4 Understanding hillforts: have we progressed? by Barry Cunliffe By their very nature hillforts have been a between 1926 and 1932, Christopher source of fascination for antiquarians and Hawkes sampled a similar number in archaeologists alike over many centuries. Hampshire between 1925 and 1939, while Prominently sited and redolent of power, in Dorset Mortimer Wheeler and his team these sites have challenged the imagination. excavated three, one of them, Maiden Cas­ When were they built, in what circum­ tle, on an heroic scale showing, for the first stances, who lived there and what were their time, the great potential of area excavation lives like? – the questions have remained within the interior (Wheeler 1943). much the same for generations and still The excavations of the period 1900–60 demand answers. The explanations of early were carried out within the invasionist para­ antiquarians were imaginative, inevitably digm. The forts were believed to be the involving mythical beings, historical figures result of turbulent times when Britain was or races of invaders – the giant Bevis, Caesar subject to waves of invasion and internal or Alfred, the Danes and the Saxons: folk strife. In consequence excavation tended to tales and pseudo histories merged. The 19th focus on defences and gates where, it was century saw the beginnings of serious intru­ believed, signs of the history of these inva­ sive investigation. Sometimes excavations sions, and responses to them, could be read. were carried out on a large scale. At Wor­ Although Wheeler’s area excavation at lebury in Somerset the Reverend Francis Maiden Castle was an exception in provid­ Warre excavated nearly a hundred Iron Age ing details of the occupation within, ‘inva­ pits within the protection of the fort’s sions’ featured large in the site’s defences and later C W Dymond sectioned interpretation. At an early stage in the devel­ the ramparts and gates, publishing the opment of hillfort studies Christopher results in a creditable monograph (Dymond Hawkes had outlined the invasionist hypoth­ 1886). This was antiquarianism of a serious esis in his famous paper ‘Hillforts’ published kind, but the beginning of systematic in Antiquity in 1931. He was to restate his archaeological research into hillforts can be views in a much elaborated form in an fairly said to lie with General Pitt Rivers. In equally famous paper ‘The ABC of the 1867 Colonel Augustus Henry Lane Fox (as British Iron Age’ published in Antiquity in Pitt Rivers was then known) conducted a 1959. In many ways this was the valedictory survey of the hillforts of the Sussex Downs, appearance, for the 1960s were to see the carefully observing them all and offering a wholesale rejection of invasionist explana­ soldier’s-eye perspective of their significance tions and with that came a refocusing of (Lane Fox 1869). Ten years later, between interest on the hillfort phenomenon. 1877 and 1878, he turned to excavation in Questions now began to centre on hill- an attempt to answer some of the questions fort functions, redirecting attention away he had raised earlier, sampling Cissbury, from the defences and on to the interiors. Highdown, Mount Caburn and Caesar’s Between 1960 and 1970 in the Welsh bor­ Camp, Folkestone (Lane Fox 1881; Pitt derland three hillforts – Croft Ambrey, Cre­ Rivers 1883). denhill and Midsummer Hill Camp – were In the 20th century hillforts have examined by Stan Stanford who devoted featured large in the research designs of considerable attention to their interiors archaeologists. In the first four decades of (Stanford 1971, 1974, 1981). Meanwhile, the century about 80 forts were sampled by at South Cadbury in Somerset extensive excavation (Cunliffe 1991, 1–20). Many of sampling of the interior was undertaken them were concentrated in central-southern by Leslie Alcock from 1966–70 as part Britain. In Wiltshire Maud Cunnington of an ambitious project of investigation examined eight forts between 1907 and (Barrett et al 2000). This decade of activity 1932, in Sussex E C Curwen tackled five amply demonstrated the value of large-scale 151 THE WESSEX HILLFORTS PROJECT excavation. It was now possible to begin to Bronze Age and Iron Age – a period of glimpse something of the ordered arrange­ about a thousand years; and second, magne­ ment of the structures within and, from the tometry reflects, but does not necessarily comparatively large quantities of material fully represent, what is beneath the ground, recovered, to gain a clearer idea of the activ­ irrespective of age. As an illustration of the ities that went on within the enclosure. first point the survey of Castle Ditches (see In 1969 the excavation of Danebury began. Figs 2.46, 2.47) is instructive. The complex It was planned from the outset to be a long- of features revealed within the fortifications term programme designed to examine the hill- is evidently of more than one period but fort thoroughly and to explore its regional without excavation they are impossible to context. In the event the excavation of the fort phase or date. One might hypothesise that extended over 20 seasons (1969–88) (Cunliffe the ditched enclosures, and many of the hut 1984a, 1995; Cunliffe and Poole 1991) and circles, should belong to the Late Iron Age excavations on broadly contemporary sites in or even to the Roman period, and might the surrounding landscape, including the forts therefore be of much later date than the ini­ of Bury Hill and Woolbury, lasted another tial construction of the fortifications, but eight (1989–97) (Cunliffe 2000; Cunliffe and magnetometry alone will not tell us. Simi­ Poole 2000a, 2000b). larly at Oldbury (see Figs 2.61, 2.62) the In parallel with the Danebury pro­ internal ditch that divides off one part of the gramme other hillforts became the focus of fort could represent an earlier, smaller, for­ extensive area excavation, the most notable tification but it could equally have been con­ being Maiden Castle in Dorset (Sharples structed much later after the main 1991), and Winklebury (Smith K 1977) and fortifications had reached their fully-evolved Balksbury (Wainwright 1969; Wainwright form. Again, without excavation the ques­ and Davies 1995; Ellis and Rawlings 2001) tion must remain open. in Hampshire. Thus, in the last 40 years of The second reservation – the difficulties the 20th century, the sample of hillfort inte­ of relating the magnetometry to the archae­ riors examined on a suitably large scale had ology – is nicely displayed by the survey greatly increased and something of the vari­ of Danebury (pp 58–62). The survey gives ation among them was beginning to become the impression only of a very ‘noisy’ apparent, allowing a number of possible response without allowing the true density development scenarios to be offered. The of the discrete features, demonstrated by more relevant of these have been sum­ excavation, to be fully appreciated. The marised above in Chapter 1. survey is a fair reflection of what is known Area excavation had shown the great to be there without actually representing it potential of the patterns, inherent in the mass in fine detail. of features found inside the forts, to model­ Magnetometry, therefore, provides a ling socio-economic systems, and a number valuable way of seeing, even though our of geophysical surveys had amply demon­ vision is often blurred and lacking depth of strated the power of these techniques in real­ focus. So long as this is realised it can be ising these patterns inexpensively and without used, along with other classes of evidence, recourse to destructive excavation. Thus it to excellent effect in the exercises of pattern seemed logical that a profitable next step in recognition that enable some structure and hillfort studies would be to undertake thor­ direction to be given to our precepts of 1st ough surveys of a sample of forts to enhance millennium BC society. the anecdotal database that had accrued Before proceeding further it is as well to through excavation and one-off surveys. In attempt a general definition of ‘hillfort’. For this way the Wessex Hillforts Project was con­ the purposes of the present discussion it is ceived. The results of that work have been characterised as an enclosed place con­ fully presented in this volume and the project structed in a highly-visible location to serve evaluated, and it remains now to offer some as a focus (if sporadic) for communal activ­ brief assessment of what has been learned in ity. Even in so bland a definition there are the broader context of Iron Age studies. implications that some might find unaccept­ able but further restriction would be over­ Some parameters cautious, so let us accept It is as well to begin by reminding ourselves • enclosure, of two basic truths: first, the main period of • visibility, and hillfort building and use spans the Late • communal functions 152 UNDERSTANDING HILLFORTS: HAVE WE PROGRESSED? as the most common denominators unparalleled in Europe. It is not unreason­ of ‘hillfort’. able therefore to expect some patterns to Once built the boundary and the visibility emerge, the explanations of which may con­ remain consistent features, although their tribute to our understanding of society in meaning might change. The functions per­ the 1st millennium BC. formed, if indeed there are any following the act of construction, are likely to vary from Different ways of seeing site to site, and at any one site they would also vary through time. The functions might Since the publication of Hawkes’ famous also affect the boundary, which could be paper ‘Hillforts’ (Hawkes 1931) archaeolo­ enlarged, enhanced or redefined in some gists have attempted to categorise hillforts other way, depending on its meaning in the using what little evidence was to hand.