Hillforts & Barrows

close
Evergreen Dazed E
Evergreen Dazed Sep 16, 2012 11:33:15

I did some mushrooms this morning, along with some scrambled egg, bacon, black pudding and fried bread and, sat in the afterglow with a cup of PG Tips, my mind naturally wandered to the subject I know least about - The prehistory of the British Isles.
Taking a book down from the shelf (a pointless exercise, I know, and tricky with a distended belly groaning under the weight of danepak) I began to read, for the first time ever, about these things called 'Hillforts'.

"Stap me vitals" I grunted in my best sub blandings, I'm sure there's probably material within these pages I could make into a song title. With the excitement of it all I naturally began to beat my chest like king kong (knocking over a bottle of ketchup in the process) and to call upon the energies present within the tropicana I had imbibed to bring me inspiration for another mega song.

It didn't happen for me.

-----------------------------------

I'll keep this short as poss.
I'm interested in the relationship between Hillforts and barrows. Obviously with surving barrows tending to be in higher places and a good number of Hillforts being of the same persuasion, it might seem unsurprising to see the two in close proximity. Ford-Johnston suggested the builders of early Hillforts may have used the 'sacredness' of the barrows as part of the sites defences.

At ivinghoe in Beds, along with a few other examples I can think of, there is a huge bowl barrow within the hillfort itself. This seems strange to me. I could undetstand using the barrows outside of a fort as defence, in the sense that Ford-Johnston used the word, but to have something of such 'power' within the living space itself seems at odds with the idea of 'sacredness'.

Of course, the function of Hillforts in general is far from clear and Ivinghoe is a very early example, so I wonder what the 'non avoidance', if you like, in this instance could indicate?

If the builders of Ivinghoe were airily unconcerned about the ancestor(s) outside their huts front door, you might imagine they would have destroyed the thing. The hillfort is small, the barrow is not.
On the other hand, if they felt it sacred, had great respect, as appears to be the case (it's still there!) it is hard to imagine them 'living among it'.

Even if it is a totally different scenario, and the people of Ivinghoe hillfort raised the barrow themselves, it is hard to imagine why they chose to put it within the living space when there are others dotted around the hill, outside of the fort.

I'd really like to hear any thoughts people might have.

T tiompan
tiompan Sep 16, 2012 12:07:58
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
I did some mushrooms this morning, along with some scrambled egg, bacon, black pudding and fried bread and, sat in the afterglow with a cup of PG Tips, my mind naturally wandered to the subject I know least about - The prehistory of the British Isles.
Taking a book down from the shelf (a pointless exercise, I know, and tricky with a distended belly groaning under the weight of danepak) I began to read, for the first time ever, about these things called 'Hillforts'.

"Stap me vitals" I grunted in my best sub blandings, I'm sure there's probably material within these pages I could make into a song title. With the excitement of it all I naturally began to beat my chest like king kong (knocking over a bottle of ketchup in the process) and to call upon the energies present within the tropicana I had imbibed to bring me inspiration for another mega song.

It didn't happen for me.

-----------------------------------

I'll keep this short as poss.
I'm interested in the relationship between Hillforts and barrows. Obviously with surving barrows tending to be in higher places and a good number of Hillforts being of the same persuasion, it might seem unsurprising to see the two in close proximity. Ford-Johnston suggested the builders of early Hillforts may have used the 'sacredness' of the barrows as part of the sites defences.

At ivinghoe in Beds, along with a few other examples I can think of, there is a huge bowl barrow within the hillfort itself. This seems strange to me. I could undetstand using the barrows outside of a fort as defence, in the sense that Ford-Johnston used the word, but to have something of such 'power' within the living space itself seems at odds with the idea of 'sacredness'.

Of course, the function of Hillforts in general is far from clear and Ivinghoe is a very early example, so I wonder what the 'non avoidance', if you like, in this instance could indicate?

If the builders of Ivinghoe were airily unconcerned about the ancestor(s) outside their huts front door, you might imagine they would have destroyed the thing. The hillfort is small, the barrow is not.
On the other hand, if they felt it sacred, had great respect, as appears to be the case (it's still there!) it is hard to imagine them 'living among it'.

Even if it is a totally different scenario, and the people of Ivinghoe hillfort raised the barrow themselves, it is hard to imagine why they chose to put it within the living space when there are others dotted around the hill, outside of the fort.

I'd really like to hear any thoughts people might have.

I don't think the barrow has been excavated/dated? That would be make a difference to the conclusions . Regardless , if ,as seems to be the case with other sites the hill fort /settlement was not a permanent settlement but more likely used for refuge and storage and maybe even another "R " word the barrow would not be in the way and would provide a reassuring ancestral eye and presence on the the place when both occupied and and the more likely half empty .

B bladup
bladup Sep 16, 2012 12:19:06
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
I did some mushrooms this morning, along with some scrambled egg, bacon, black pudding and fried bread and, sat in the afterglow with a cup of PG Tips, my mind naturally wandered to the subject I know least about - The prehistory of the British Isles.
Taking a book down from the shelf (a pointless exercise, I know, and tricky with a distended belly groaning under the weight of danepak) I began to read, for the first time ever, about these things called 'Hillforts'.

"Stap me vitals" I grunted in my best sub blandings, I'm sure there's probably material within these pages I could make into a song title. With the excitement of it all I naturally began to beat my chest like king kong (knocking over a bottle of ketchup in the process) and to call upon the energies present within the tropicana I had imbibed to bring me inspiration for another mega song.

It didn't happen for me.

-----------------------------------

I'll keep this short as poss.
I'm interested in the relationship between Hillforts and barrows. Obviously with surving barrows tending to be in higher places and a good number of Hillforts being of the same persuasion, it might seem unsurprising to see the two in close proximity. Ford-Johnston suggested the builders of early Hillforts may have used the 'sacredness' of the barrows as part of the sites defences.

At ivinghoe in Beds, along with a few other examples I can think of, there is a huge bowl barrow within the hillfort itself. This seems strange to me. I could undetstand using the barrows outside of a fort as defence, in the sense that Ford-Johnston used the word, but to have something of such 'power' within the living space itself seems at odds with the idea of 'sacredness'.

Of course, the function of Hillforts in general is far from clear and Ivinghoe is a very early example, so I wonder what the 'non avoidance', if you like, in this instance could indicate?

If the builders of Ivinghoe were airily unconcerned about the ancestor(s) outside their huts front door, you might imagine they would have destroyed the thing. The hillfort is small, the barrow is not.
On the other hand, if they felt it sacred, had great respect, as appears to be the case (it's still there!) it is hard to imagine them 'living among it'.

Even if it is a totally different scenario, and the people of Ivinghoe hillfort raised the barrow themselves, it is hard to imagine why they chose to put it within the living space when there are others dotted around the hill, outside of the fort.

I'd really like to hear any thoughts people might have.

Are you still taking the piss out of me? i think you're now been quite sad. maybe you and him will slowly morph into one patronizing being of self righteousness.

J juamei
juamei Sep 16, 2012 13:57:58
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

I've always assumed its a case of barrows are built on a lot of hills, some of which were later use for hillforts. Builders of hillforts respected the burial mounds of their ancestors so built around them and left them in situ. Which is kinda boring, but seems the most likely to me.

Whether certain hills were selected for forts because of the the particular barrows they contained, maybe! I presume the ones in Dorset (say) were placed in an area based upon protective / tactical needs, but the actual hill they were placed upon, the barrows may have contributed to the choice.

T tjj
tjj Sep 16, 2012 14:11:13
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Barbury Castle seems to have lots of burial sites nearby:

The information board on the Ridgeway side of Barbury tells us that the area is rich in burial mounds, among which an ancient disc barrow is the most important. Dated 1700BC it is thought to be the burial site of an aristocratic woman.

The information board goes on to say that during the laying of a trench by Esso, the skeleton of an elderly woman dated at around 300AD was found deep in the chalk bed. Probably a member of the local Romano British community who farmed the area.

Also Oldbury hillfort on Cherhill Down has a barrow right on top of it .. would be something do with the view - panoramic from Cherhill.

T The Eternal
The Eternal Sep 16, 2012 21:52:53
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
...........Ford-Johnston suggested the builders of early Hillforts may have used the 'sacredness' of the barrows as part of the sites defences.

At ivinghoe in Beds, along with a few other examples I can think of, there is a huge bowl barrow within the hillfort itself. This seems strange to me. I could undetstand using the barrows outside of a fort as defence, in the sense that Ford-Johnston used the word, but to have something of such 'power' within the living space itself seems at odds with the idea of 'sacredness'.

Of course, the function of Hillforts in general is far from clear and Ivinghoe is a very early example, so I wonder what the 'non avoidance', if you like, in this instance could indicate?

If the builders of Ivinghoe were airily unconcerned about the ancestor(s) outside their huts front door, you might imagine they would have destroyed the thing. The hillfort is small, the barrow is not.
On the other hand, if they felt it sacred, had great respect, as appears to be the case (it's still there!) it is hard to imagine them 'living among it'.

Even if it is a totally different scenario, and the people of Ivinghoe hillfort raised the barrow themselves, it is hard to imagine why they chose to put it within the living space when there are others dotted around the hill, outside of the fort.............

Hi ED,

Firstly, I like your style of writing - very enjoyable, and a pleasure to read.

Secondly, and more to the point, it's an interesting topic that you raise. My opinion on barrows within hillforts is that of superstition. I really believe that they respected the barrows as places that housed the dead. And that the reason was because they were afraid of the spirits of the departed, and the vengeance that they would deliver upon anyone desecrating their tombs.

When the first hillforts were built people still lived in a time when so much wasn't fully understood, and the basic beliefs were almost the same as they had been for a few thousand years.

Maiden Castle at Dorchester is another example, and the site has been used since the neolithic.

A healthy respect for the dead, by superstition, is what it was.

Cheers,
TE.

G GLADMAN
GLADMAN Sep 24, 2012 20:07:30
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

I've seen many examples now where monuments of both the stone and earthen (round and long) variety have been deliberately incorporated within Iron Age enclosures - Moel Drygarn in Y Preselau is a classic example of the cairn, long barrows upon Hambledon and Cley Hill just a couple of many such sites. In other words far too many for it to represent merely localised superstition 'not to anger the old Gods'. This was a widespread practice. Retaining such monuments seems to have served no practical purpose.... in some cases actually limiting available living space to a noticeable degree. So why do it?

For what it's worth I think it has a lot to do with the defences of hill forts having a far more ceremonial aspect than perhaps they are generally given credit fort..... e.g. excessive lines of defence where one or two banks would have catered for any reasonably likely assault..... note how even the incomparable Maiden Castle near Dorchester, the massive Bigbury near Canterbury were no match for basic Roman siege techniques. No, I reckon a good proportion of hill fort design reflected a need for bling, to highlight the owner's prestige. 'Look how many workers I can command to build THIS! Don't mess with me cos I'm the man'. Chester's up near Edinburgh is even immediately overlooked by high ground. Militarily insane, but what a powerful fortress nonetheless.

To get to the point, I reckon the incorporation of Bronze Age cairns and round/long barrows within hillforts was an attempt to appropriate the 'claim to the land', the ancestral 'right' inferred by such monuments by warlords founding new societies.... 'hey, we've been here all along.... look at the ancestral tombs.... mess with us at your peril cos we've the backing of the gods'. Let's face it, they must have meant a great deal for constructors of Moel Drygarn, a drystone-walled fort, to pass up the use of three great piles of stone when building their ramparts. No, THOSE are out of bounds.

H Hob
Hob Oct 1, 2012 00:24:36
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Apologies if this is mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but I need to go kip and haven't time to read.

It's sort of related, but if you have a look at a few of the small hillforts up here in Northumberland, it's evident that they seem to be built in militarily poor defensive positions, usually by way of being closely overlooked by adjacent slopes, yet they also seem to have been constructed to surround significant natural features or rock art. Like a deliberate control of access to the evidence of the ancestors.

If you go for this line of thought, then the most interesting example is the cup marked stone in Corbridge roman fort, where the stone may have had it's own dedicated building within the fort, which itself was built by legionnaires from Galicia in northen Spain, another area that has a lot of cup and ring marked rocks. You could then extrapolate to infer that in some areas of Europe, in the iron age, there was, at the very least, still *some* special significance imbued upon older monuments. Which seems reasonable enough a statement to me :)