1 Hillfort studies and the Wessex Project by Andrew Payne The Wessex Hillforts Project was initiated in effort and organisation must have been 1996 to answer a need for more wide-rang­ involved in their construction, the reasons ing data on hillfort interiors for the purposes why they were constructed are more difficult of placing their future management on a to comprehend. The term hillfort has been sounder footing and enhancing knowledge applied to many different types of site and of the internal character of the various hill- their varying sizes, morphologies and situa­ fort types represented in Wessex. It was tions strongly suggest a range of different hoped that the combined results of the pro­ motives for their construction, spanning a ject would considerably extend academic considerable date range (Fig 1.1). understanding of the socio-economic role of We usually associate hillforts with the hillforts in southern England during the 1st Iron Age, the period when many new hill- millennium BC, thereby allowing a greater forts were built, but the origins of hillfort level of interpretation to be offered to visi­ building lie at least as far back as the Bronze tors at those sites with public access. Age. During the 800 years before the The primary methodology employed by Roman invasion of Britain (the period that the project was geophysical survey supple­ we conventionally term the Iron Age) the mented by examination of aerial photo­ role of hillforts seems to have changed. New graphic evidence, documentary research and evidence is only gradually being uncovered selective digital modelling of site micro- that helps to extend our understanding and topography. The examination of each hillfort we still have very little information about was to be as comprehensive as possible with­ hillfort interiors in general and the range of out resorting to more costly and unnecessar­ functions they might have fulfilled. ily destructive intrusive techniques. Generally, but not exclusively, set on ele­ vated or other locations conferring natural The context of the study defensive advantages, sites classed as hill- forts in southern Britain can range in size Hillforts have attracted archaeological inter­ from less than one hectare to many tens of est for much of the last century and debate hectares. Their structural complexity varies on their function and significance continues from simple univallate earthworks to vast to be central to the academic study of the multivallate fortresses with labyrinthine later Bronze Age and Iron Age (broadly the entrance passages. Although hillforts are 1st millennium BC). Although some hillforts among the most numerous of all our surviv­ have been damaged by development or ing prehistoric monuments – nearly 1500 levelled through ploughing, those that were listed in the Ordnance Survey’s 1962 remain are some of the most impressive Map of Southern Britain in the Iron Age alone ancient monuments still visible in the coun­ (Fig 1.2) – our knowledge of the majority of tryside today. Such prominent landmarks sites is still quite limited because often their naturally attracted the interest of antiquaries sheer scale is such that there have seldom and pioneers in archaeology from earliest been sufficient resources for extensive exam­ times, an interest that has continued with ination of their interiors. the development of scientific field tech­ Conventionally, hillforts have always niques and modern methods of excavation. been seen as primarily constructed for Writing on social organisation in Iron Age defence, but their disparate sizes, topo­ Wessex, Haselgrove (1994, 1) concluded, graphical settings and architectural forms, ‘there can be little doubting the significance suggest that this need falls far short of pro­ of Iron Age hillforts, given the labour viding a wholly adequate explanation for all invested in their construction, so under­ of them (Harding 1979; Ralston 1996). The standing their role is clearly vital’. While it is vast majority of the sites examined in this clear from the scale of these sites that great project are classic hillforts occupying highly 1 Fig 1.1 1. LARGE HILLTOP ENCLOSURES The major categories of hillfort types represented in Southern Britain illustrating the broad three-phased development of hillfort forms within the region of Wessex (from Cunliffe 1991 and Sharples 1994). 