Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T15:33:57.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hillforts at War: From Maiden Castle to Taniwaha Pā

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Ian Armit
Ian Armit*
Affiliation:
Division of Archaeological, Geographical and Environmental Sciences, University of Bradford, Richmond Rd, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Résumé

Suite aux excavations effectuées par Wheeler à Maiden Castle, on en est venu à considérer les forteresses de sommet de colline à plusieurs remparts du Wessex comme des réactions à une forme particulière de guerre reposant sur l'usage en masse de frondes. Faisant partie de la ré-évaluation post-processuelle plus générale de l'âge du fer britannique au cours de la fin des années 80 et dans les années 90, cette interprétation traditionnelle, ‘militaire,’ des forteresses a été de plus en plus sujette à critique. On identifia d'évidentes faiblesses dans la conception des forteresses et un grand nombre des traits les plus caractéristiques de ces sites (profondeur de l'enclos, complexité des moyens d'accès, etc…) furent interprétés comme étant les symboles d'un isolement social. Pourtant, cette pacification des forteresses est, sous beaucoup d'aspects, aussi peu satisfaisante que la version traditionnelle. Les deux camps ont eu tendance à considérer la guerre comme une activité détachée, fonctionnelle et désincarnée qu'on peut analyser en termes de concepts, essentiellement intemporels, d'efficacité militaire. L'examen de l'usage de structures analogues dans les archives ethnographiques donne à penser que, loin de s'exclure mutuellement, les dimensions militaire et symbolique sont toutes deux essentielles à une compréhension plus nuancée du rôle social plus étendu des forteresses en Grande-Bretagne et au-delà.

Résumen

Tras las excavaciones de Wheeler en Maiden Castle, los fuertes multivallados de Wessex fueron interpretados como la respuesta a un tipo específico de guerra en el que se utilizaban las hondas en gran cantidad. Durante los años 80 y 90, el replanteamiento post-procesual de la Edad del Hierro en Gran Bretaña cuestionó cada vez más la tradicional interpretación militar de los fuertes. Se detectaron aparentes puntos débiles en el diseño de los fuertes y muchas de las características más distintivas de estos sitos (profundidad del foso, complejidad de las entradas, etc.) se reinterpretaron como símbolos de aislamiento social. Sin embargo, en muchos sentidos esta “pacificación” de los fuertes no es tan satisfactoria como la visión tradicional. Ambas posturas tienden a ver la guerra como una actividad separada, funcional y desconexa, que puede analizarse en términos de eficiencia militar esencialmente inalterables. La consideración del uso de estructuras análogas en el registro etnográfico sugiere que, lejos de ser mutuamente exclusivas, las dimensiones militar y simbólica son esenciales para una comprensión más matizada del papel social más amplio que desempeñaron los fuertes en Gran Bretaña y más allá.

Zusammenfassung

Nach Wheelers Ausgrabungen in Maiden Castle wurden die vielförmigen Höhenfestungen in Wessex als Reflex auf eine besondere Art der Kriegsführung gesehen, die sich auf einen ausgeprägten Einsatz von Schleudern stützte. Diese traditionelle ‘militärische’ Deutung der Höhenfestungen wurde im Zuge der weit reichenden post-prozessualen ‘Neubetrachtung’ der Britischen Eisenzeit in den späten 80ger und 90ger Jahren zunehmend kritisiert. So wurden augenscheinliche Schwachstellen in ihrer Anlage identifiziert und viele der charakteristischsten Merkmale dieser Fundstellen (z.B. die Tiefe ihrer Gräben, die Komplexität der Eingangsanlagen usw.) eher als Symbole sozialer Trennung gedeutet. Diese ‘Befriedung’ der Höhenfestungen bleibt jedoch in vieler Hinsicht ebenso unzulänglich wie die traditionelle Sichtweise. So tendieren beide Sichtweisen dazu Krieg als einen rein funktionalen, losgelösten Vorgang zu sehen, der notwendigerweise im Sinne zeitloser Konzepte militärischer Effizienz analysiert werden kann. Durch das Heranziehen analoger Strukturen aus ethnographischen Quellen wird aber deutlich, dass sich die militärische und die symbolische Interpretation der Anlagen nicht gegenseitig ausschließen, sondern für ein nuanciertes Verständnis der weit reichenden sozialen Funktion der Höhenfestungen in und außerhalb Großbritanniens von großer Bedeutung sind.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 73 , 2007 , pp. 25 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2007

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

Ajayi, J.F.A. & Smith, R. 1971. Yoruba Warfare in the Nineteenth Century (2nd edn). Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Alcock, L. 1972. ‘By South Cadbury is that Camelot…’. Excavations at Cadbury Castle 1966–70. London: Thames & HudsonGoogle Scholar
Armit, I. 2005. Celtic Scotland: Iron Age Scotland in its European context (2nd edn). London: BatsfordGoogle Scholar
Armit, I., Knüsel, C., Robb, J. & Schulting, R.J. 2007. Warfare and violence in prehistoric Europe: an introduction. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 2, 1–11Google Scholar
Avery, M. 1986. ‘Stoning and fire’ at hillfort entrances of southern Britain. World Archaeology 18, 216–30Google Scholar
Avery, M. 1993. Hillfort Defences of Southern Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 231Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 2000. Writing the Iron Age. In Barrett, J.C., Freeman, P.W.M. & Woodward, A., Cadbury Castle, Somerset: the later Prehistoric and Early historic archaeology, 317–24. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 20Google Scholar
Bellwood, P. 1971. Fortifications and economy in prehistoric New Zealand. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37(1), 56–95Google Scholar
Bowden, M. 2006. ‘Guard Chambers’: an unquestioned assumption in British Iron Age studies. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72, 423–36Google Scholar
Bowden, M. & McOmish, D. 1987. The required barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 76–84Google Scholar
Bowden, M. & McOmish, D. 1989. Little boxes: more about hillforts. Scottish Archaeological Review 6, 12–16Google Scholar
Challis, A. J. 1978. Motueka: an archaeological survey. Auckland: Longman PaulGoogle Scholar
Craig, R., Knüsel, C.J. & Carr, G. 2005. Fragmentation, mutilation and dismemberment: an interpretation of human remains on Iron Age sites. In Pearson, M. Parker & Thorpe, N. (eds), Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory, 165–80. Oxford: Archaeopress/British Archaeological Report S1374Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W. 1971. Some aspects of hill-forts and their cultural environments. In Hill, D. & Jesson, M. (eds), The Iron Age and its Hill-Forts, 53–70. Southampton: Southampton University Archaeology SocietyGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W. 1993. Danebury. London: BatsfordGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W. 1995. Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, Vol. 6 A hillfort community in perspective. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 102Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W. 2005. Iron Age Communities in Britain (4th edn). London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W. & Poole, C. 1991a. Danebury an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, Vol. 4 the excavations 1979–1988: the site. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 72Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W. & Poole, C. 1991b. Danebury an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, Vol. 5 the excavations 1979–1988: the finds. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 73Google Scholar
Davidson, J. 1984. The Prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman PaulGoogle Scholar
Dixon, P. 1981. Crickley Hill. Current Archaeology 76, 145–7Google Scholar
Evans, C. 2003. Power and Island Communities. Excavations at the Wardy Hill Ringwork, Coveney, Ely. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology 103Google Scholar
Ferguson, R.B. 1984. Introduction: studying war. In Ferguson, R.B. (ed.), Warfare, Culture and Environment, 1–81. Orlando: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, R.B. 1997. Review of ‘War before Civilisation’ by Keeley, Lawrence. American Anthropologist 99(2), 424–5Google Scholar
Ferguson, R.B. & Whitehead, N.L. 1992. The violent edge of Empire. In Ferguson, R.B.. & Whitehead, N.L. (eds), War in the Tribal Zone, 1–30. Santa Fe: School of American Research PressGoogle Scholar
Firth, R. 1927. Maori hillforts. Antiquity 1, 66–78Google Scholar
Foster, S.M. 2004. Picts, Gaels and Scots: Early Historic Scotland (2nd edn). London: BatsfordGoogle Scholar
Fox, A. 1976. Prehistoric Maori Fortifications in the North Island of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul/New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 6Google Scholar
Gardner, R. & Heider, K.G. 1968. Gardens of War: Life and Death in the New Guinea Stone Age. Harmondsworth: PenguinGoogle Scholar
Gwilt, A. & Haselgrove, C. (eds). 1997. Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71Google Scholar
Hawkins, W. 1847. Observations on the use of the sling, as a warlike weapon, among the Ancients. Archaeologia 32, 96–106Google Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C. 1931. Hill forts. Antiquity 5, 60–97Google Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C. 1959. The ABC of the British Iron Age. Antiquity 33, 170–82Google Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C. 1971. Fence, wall and dump, from Troy to Hod. In Hill, & Jesson, (eds) 1971, 5–18Google Scholar
Hill, J.D. 1995. How should we understand Iron Age societies and hillforts? A contextual study from southern Britain. In Hill, J.D., & Cumberpatch, C. (eds), Different Iron Ages: studies on the Iron Age in temperate Europe, 45–66. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S602Google Scholar
Hingley, R. 1984. The archaeology of settlement and the social significance of space. Scottish Archaeological Review 3(1), 22–7Google Scholar
James, S. 2006. A bloodless past: the pacification of Early Iron Age Britain In Haselgrove, C.C. & Pope, R.E. (eds), The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the Near Continent, 160–173, Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Jobey, G. 1976. Traprain Law: a summary. In Harding, D.W. (ed.), Hillforts: later prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland, 191–204. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Keeley, L.H. 1996. War Before Civilization: the myth of the peaceful savage. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Kenyon, K. 1953. Excavations at Sutton Walls, Herefordshire, 1948–51. Archaeological Journal 110, 1–87Google Scholar
Korfmann, M. 1973. The sling as a weapon. Scientific American 229(4), 34–42Google Scholar
Lock, G., Miles, D., Palmer, S., & Cromarty, A.M. 2003. The hillfort. In Miles, et al. 2003, 79–126Google Scholar
Malone, P.M. 1991. The Skulking Way of War: technology and tactics among the New England Indians. Baltimore: John Hopkins University PressGoogle Scholar
Mercer, R.J. 1980. Hambledon Hill: a Neolithic landscape. Edinburgh: University PressGoogle Scholar
Mercer, R.J. 1981. Excavations at Carn Brea, Illogan, Cornwall 1970–3: a Neolithic fortified complex of the 3rd millennium BC. Cornish Archaeology 20, 1–204Google Scholar
Mercer, R.J. 1999. The origins of warfare in the British Isles. In Carman, J. & Harding, A. (eds), Ancient Warfare: archaeological perspectives, 143–56. Stroud: SuttonGoogle Scholar
Mercer, R.J. & Healy, F. forthcoming. Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. Excavation and Survey of a Neolithic Monument Complex and its Surrounding Landscape. London: English Heritage Archaeological ReportGoogle Scholar
Miles, D., Palmer, S., Lock, G., Gosden, C. & Cromarty, A.M. 2003. Uffington White Horse and its Landscape: investigations at White Horse Hill Uffington, 1989–1995, and Tower Hill Ashbury, 1993–4. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Milner, G.R. 2005. Nineteenth-century arrow wounds and perceptions of prehistoric warfare. American Antiquity 70(1), 144–56Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1966. A scheme for the Scottish Iron Age. In Rivet, A.L.F. (ed.), The Iron Age in Northern Britain, 1–16. Edinburgh: University PressGoogle Scholar
Queiroga, F.M. 2003. War and Castros: new approaches to the Northwestern Portuguese Iron Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1194Google Scholar
Ralston, I.B.M. 1981. The use of timber in hill-fort defences in France. In Guilbert, G. (ed.), Hill-fort Studies: Essays for A.H.A. Hogg, 78–103. Leicester: University PressGoogle Scholar
Rivet, A.L.F. 1971. Hill-forts in action. In Hill, & Jesson, (eds) 1971, 189–202Google Scholar
Sharples, N.M. 1991a. Maiden Castle. London: BatsfordGoogle Scholar
Sharples, N.M. 1991b. Maiden Castle: excavations and field survey 1985–86. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 19Google Scholar
Sharples, N.M. 1991c. Warfare in the Iron Age of Wessex. Scottish Archaeological Review 8, 79–89Google Scholar
Sutton, D., Furey, L. & Marshall, Y., 2003. The Archaeology of Pouerua. Auckland: University PressGoogle Scholar
Vayda, A.P. 1960. Maori Warfare. Wellington: Polynesian Society Maori Monograph 2Google Scholar
Wheeler, R.E.M. 1943. Maiden Castle, Dorset. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar