Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:17:47.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Danebury, Hampshire: Second Interim Report on the Excavations 1971–5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Summary

The results of five seasons of excavation (1971–5) are summarized. A continuous strip 30–40 m. wide extending across the centre of the fort from one side to the other was completely excavated revealing pits, gullies, circular stake-built houses, rectangular buildings, and 2-, 4-, and 6-post structures, belonging to the period from the sixth to the end of the second century B.C. The types of structures are discussed. A sequence of development, based largely upon the stratification preserved behind the ramparts, is presented: in the sixth–fifth century the hill was occupied by small four-post ‘granaries’ possibly enclosed by a palisade. The first hill-fort rampart was built in the fifth century protecting houses, an area of storage pits, and a zone of 4-and 6-post buildings laid out in rows along streets. The rampart was heightened in the third century, after which pits continued to be dug and rows of circular houses were built. About 100 B.C. rectangular buildings, possibly of a religious nature, were erected, after which the site was virtually abandoned. Social and economic matters are considered. The excavation will continue.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1976

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bradley, R. and Ellison, A., 1975. Rams Hill (B.A.R. 19).Google Scholar
Cotton, M. A. and Frere, S. S., 1968. ‘Ivinghoe Beacon Excavations, 1963–5,’ Rec. of Bucks. xviii (1968), 187260.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. W., 1971. ‘Danebury, Hampshire: first interim report on the excavations, 1969–70,’ Antiq. Journ. li (1971), 240–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B. W. 1976. ‘Hill-forts and Oppida’, in Longworth, I. H., Sieveking, G. de G.Wilson, K. E. (eds.), Social and Economic problems in Archaeology (London), pp. 343–58.Google Scholar
Grimes, W. F., 1961. ‘Heathrow’, in Frere, S. S. (ed.), Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain (London, 1961), pp. 25–8.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. L., 1976. ‘The Danebury project: an experiment in site sediment recording’, in Geoarchaeology, ed. Davidson, D. A., and Shackley, M. L. (London, 1976).Google Scholar
Stanford, S. C, 1971. ‘Credenhill Camp, Herefordshire: An Iron Age Hill-fort Capital’, Arch. J. cxxvii (1970), 82129.Google Scholar
Stanford, S. C 1974. Croft Ambrey (Hereford, 1974).Google Scholar
Stead, I. M., 1968. ‘An Iron Age Hill-Fort at Grimthorpe, Yorkshire, England’, P.P.S. xxxiv (1968), 148–90.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G. J., 1970. ‘The Excavation of Balksbury Camp, Andover, Hants’, Proc. Hants Field Club, xxvi (1969), 2156.Google Scholar
Wilcock, J. D., and Shackley, M. L., 1974. ‘The recovery of information from Iron Age pits: the Danebury project and Plutarch’, Computer Applications in Archaeology, 2, 8290.Google Scholar