The Iron Age in temperate Europe is characterized by the emergence of hillforts. While such sites can be highly variable, they also share many characteristics, implying cultural linkages across a wide geographical area. Yet, the interpretation of hillforts has increasingly seen significant divergence in theoretical approaches in different European countries. In particular, Iron Age studies in Britain have progressively distanced themselves from those pursued in continental Europe. This article attempts to address this issue by analysing the evidence from two of the best-known hillforts in Europe: Danebury in Wessex, southern England, and the Heuneburg in Baden-Württemberg, south-western Germany. The article highlights a number of key similarities and differences in the occupational sequences of these sites. While the differences indicate that the hillforts are the creation of very different Iron Age societies, the synergies are argued to be a consequence of communities evincing similar responses to similar problems, particularly those resulting from the social tensions that develop when transforming previously dispersed rural societies into increasingly centralized forms.

Cunliffe's excavations at Danebury have revealed an Iron Age settlement in extraordinary detail. Its inhabitants have come to represent, in the popular literature at least, the idealised hillfort community of warriors, craftsmen, farmers, and their families in a hierarchically ordered settlement system. This model has been vigorously challenged, although largely from a theoretical perspective, and there has been little contextual re-analysis of the dataset. This paper seeks to re-examine the Danebury structural assemblage and question why Iron Age people came together in this place, and how those that did come perceived their place within wider group identities. By examining patterns of activity within the interior of Danebury this paper demonstrates that the nature of the community that resided in the hillfort changed considerably over the course of the Early and Middle Iron Age. In particular, it is argued that Danebury was occupied by a permanent population. The organisation of domestic space, however, was tightly managed. In the early period occupation was characterised by single round-houses of individual household units emphasising their distinctiveness by spatial isolation and variability in round-house design. A dramatic change in the nature and intensity of occupation came in the late period. A large number of ‘identikit’ round-houses were tightly packed into the quarry hollows in the lee of the ramparts. This probably represents households from the surrounding settlements moving into the hillfort. It is also argued that the communal construction and maintenance of Danebury's defences would have been a way for a dispersed population to have reproduced a sense of community. Participation may also have been a mechanism of maintaining networks and relationships with other households in the long term