Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:00:53.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hillforts, Emotional Metaphors, and the Good Life: a Response to Armit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

Gary Lock
Gary Lock
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont St, Oxford OX1 2PG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hillforts have always been central to interpretations of Iron Age society and Ian Armit's paper in this journal (2007) re-introduces the question of whether or not they represent ‘endemic warfare’. This response will critique claims for warfare in the Early and Middle Iron Age of Wessex and present an alternative view of hillforts and how they may have been used. It is argued that within dispersed small scale agricultural societies the communal building, maintenance, and use of hillforts can act to structure the sociality of people whose interests are in creating a harmonious existence. Within this view, hillforts act as metaphors for the managing of emotional relationships within groups of people as they go about their daily lives.

Résumé

Les forteresses de sommet de colline ont toujours été au centre des interprétations de la société de l'âge du fer et l'étude d'Ian Armit dans cette revue (2007) réintroduit la question de savoir si oui ou non elles représentent ‘un état de guerre endémique’. Cette réponse fera la critique des prétentions en faveur de la guerre à l'âge du fer ancien et moyen dans le Wessex et met en avant une vision différente des forteresses et de la manière dont elles avaient peut-être été utilisées. On argumente qu'à l'intérieur des sociétés agricoles dispersées de petite taille, la construction, l'entretien et l'utilisation en commun des forteresses peuvent avoir contribué à donner une structure à la socialisation des peuples dont l'intérêt était de créer une existence harmonieuse. De ce point de vue, les forteresses jouent le rôle de métaphores pour la gestion des relations émotionnelles à l'intérieur de groupes d'individus alors qu'ils vaquent à leurs occupations quotidiennes.

Zussamenfassung

Höhenbefestigungen waren immer von zentraler Bedeutung für die Interpretation der Gesellschaft der Eisenzeit, und Ian Armits Artikel in dieser Zeitschrift (2007) wirft erneut die Frage auf, ob sie für eine „endemische Kriegführung‟ sprechen. Die hier vorgelegte Antwort kritisiert Aussagen, die sich für Kriege in der Frühen und Mittleren Eisenzeit in Wessex aussprechen, und legt einen alternativen Ansatz vor, wie Höhenbefestigungen genutzt worden sein können. Es wird argumentiert, dass in zerstreut lebenden agrarischen Gesellschaften geringer Größe das gemeinschaftliche Errichten, Unterhalten und Nutzen von Höhenbefestigungen helfen kann, die Sozialität von Menschen zu strukturieren, deren Interesse in der Schaffung einer harmonischen Existenz liegt. In diesem Ansatz werden Höhensiedlungen als Metaphern verstanden für die Pflege emotionaler Beziehungen zwischen sozialen Gruppen in ihrem alltäglichen Leben.

Resumen

Los fuertes han sido siempre centrales a las interpretaciones de la sociedad de la Edad del Hierro y el trabajo presentado por Ian Armit en esta misma publicación (2007) re-introduce el tema de si son representativos o no de ‘guerras endémicas’. Esta respuesta critica las afirmaciones de guerra en la Primera y Segunda Edad del Hierro en Wessex, y presenta una visión alternativa de los fuertes y de cómo pueden haber sido utilizados. Se argumenta que dentro de las dispersas pequeñas sociedades agrícolas la construcción comunal, mantenimiento y uso de los fuertes pudo actuar para estructurar la socialidad de grupos interesados en crear una coexistencia armoniosa. Desde esta postura, los fuertes actúan como metáforas para la conducción de las relaciones emocionales dentro de los grupos de gente en su vida diaria.

Type
Shorter contributions
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 77 , 2011 , pp. 355 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2011

