gemeinschaft, die in der Befestigungsanlage lebte, sich im Verlauf der frühen und mittleren Eisenzeit merklich veränderte. Insbesondere wird erörtert, dass Danebury von einer dauerhaften Siedlungsgemeinschaft bewohnt wurde. Die Gliederung des Wohnraumes war nichtsdestotrotz klar organisiert. In der frühen Phase wurde die Besiedlung durch einzelne Rundhäuser mit individuellen Haushalten charakterisiert, welche ihre jeweilige Eigenheit durch räumliche Abgrenzung und Variabilität in der Gestaltung der Rundhäuser betonten. Ein dramatischer Wandel in Art und Intensität der Besiedlung geschah in der späten Phase. Eine große Anzahl identisch ausgestatteter (,,identikit“) Rundhäuser stand dicht an dicht in den Aushubgruben im Windschatten der Wälle. Diese Bebauung repräsentiert vermutlich jene Haushalte, die aus den umliegenden Siedlungen in die Wallburg zogen. Zudem wird diskutiert, dass die gemeinschaftliche Errichtung und Unterhaltung der Verteidigungsanlagen von Danebury ein Mittel gewesen sein kann, durch das die verstreute Bevölkerung immer wieder einen Gemeinschaftssinn schaffen konnte. Die Teilnahme kann auch ein Mechanismus gewesen sein um Netzwerke und Beziehungen zwischen verschiedenen Haushalten über lange Zeiten zu unterhalten

Resumen

Re-interpretando el conjunto de Danebury: casas, ámbito doméstico y comunidad, por Oliver Davis

Las excavaciones de Cunliffe en Danebury han documentado un asentamiento de la Edad del Hierro con extraordinario detalle. Sus habitantes representan, al menos en la literatura popular, una comunidad castreña ideal de guerreros, artesanos, agricultores, y sus familias, en un sistema de asentamiento jerárquicamente estructurado. Este modelo ha sido duramente cuestionado, aunque en gran parte desde una perspectiva teórica, y apenas se ha realizado un nuevo análisis contextual de los datos. Este artículo busca re-examinar el conjunto estructural de Danebury y cuestionar porqué la gente de la Edad del Hierro se congregó en este lugar, y cómo percibieron su posición dentro de una identidad grupal más amplia. A partir del análisis de los patrones de actividad en el interior de Danebury, este artículo demuestra que la naturaleza de la comunidad que residió en el castro cambió considerablemente en el transcurso de la Edad de Hierro Antigua a la Media. En particular, se argumenta que Danebury fue ocupada por una población permanente. La organización del espacio doméstico, sin embargo, fue administrada con rigurosidad. En la fase inicial, la ocupación se caracteriza por cabañas circulares simples, de unidades domésticas individuales, que enfatizan su diferenciación mediante el aislamiento espacial y la variabilidad en su diseño circular. En el período más tardío, se produce un cambio drástico en la naturaleza e intensidad de la ocupación. Un gran número de cabañas circulares se ajustaron a los espacios disponibles entre las fosas y las murallas. Esto probablemente representa el desplazamiento de las unidades familiares de los alrededores al castro. También se argumenta que la construcción y mantenimiento comunitario de las defensas de Danebury podrían constituir un modo de recuperar un sentimiento de comunidad entre la población dispersa. La participación podría haber constituido un mecanismo de mantenimiento de redes y relaciones con otras unidades familiares a largo plazo

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armit, I. 2007. Hillforts at war: from Maiden Castle to Taniwaha Pā. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73, 2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 2000. A thesis on agency. In M.-A. Dobres & J. Robb (eds), Agency in Archaeology, 6168. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Bayley, J., Fasham, P.J., Powell, F.V.H. 1985. The human skeletal remains. In P.J. Fasham, The Prehistoric Settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester, 119122. Winchester: Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society Monograph 2Google Scholar
Bersu, G. 1940. Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 6, 30111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boast, R., Evans, C. 1986. The transformation of space: two examples from British prehistory. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5, 193205Google Scholar
Bowden, M., McOmish, D. 1987. The required barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 7684Google Scholar
Brück, J. 1999. Houses, lifecycles and deposition on Middle Bronze Age settlements in southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 245277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brück, J. 2007. The character of Late Bronze Age settlement in southern Britain. In Haselgrove & Pope (eds), 24–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R., Knüsel, C.J., Carr, G. 2005. Fragmentation, mutilation and dismemberment: an interpretation of human remains on Iron Age sites. In M. Parker Pearson & I.J.N. Thorpe (eds), Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory, 165180. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S 1374Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1984. Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire: volume 1: the excavations, 1969–78: the site. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1991. Iron Age Communities in Britain (3 edn). London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1995. Danbury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire: volume 6: a hillfort community in perspective. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 102Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 2003. Danebury Hillfort. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B., Orton, C. 1984. Radiocarbon age assessment. In Cunliffe 1984, 190–8Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., Poole, C. 1991. Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, volume 4: the excavations, 1979–88: the site. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 73Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., Poole, C. 2000a. The Danebury Environs Programme: the prehistory of a Wessex landscape: 2, part 2: Bury Hill, Upper Clatford, Hampshire, 1990. Oxford: English Heritage Monograph 49Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., Poole, C. 2000b. The Danebury Environs Programme: the prehistory of a Wessex landscape: volume 2, part 6: Houghton Down, Stockbridge, Hampshire, 1994. Oxford: English Heritage Monograph 49Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B., Poole, C. 2008. The Danebury Environs Roman Programme: a Wessex landscape during the Roman era, volume 2: the sites: part 6: Flint Farm, Goodworth Clatford, Hants, 2004. Oxford: English Heritage & Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 70Google Scholar
Davis, O.P. 2010. A Sense of Place and Space: an investigation of Iron Age communities in central and western Hampshire. Unpublished PhD. Thesis, University of CardiffGoogle Scholar
Dyer, J. 2003. Hillforts of England and Wales (2 edn, revised). Princes Risborough: ShireGoogle Scholar
Fasham, P.J. 1985. The Prehistoric Settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester. Winchester: Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society Monograph 2Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, A. 1994. Outside in: the structure of an Early Iron Age house at Dunston Park, Thatcham, Berkshire. In A. Fitzpatrick & E. Morris (eds). The Iron Age in Wessex: recent work, 6873. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Fleming, A. 1985. Land tenure, productivity and field systems. In G. Barker & C. Gamble (eds), Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, 129146. London: AcademicGoogle Scholar
Gerritsen, F. 1998. The cultural biography of Iron Age houses. In C. Fabech & J. Ringtved (eds), Settlement and Landscape, 139148. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University PressGoogle Scholar
Gerritsen, F. 2003. Local Identities: landscape and community in the late prehistoric Meuse-Demer-Schedlt region. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University PressGoogle Scholar
Haselgrove, C., Pope, R. (eds). 2007. The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the Near Continent. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C., Hawkes, J. 1948. Prehistoric Britain. London: Chatto & WindusGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C., Myers, J.N.L., Stevens, C.G. 1930. St Catharine's Hill, Winchester. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society 11, 136149Google Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C., Piggott, S. 1948. Survey and Policy of Field Research in the Archaeology of Great Britain. London: UnwinGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, J.W. 1985. The pottery. In Fasham 1985, 57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J.D. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 242Google Scholar
Hill, J.D. 1996. Hillforts and the Iron Age of Wessex. In T.C. Champion & J.R. Collis (eds), The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends, 95116. Sheffield: J.R. Collis PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Hingley, R. 1984. The archaeology of settlement and the social significance of space. Scottish Archaeological Review 3, 2227Google Scholar
Holmes, K., Matthews, C., Rees, H. 2004. Iron Age pottery. In Qualmann et al. 2004, 56–65Google Scholar
James, S. 2005. Exploring the World of the Celts (2 edn). London: Thames & HudsonGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. 1984. The plant remains. In Cunliffe 1984, 483–96Google Scholar
Jones, M. 1995. Patterns in agricultural practice: the archaeobotany of Danebury in its wider context. In Cunliffe 1995, 43–50Google Scholar
Lock, G.R., Gosden, C., Daly, P. 2005. Segsbury Camp: excavations in 1996 and 1997 at an Iron Age hillfort on the Oxfordshire Ridgeway. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 61Google Scholar
Morris, E.L. 1997. Where is the Danebury ware?. In A. Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, 3639. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Neal, D.S. 1980. Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Roman settlement sites at Little Somborne and Ashley, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society 36, 91144Google Scholar
Orton, C. 1995. The radiocarbon dates revisited. In Cunliffe 1995, 129–30Google Scholar
Osgood, R. 1995. Study 6: activity patterns. In Cunliffe 1995, 193–203Google Scholar
Oswald, A. 1997. A doorway on the past: practical and mystical concerns in the orientation of roundhouse doorways. In A. Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, 8795. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 1996. Food, fertility and front doors in the first millennium bc. In T.C. Champion & J.R. Collis (eds), The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends, 117132. Sheffield: J.R. Collis PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 1999. Food, sex and death. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 9, 4369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M., Richards, C. 1994. Architecture and order: spatial representation and archaeology. In M. Parker Pearson & C. Richards (eds), Architecture and Order: approaches to social space, 3872. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, R. 2003. Prehistoric Dwelling: circular structures in north and central Britain c. 2500 bcad 500. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University College LondonGoogle Scholar
Pope, R. 2007. Ritual and the roundhouse: a critique of recent ideas on the use of domestic space in later British prehistory. In Haselgrove & Pope (eds) 2007, 204–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, F. 2004. Britain bc. London: Harper PerennialGoogle Scholar
Pryor, F. 2005. Britain ad. London: Harper PerennialGoogle Scholar
Qualmann, K.E., Rees, H., Scobie, G.D., Whinney, R. 2004. Oram's Arbour: the Iron Age enclosure at Winchester: volume 1: investigations 1950–99. Winchester: Winchester Museums ServiceGoogle Scholar
Sharples, N. 1991. Maiden Castle: excavation and field survey 1985–6. London: Historic Buildings & Monuments Committee for England Archaeological Report 19Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 2010. Social Relations in Later Prehistory: Wessex in the first millennium bc. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stopford, J. 1987. Danebury: an alternative view. Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 7075Google Scholar
Tullett, A. 2010. Community – finding the middle ground in studies of prehistoric social organisation. In M. Sterry, A. Tullett & N. Ray (eds), In Search of the Iron Age: proceedings of the Iron Age Research Student Seminar 2008, 6182. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monograph 18Google Scholar
Wait, G.A. 1985. The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8, 63111Google Scholar
Webley, L. 2003. Iron Age houses and social space: a case study of three-aisled longhouses of northern Europe during the pre-Roman and Early Iron Age. In J. Humphrey (ed.), Researching the Iron Age, 5968. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monograph 11Google Scholar
Woodward, A., Hughes, G. 2007. Deposits and doorways: patterns within the Iron Age settlement at Crick Covert Farm, Northamptonshire. In Haselgrove & Pope (eds) 2007, 185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar