Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:00:53.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Danebury and the Heuneburg: Creating Communities in Early Iron Age Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

Oliver Davis
Oliver Davis*
Affiliation:
School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

L'essor des sites de hauteurs fortifiés caractérise l’âge du Fer en Europe tempérée. Bien que fort divers, ils possèdent des trais communs, ce qui présuppose des liens culturels sur une vaste aire géographique. Cependant on a interprété les sites de hauteurs fortifiés sur des bases théoriques de plus en plus divergentes dans les différents pays européens. Les études sur l’âge du Fer en Grande-Bretagne se sont progressivement distancées de celles de l'Europe continentale. L'auteur de cet article cherche à confronter ce problème à travers l'analyse des données archéologiques fournies par deux sites de hauteur fortifiés bien connus en Europe, Danebury dans le Wessex (Angleterre du sud) et la Heuneburg en Bade-Wurtemberg (Allemagne du sud-ouest), et relève plusieurs traits communs importants ainsi que des différences dans l'occupation de ces sites. Si les différences indiquent que ces sites de hauteur fortifiés ont été créés par des sociétés de l’âge du Fer fort diverses, les synergies auraient pu être le résultat de solutions semblables à un problème commun, c'est-à-dire comment résoudre les tensions que la transformation de communautés autrefois rurales en sociétés de plus en plus centralisées engendre. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Die Entstehung von befestigten Höhensiedlungen ist ein Merkmal der Eisenzeit im gemäßigten Europa. Obschon sie sehr unterschiedlich sind, gibt es aber auch viele Gemeinsamkeiten, was kulturelle Verknüpfungen über weite geografische Bereiche voraussetzt. Die Deutung dieser befestigten Höhensiedlungen hat sich in ihren theoretischen Grundlagen in den verschiedenen Länder Europas zunehmend verzweigt. Besonders in Großbritannien hat sich die Erforschung der Eisenzeit von den Forschungen auf dem europäischen Festland immer mehr abgegrenzt. In diesem Artikel wird versucht, durch die Untersuchung der Nachweise aus zwei der bekanntesten befestigten Höhensiedlungen in Europa, Danebury in Wessex (Südengland) und die Heuneburg in Baden-Württemberg (Südwestdeutschland), auf diese Frage einzugehen. Mehrere wichtige Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in der Belegungsabfolge der beiden Siedlungen werden hervorgehoben. Während die Unterschiede in den befestigten Höhensiedlungen sehr wahrscheinlich die Erzeugungen ganz verschiedenen eisenzeitlichen Gemeinschaften widerspiegeln, zeigen die Synergien, dass ähnliche Lösungen für gemeinsame Probleme gesucht wurden, nämlich wie man die Spannungen, die aus der Verwandlung von ehemaligen ländlichen Gemeinschaften zu zunehmend zentralisierten Formen der Gesellschaft, überwinden kann. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Keywords

DaneburyHeuneburghillfortcommunitycentralizationspatial logicsDaneburyla Heuneburgsites de hauteur fortifiéscommunautéscentralisationlogique spatialeDaneburyHeuneburgbefestigte HöhensiedlungGemeinschaftZentralisierungräumliche Logik
Type
Article
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 67 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2018 

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

Arnold, B. 1995. The Material Culture of Social Structure: Rank and Status in Early Iron Age Europe. In: Arnold, B. & Gibson, D. Blair, eds. Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State: The Evolution of Complex Social Systems in Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
Arnold, B. 2010. Eventful Archaeology, the Heuneburg Mud-Brick Wall and the Early Iron Age of Southwest Germany. In: Bolender, D., ed. Eventful Archaeologies. Buffalo: State University of New York Press, pp. 100–14.Google Scholar
Arnold, B. & Fernández-Götz, M. 2018. Agency in Architectural Choice: The Heuneburg Hillfort as Monument and Metaphor. In: Ballmer, A., Fernández-Götz, M. & Mielke, D., eds. Understanding Ancient Fortifications: Between Regionality and Connectivity. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 147–55.Google Scholar
Arnold, B. & Murray, M. 2015. Zwei hallstattzeitliche Grabhügel der Hohmichele-Gruppe im Speckhau. In Krausse, D., Kretschmer, I., Hansen, L., and Fernández-Götz, M. (eds). Die Heuneburg. Keltischer Fürstensitz an der oberen Donau. Darmstadt: Führer zu archäologischen Denkmälern in Baden-Württemberg 28, pp. 114–117Google Scholar
Biel, J. & Krausse, D. 2005. Frühkeltische Fürstensitze. älteste Städte und Herrschaftszentren nördlich der Alpen? Internationaler Workshop zur keltischen Archäologie in Eberdingen-Hochdorf 12. und 13. September 2003 (Archäologische Informationen aus Baden-Württemberg 51). Esslingen: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege.Google Scholar
Brown, I. 2009. Beacons in the Landscape: The Hillforts of England and Wales. Oxford & Oakville (CT): Windgather Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, G. 1966. The Invasion Hypothesis in British Archaeology. Antiquity, 40: 172–89.Google Scholar
Collis, J. 1981. A Theoretical Study of Hillforts. In: Guilbert, G., ed. Hillfort Studies. Leicester: Leicester University Press, pp. 66–76.Google Scholar
Collis, J. 1985. Review of Danebury: An Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, volumes 1 and 2, by B. Cunliffe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 51: 348–49.Google Scholar
Collis, J. 2010. Why Do We Still Dig Iron Age Ramparts? In: Fichtl, S., ed. Murus celticus: architecture et fonctions des remparts à l’âge du Fer (Bibracte 19). Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte, Centre archéologique européen, pp. 27–35.Google Scholar
Crumley, C.L. 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. In: Ehrenreich, R.M., Crumley, C.L. & Levy, J.E., eds. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies (Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6). Arlington (VA): American Anthropological Association, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1984a. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Volume 1: The Excavations, 1969–78. The Site (CBA Research Report 52). York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1984b. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Volume 1: The Excavations, 1969–78. The Finds (CBA Research Report 52). York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1995. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Volume 6: A Hillfort Community in Perspective (CBA Research Report 102). York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1997. The Ancient Celts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 2000. The Danebury Environs Programme: The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape: Volume 1: Introduction (English Heritage & Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 48). Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 2003. Danebury Hillfort. Stroud: Tempus.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 2006. Understanding Hillforts: Have We Progressed? In: Payne, A., Corney, M. & Cunliffe, B., eds. The Wessex Hillforts Project: Extensive Survey of Hillfort Interiors in Central Southern England. London: English Heritage, pp. 151–62.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 1991a. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, Volume 4: The Excavations, 1979–88: The Site (CBA Research Report 73). York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 1991b. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, Volume 5: The Excavations, 1979–88: The Finds (CBA Research Report 73). York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 2000a. The Danebury Environs Programme: The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape: Volume 2, Part 1: Woolbury and Stockbridge Down, Stockbridge, Hampshire, 1989 (English Heritage & Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 49). Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 2000b. The Danebury Environs Programme: The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape: Volume 2, Part 2: Bury Hill, Upper Clatford, Hampshire, 1990 (English Heritage & Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 49). Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 2000c. The Danebury Environs Programme: The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape: Volume 2, Part 3: Suddern Farm, Middle Wallop, Hampshire, 1991 and 1996 (English Heritage & Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 49). Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 2000d. The Danebury Environs Programme: The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape: Volume 2, Part 4: New Buildings, Longstock, Hampshire, 1992 (English Heritage & Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 49). Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 2000e. The Danebury Environs Programme: The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape: Volume 2, Part 5: Nettlebank Copse, Wherwell, Hampshire, 1993 (English Heritage & Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 49). Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 2000f. The Danebury Environs Programme: The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape: Volume 2, Part 6: Houghton Down, Stockbridge, Hampshire, 1994 (English Heritage & Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 49). Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 2000 g. The Danebury Environs Programme: The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape: Volume 2, Part 7: Windy Dido, Cholderton, Hampshire, 1995 (English Heritage & Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 49). Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. & Poole, C. 2008. The Danebury Environs Roman Programme: A Wessex Landscape during the Roman Era. Volume 2: The Sites. Part 6: Flint Farm, Goodworth Clatford, Hants, 2004 (English Heritage & Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 71). Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Davis, O.P. 2012. A Re-examination of Three Wessex Type-Sites: Little Woodbury, Gussage All Saints and Winnall Down. In: Moore, T. & Armada, X., eds. Atlantic Europe in the First Millennium bc: Crossing the Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–86.Google Scholar
Davis, O.P. 2013. Re-interpreting the Danebury Assemblage: Houses, Households and Community. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 79: 353–75.Google Scholar
Davis, O.P. 2015. From Football Stadium to Iron Age Hillfort: Creating a Taxonomy of Wessex Hillfort Communities. Archaeological Dialogues, 22: 45–64.Google Scholar
DeMarrais, E., Luis, J.C. & Earl, T.K. 1996. Ideology, Materialisation and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology, 37: 15–31.Google Scholar
Dietler, M. 1995. Early ‘Celtic’ Socio-Political Relations: Ideological Representation and Social Competition in Dynamic Comparative Perspective. In: Arnold, B. & Gibson, D. Blair, eds. Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State: The Evolution of Complex Social Systems in Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–71.Google Scholar
Driver, T. 2013. Architecture, Regional Identity and Power in the Iron Age Landscapes of Mid Wales: The Hillforts of North Ceredigion (British Archaeological Reports British Series 583). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Fasham, P.J. 1985. The Prehistoric Settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester (Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society Monograph 2). Winchester: Hampshire Field Club & Trust for Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M. 2014. Understanding the Heuneburg: A Biographical Approach. In: Fernández-Götz, M., Wendling, H. & Winger, K., eds. Paths to Complexity: Centralisation and Urbanisation in Iron Age Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 24–34.Google Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M. 2016. Urban Experiences in Early Iron Age Europe: Central Places and Social Complexity. Contributions in New World Archaeology, 9: 11–32.Google Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M. & Arnold, B. 2018. Elites before the Fürstensitze: Hallstatt C Sumptuous Graves between Main and Danube. In: Schumann, R. & van der Vaart-Verschoof, S., eds. Connecting Elites and Regions. Perspectives on Contacts, Relations and Differentiation during the Early Iron Age Hallstatt C Period in Northwest and Central Europe. Leiden: Sidestone Press, pp. 183–99.Google Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M. & Krausse, D. 2012. Heuneburg: First City North of the Alps. Current World Archaeology, 55: 28–34.Google Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M. & Krausse, D. 2013. Rethinking Early Iron Age Urbanisation in Central Europe: The Heuneburg Site and its Archaeological Environment. Antiquity, 87: 473–87.Google Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M. & Krausse, D. 2015. Early Centralisation Processes North of the Alps: Fortifications as Symbols of Power and Community Identity. In: Fontaine, P. & Helas, S., eds. Le fortificazioni arcaiche del Latium vetus e dell'Etruria meridionale: stratigrafia, cronologia e storia. Rome: Academia Belgica, pp. 267–86.Google Scholar
Frankenstein, S. & Rowlands, M.J. 1978. The Internal Structure and Regional Context of Early Iron Age Society in South-Western Germany. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, 15: 73–112.Google Scholar
Gersbach, E. 1982. Die Heuneburg bei Hundersingen a.d. Donau (Gemeinde Herbertingen, Kreis Sigmaringen): Streiflichter auf die lange Geschichte einer bedeutenden Wehranlage. Hundersingen: Heuneburg-Museumsverein.Google Scholar
Gersbach, E. 1989. Ausgrabungsmethodik und Stratigraphie der Heuneburg (Heuneburgstudien VI). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Google Scholar
Gersbach, E. 1995. Baubefunde der Perioden IVc-IVa der Heuneburg (Heuneburgstudien IX, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 53). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Google Scholar
Gersbach, E. 1996. Baubefunde der Perioden IIIb-Ia der Heuneburg (Heuneburgstudien X, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 56). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C. 1931. Hillforts. Antiquity, 5: 60–97.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C.F.C. 1939. The excavations at Quarley Hill, 1938. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, 14: 136–94.Google Scholar
Hill, J.D. 1996. Hillforts and the Iron Age of Wessex. In: Champion, T.C. & Collis, J.R., eds. The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications, pp. 95–116.Google Scholar
Hill, J.D. 2012. How Did Middle and Late Iron Age Societies in Britain Work (If They Did?). In: Moore, T. & Armada, X., eds. Atlantic Europe in the First Millennium bc: Crossing the Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 242–63.Google Scholar
Hodson, F.R. 1960. Reflections on the ABC of the British Iron Age. Antiquity, 34: 138–40.Google Scholar
Hodson, F.R. 1962. Some Pottery from Eastbourne, the ‘Marnians’ and the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 28: 140–55.Google Scholar
Hodson, F.R. 1964. Cultural Grouping within the British Pre-Roman Iron Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 30: 99–110.Google Scholar
Karl, R. 2011. Becoming Welsh: Modelling First Millennium bc Societies in Wales and the Celtic Context. In: Moore, T. & Armada, X., eds. Atlantic Europe in the First Millennium bc: Crossing the Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 336–57.Google Scholar
Kimmig, W. 1969. Zum Problem späthallstattischer Adelssitze. In: Otto, K.H. & Herrmann, J., eds. Siedlung, Burg und Stadt. Studien zu ihren Anfängen. Festschrift für Paul Grimm. Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 95–113.Google Scholar
Kimmig, W. 1983. Die Heuneburg an der oberen Donau, 2nd edition (Führer zu archäologischen Denkmälern in Baden-Württemberg 1). Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.Google Scholar
Krausse, D., Fernández-Götz, M., Hansen, L. & Kretschmer, I. 2016. The Heuneburg and the Early Iron Age Princely Seats: First Towns North of the Alps. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 2000. Europe before History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kurz, S. 2007. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der Heuneburg in der späten Hallstattzeit (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 105). Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.Google Scholar
Kurz, S. 2008. Neue Forschungen im Umfeld der Heuneburg. In: Krausse, D., ed. Frühe Zentralisierungs- und Urbanisierungsprozesse. Zur Genese und Entwicklung frühkeltischer Fürstensitze und ihres territorialen Umlandes. Kolloquium des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramms 1171 in Blaubeuren, 911 Oktober 2006 (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 101). Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, pp. 163–83.Google Scholar
Kurz, S. 2010. Zur Genese und Entwicklung der Heuneburg in der späten Hallstattzeit. In: Krausse, D., ed. ‘Fürstensitze’ und Zentralorte der frühen Kelten. Abschlußkolloquium des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramms 1171 in Stuttgart, 12–15 Oktober 2009 (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 120). Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, pp. 239–56.Google Scholar
Lock, G. 2011. Hillforts, Emotional Metaphors, and the Good Life: A Response to Armit. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 77: 355–62.Google Scholar
Lock, G. and Ralston, I. 2017. Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland. Available at: https://hillforts.arch.ox.ac.uk [accessed 6 June 2018].Google Scholar
Maltby, J.M. 1995. Animal Bone. In: Wainwright, G.J. & Davies, S.M., Balksbury Camp, Hampshire: Excavations 1973 and 1981. London: English Heritage, pp. 83–87.Google Scholar
McIvor, I.H. 2015. Monumental Ideology: A GIS Spatial Analysis of Interior Features of Matakawau Pa, Ahuahu (Stingray Point Pa, Great Mercury Island), New Zealand. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 124: 269–302.Google Scholar
McOmish, D., Field, D. & Brown, G. 2002. The Field Archaeology of the Salisbury Plain Training Area. Swindon: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Moore, T. 2017. Alternatives to Urbanism? Reconsidering oppida and the Urban Question in Late Iron Age Europe. Journal of World Prehistory, 30: 281–300.Google Scholar
Morris, E.L. 1994. Production and Distribution of Pottery and Salt in Iron Age Britain: A Review. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 60: 371–93.Google Scholar
Narr, K.J. 1972. Das Individuum in der Urgeschichte, Möglichkeiten seiner Erfassung. Saeculum, 23: 252–65.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. 1984. Danebury, an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire: An Aerial Photographic Interpretation of its Environs (RCHME Supplementary Series 6). London: Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England).Google Scholar
Payne, A., Corney, M. & Cunliffe, B. 2006. The Wessex Hillforts Project: Extensive Survey of Hillfort Interiors in Central Southern England. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 1991a. Maiden Castle: Excavations and Field Survey 1985–6 (English Heritage Archaeological Report 19). London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 1991b. English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle. London: English Heritage & Batsford.Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 2007. Building Communities and Creating Identities in the 1st Millennium bc. In Haselgrove, C. & Pope, R., eds. The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the Near Continent. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 174–84.Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 2010. Social Relations in Later Prehistory: Wessex in the First Millennium bc. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 2013. Review of Longbridge Deverill Cow Down. An Early Iron Age Settlement in West Wiltshire, by Sonia Chadwick Hawkes with Christopher Hawkes. London: Prehistoric Society. Available at: http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/files/reviews/Longbridge_Deverill_Cow_Review.pdf [accessed 4 April 2018].Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 2014. Are the Developed Hillforts of Southern England Urban? In: Fernández-Götz, M., Wendling, H. & Winger, K., eds. Paths to Complexity. Centralisation and Urbanisation in Iron Age Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 224–32.Google Scholar
Stephan, E. 2016. Faunal Remains at the Heuneburg and its Rural Environs. In: Krausse, D., Fernández-Götz, M. & Kretschmer, I., eds. The Heuneburg and the Early Iron Age Princely Seats: First Towns North of the Alps. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 68–70.Google Scholar
Stopford, J. 1987. Danebury: An Alternative View. Scottish Archaeological Review, 4: 70–75.Google Scholar
Whitley, J. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Davis supplementary material

Tables S1 and S2

Download Davis supplementary material(File)
File 20.2 KB