| View previous topic :: View next topic |
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
 |
|
| If my theory is correct. then hillforts will be maximised in areas that a) erode fast ie chalk downland and b) are mostly suitable for animal grazing ie chalk downland. |
"Distribution of iron age forts in England and Wales" from James Dyer's Hillforts of England and Wales:
"Chalk distribution in the UK" from The White Cliff Countryside Project:
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Virtually all in England south of the Tyne and west to the Severn had been abandoned by the time of the Roman occupation |
Perfect!
| 'don or down' in England (mostly)... A term apparently being gaelic for a 'fort'. |
Or English for down or dune.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The (limited) archaeology of Hill forts seems to be people living mostly in open settlements in the uplands up to about 1000BC, who then moved to lightly pallisaded hill tops, which were thereafter either abandoned or heavily strengthened with ditches and ramparts from about 500BC. |
Frank, you've been in this business long enough to know that these kinds of systematic statements are simply not possible. I challenge you to show one (never mind two thousand!) hillfort locales where it is possible to say, "Mmm... clearly everybody was living in open settlements c 1000 BC but...wait for it....yes, they're on the move...by Jove, the evidence is clear: they've pretty much all moved to lightly palisaded hilltops...what's the date, Carruthers? 500 BC you say?"
| The ramparts vary from timbers to heavy stonework, depending on the site. Round houses, dated pottery, storage pits and sling stones are common items found. |
You tell us that 2000 hillforts have been identified. I would claim, as a matter of common sense, that a proportion of these 2000 hillforts would be converted into actual forts. You say a proportion of them have though you don't say what proportion. If you are right, and hillforts were essentially built as hillforts then I would have thought the proportion would be 100%. I'll go with 10% if my theory is true. What's the actual figure?
| An interesting phenomenon is the close proximity to Hill forts of settlements on the modern map ending in 'don or down' in England(mostly), 'dun' in Scotland(mostly) and 'dinas' in Wales. A term apparently being gaelic for a 'fort'. |
Well, I'd probably argue that dun is just tun or town, an English (and of course Lallan Scots) word meaning a collection of houses. The Welsh of course used it in the sense of 'fort' because to them an English 'town' in their midst is a fort. But in general, since any hillfort that was actually turned into a fort would count as a collection of houses so far the surrounding countryside was concerned I would predict that 10% of hillforts would have a dun connection.
The term burg or bourg on the continent should be examined to understand the true origin of the town, word and thing. A defendable locale is clearly operant. However this does not particularly bear on the hillfort phenom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I'll go with 10% if my theory is true. What's the actual figure? |
The number varied as sites were abandoned and others strengthened.
| Well, I'd probably argue that dun is just tun or town, an English (and of course Lallan Scots) word meaning a collection of houses. |
Dun, don, dinas settlements always occur within sight distance of a Hill fort (max. about 8 miles on the flat).The pattern is shown on the figures in my Google Knol......( it has received no advice or comment so far though).
Towns/tons do not visibly correlate.
| The term burg or bourg on the continent should be examined to understand the true origin of the town, word and thing. |
Apparently 'burg' is derived from 'berg' i.e. protect. In Britain these closely correlate to Roman forts, most right next the fort itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| frank h wrote: | | An interesting phenomenon is the close proximity to Hill forts of settlements on the modern map ending in 'don or down' in England(mostly), 'dun' in Scotland(mostly) and 'dinas' in Wales. A term apparently being gaelic for a 'fort'. |
Don and Dun and just alternate versions of the universal word for "zone".
D is cognate with Z.
Don = Zon
Dun = Zun
This word "zone" is itself a universal word, elsewhere spelled without a Z character using T. For example...
Ton
Tun
Town
N is also cognate with r -- believe it or not (can't recall right now my evidence for this but...trust me... it's air-tight). That's why we also get forms like...
Tor
Tur
And T is, itself, really just a shortened form of the diphthong used to represent the Z sound in written language forms without a Z character (as written English was at some point). Typical z dipthongs include ts, st, sh, sc, and substitutions like s. Thus we get words like...
Tsar
Star
Stan
Shire
Scone
Sun
Son
All of these words are just different forms of one word. One concept. That concept is "division". The Here versus the There (the Here versus the T-here or "Tsar-Here": "There" is that which is divided from Here).
And with that, I give you the key to unlock the one world language.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper wrote:
I'll go with 10% if my theory is true. What's the actual figure?
The number varied as sites were abandoned and others strengthened. |
Surely you can see that this makes the argument non-proveable from the start. Your position, as I understand it, is that hillforts are hillforts ie they were designed to be defendable locations built on high ground. If this is true then it does not matter "as sites were abandoned" -- they all have by now, after all! If they were hillforts, they will have archaeology to that effect. If your position is that they are hillforts but archaeology is not up to the job of identifying them....then you're in some trouble from the off.
| Dun, don, dinas settlements always occur within sight distance of a Hill fort (max. about 8 miles on the flat).The pattern is shown on the figures in my Google Knol......( it has received no advice or comment so far though). |
Given the number and distribution of the dots, surrounding each with an eight-mile circle surely covers so much of the country as to render any correlation meaningless. Step forward our house mathematician to arbitrate!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Have another look at this map; ignore the Pennines as areas of millstone grit (that weathers quite differently); and say what correlates with the dot distribution and that hasn't been mentioned yet.
"Distribution of iron age forts in England and Wales" from James Dyer's Hillforts of England and Wales:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | If your position is that they are hillforts but archaeology is not up to the job of identifying them....then you're in some trouble from the off. |
As I understand the archaeology, a Hill fort is a particularly recognisable type of defensive structure with ramparts and ditches.
Dun, don, dinas settlements always occur within sight distance of a Hill fort (max. about 8 miles on the flat).
Step forward our house mathematician to arbitrate! |
Don't bother as you can 95%,99% etc.correlate for any chosen distance between don to Hill fort, but if you look at my Knol you will see that virtually all are within a max of 8 miles apart. Obviously if one or other is not on the flat than the sight distance will be longer, depending on the size of the HF. It's even more obvious for the lightly scattered ones in lowland England, witness the HF on the NE tip of Kent as a good example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| As I understand the archaeology, a Hill fort is a particularly recognisable type of defensive structure with ramparts and ditches. |
As I understand the limits of archaeology, it would not be possible systematically to distinguish between a 'defensive structure' and an animal enclosure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | what correlates with the dot distribution and that hasn't been mentioned yet. |
Rivers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Rong!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with the English landscape but that blank space running through Wales seems consistent with river erosion running off the mountains, around which all the dots appear to be clustered.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
That band is the Cambrian Mountains which, like the Pennines, are unsuited to hillfort-formation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | distinguish between a 'defensive structure' and an animal enclosure. |
A fair number of large enclosures with no indication of habitation have been found, perhaps these were for animals.
Other HF started as hill top dwellings and many were begun fresh with ramparts and ditches - according to the archaeology.
As far as rivers, the bulk of Hill fort clusters are located around or along them. See figure in my Google Knol.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
Looking at the map in Mick's post it appears to me that the 'forts' are more dense the further west we go.... why? Surely if the 'forts' were built BY the invading peoples then orthodoxy would need them to be concentrated in the east.
Invaders arrive, build fort, lord it over the indigenous peeps, expand ever westward.....
Cannot this distribution be used to show that in fact the builders of these 'forts' came from the west (Ireland?) first settled the west coast of the island and (bringing their 'celtic' languages with them, then slowly pushed east into the indigenous population?
I suppose the interpretation of 'forts' can be used to argue whatever you want... much like everything else in archaeology.
_________________
Question everything!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