2. EARLY IRON AGE HILLFORTS A B C G H I Based on Darvill 1987, Figure 80. N D J K L N M Based on Cunliffe 1991, Figure 14.24 E F Based on Sharples 1994, Figure 26.2 3. DEVELOPED HILLFORTS O P Q R rampart A Bathampton Down, Avon B Balksbury Camp, Hampshire C Martinsell Hill Camp, Wiltshire G Quarley Hill, Hampshire K Danebury, Hampshire O South Cadbury Castle, Somerset D Norbury Camp, Gloucestershire H Yarnbury Castle, Wiltshire L The Trundle, W Sussex P Maiden Castle, Dorset ALL PLANS TO SCALE I Chalbury, Dorset M Maiden Castle, Dorset Q Hod Hill, Dorset E Walbury Camp, Berkshire 0 500 1000m F Bozedown Camp, Oxfordshire J Figsbury Rings, Wiltshire N Blewburton Hill, Oxfordshire R Hambledon Hill, Dorset HILLFORT STUDIES AND THE WESSEX PROJECT 1.2 - 6 hectares Over 6 hectares 0 200 kms visible elevated positions dominating their and chronology and, with a few exceptions, Fig 1.2 surroundings (such as ridge ends or escarp­ fieldwork was concentrated on the compara­ Hillfort distribution in south­ ment edges), where the hillfort ramparts tively small-scale excavation of hillfort ern Britain (based on Cun­ enhance an already naturally defensible defences and gate structures. The question liffe 1991 without revision) position. A minority of the sites examined of the function of the hillfort in its social and – not intended to be defini­ possess defences that are of hillfort propor­ economic environment was hardly voiced tive. Non-verified, less visible tions but are situated in locations that confer (Collis 1981, 66). hillfort-type sites probably little or no altitudinal advantage. Clearly Although some hillforts had been dug exist in the survey area; defence was not always the primary consid­ into before 1900 by pioneers of field archae­ evidence for some is discussed eration and it is likely that the wide spec­ ology such as Augustus Lane Fox (better in Chap 2. Classification as trum of sites to which we apply the term known as Pitt Rivers), it was not until the hillforts of newly or recently hillfort performed a range of functions of early years of the 20th century that archaeo­ identified ploughed-out sites which defence was but one. logical interest was sufficiently awakened for depends on how strict our Until the 1960s hillfort studies were major campaigns of excavation to be organ­ definition is. ‘Hillfort’ is often dominated by problems of cultural affinity ised on regional groupings of sites. Between applied loosely to some low-lying sites and sites of less obvious defensive character. THE WESSEX HILLFORTS PROJECT 1907 and the 1940s the combined work of 4th century BC. Originating from Spain and Maud Cunnington in Wiltshire, E Cecil Brittany (Armorica) these invaders initially Curwen in Sussex and Christopher Hawkes thrust into the western parts of Britain, in Hampshire was instrumental in trans­ spreading into Dorset and the Cotswolds, forming knowledge of the many examples of where they built hillforts characterised by hillforts in these areas. The lack of a profes­ massive multivallate defences. This second sional infrastructure and resources for fund­ wave was assigned to the Iron Age B period. ing and employing archaeological staff at Finally, some time around 75 BC, Belgic this point in time did not allow for long term invaders entered the Thames Valley and or extensive programmes of archaeological Kent, spreading into Essex, while a little investigation. They nevertheless provided a later, as a result of Caesar’s military con­ useful sample of evidence from a large num­ quests in Gaul, refugees from northern ber of sites. France landed on the shores of the Solent The first serious attempt to bring and moved into central southern Britain. together the evidence amassed through these These invaders were defined as the Iron Age excavations in a nationwide synthesis was a C peoples. During this period in the south­ paper entitled simply ‘Hill-Forts’ published east of England, hillforts declined and dis­ by C F C Hawkes in the journal Antiquity in appeared to be replaced by large fortified 1931. The paper reflected the historical par­ towns, usually in more low-lying situations adigm then current among prehistorians, commanding river crossings, as for example which sought to explain changes in the at Orams Arbour in Winchester (Whinney archaeological record and defensive architec­ 1994). In territory that fringed the areas of ture at hillfort sites during the Iron Age as a Iron Age C penetration, such as Dorset, the product of successive waves of population continuation of old style hillforts marked movements (or invasions) from continental native resistance to the Belgic influence. Europe (Hawkes 1931; Wheeler 1943). Under the historical paradigm the most Invasionist theories of this nature are no important question was ‘when?’ and longer widely accepted as the explanation involved the dating of hillfort horizons as for cultural change in the British Iron Age, indicators of political change. The excava­ but at the time they seemed to provide a tion methods of the pre-Second World War plausible model against which to interpret era were almost entirely orientated to this the archaeological evidence. The view that problem with great emphasis on the trench­ there had been large-scale invasions in the ing of ramparts and the clearance of prehistoric period had analogies with the entrances, but little work on the interiors historical period with its invasions of Nor­ (Collis 1981, 66). Excavations of this nature mans, Vikings, Saxons and Romans; and provide information concerning the Caesar, writing of Britain in the 1st century chronology and structural history of individ­ BC, talked of incursions of Belgae from ual sites and are a necessary prelude towards northern France and the Low Countries understanding a site, but were rarely taken into the south-east of the country.