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

Armit, I. 2007. Hillforts at War: from Maiden Castle to Taniwaha Pā. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73, 25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, M. & McOmish, D. 1987. The required barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 76–84Google Scholar
Brown, I. 2009. Beacons in the Landscape. The Hillforts of England and Wales. Oxford: Wingather PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmen, J. & Harding, A. (eds). 1999. Ancient Warfare. Stroud: SuttonGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 1999. The origins of warfare in the prehistory of central and eastern Europe. In Carmen, & Harding, (eds) 1999, 101–42.Google Scholar
Craig, C.R., Knüsel, C.J. & Carr, G. 2005. Fragmentation, mutilation and dismemberment: an interpretation of human remains on Iron Age sites. In Parker Pearson, M. & Thorpe, I.J.N. (eds), Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Later Prehistory, 165–80. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1374Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 2006. Understanding hillforts: have we progressed? In Payne, A., Corney, M. & Cunliffe, B., The Wessex Hillforts Project. Extensive Survey of Hillfort Interiors in Central Southern England, 151–62. London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Driver, T. 2007. Hillforts and human movement: unlocking the Iron Age landscapes of mid Wales. In Fleming, A. & Hingley, R. (eds), Prehistoric and Roman Landscapes, 83–100. Macclesfield: WingatherGoogle Scholar
Finney, J. Bryant. 2006. Middle Iron Age Warfare of the Hillfort Dominated Zone c.400 BC to c.150 BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontijn, D. R. 2002. Sacrificial Landscapes. Cultural Biographies of Persons, Objects and ‘Natural’ Places in the Bronze Age of the Southern Netherlands, 200–600 BC. Leiden: Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 33–4Google Scholar
Giles, M. 2007. Refiguring rights in the Early Iron Age of east Yorkshire, in Haselgrove, & Pope, (eds) 2007, 103–18Google Scholar
Giles, M. 2008. Seeing red: the aesthetics of martial objects in the British and Irish Iron Age. In Garrow, D., Gosden, C. & Hill, J.D. (eds), Rethinking Celtic Art. Oxford: Oxbow, 59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, S. & Manley, J. 2001. Hillforts, monumentality and place: a chronological and topographic review of first millennium BC hillforts of south–east England. European Journal of Archaeology, 4(1), 7–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselgrove, C. & Pope, R. (eds). 2007. The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near Continent. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Heath, J. 2009. Warfare in Prehistoric Britain. Stroud: AmberleyGoogle 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.G. (eds), Different Iron Ages. Studies on the Iron Age in Temperate Europe, 45–66. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, P. & Wileman, J. 2002. Landscapes of War. The Archaeology of Aggression and Defence. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Hoskins, W.G. 1968. Harvest fluctuations and English economic history, 1620–1759. Agricultural History Review 16, 15–31Google Scholar
James, S. 2007. A bloodless past: the pacification of early Iron Age Britain. In Haselgrove, & Pope, (eds), 2007, 160–73Google Scholar
Karl, R. 2008. Random coincidences or: the return of the Celtic to Iron Age Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74, 69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keegan, J. 1993. A History of Warfare. New York: KnopfGoogle Scholar
Keeley, L.H. 1996. War before Civilization. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Overing, J. & Passes, A. 2000. The Anthropology of Love and Anger. The Aesthetics of Conviviality in Native Amazonia. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Lock, G. 2007. Wessex Hillforts after Danebury: exploring boundaries. In Gosden, C., Hamerow, H., De Jersey, P. & Lock, G. (eds), Communities and Connections. Essays in Honour of Barry Cunliffe, 341–56. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Lock, G., Gosden, C. & Daly, P. 2005. Segsbury Camp. Excavations in 1996 and 1997 at an Iron Age Hillfort on the Oxfordshire Ridgeway. Oxford: University of Oxford School of Archaeology Monograph 61Google Scholar
Miles, D., Palmer, S., Lock, G., Gosden., C. & Cromarty, A.M. 2003. Uffington White Horse Hill and its Landscape: investigations at White Horse Hill, Uffington, 1989–95 and Tower Hill, Ashbury, 1993–4, Oxfordshire. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 18Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 2005. Warfare, violence and slavery in later prehistory: an introduction. In Parker Pearson, M. & Thorpe, I.J.N. (eds), Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Later Prehistory, 19–33. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1374Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 1991a. Warfare in the Iron Age of Wessex. Scottish Archaeological Review 8, 79–89Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 1991b. Maiden Castle: Excavations and Field Survey 1985–6. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 19Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 2007. Building communities and creating identities in the first millennium BC. In Haselgrove, & Pope, (eds), 2007, 174–84Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 2010. Social Relations in Later Prehistory. Wessex in the First Millennium BC. Oxford: University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarlow, S. 2000. Emotion in Archaeology. Current Anthropology, 41(5), 713–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar