Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Spirit of Place II
Log In to post a reply

90 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
BrigantesNation
1733 posts

Aesthetic of Hillforts part 1
Jul 03, 2003, 00:25
Right, I'm not good on art, but I do have some preliminary thoughts.

Firstly, I'd recommend that we through away our conceptions of hill fort classification. Lets just call them defensive structures, that's because defensive structures were built for many reasons, and our current classification does not embrace this basic fact. Thus a structure built to defend a strategic position in flat terrain in the midst of battle would today be called an enclosure, whereas some chiefs mountain retreat, never seeing battle, get's called a hill fort.

The other thing to remember, is that the reasons for building these structures varied from region to region, from tribe to tribe, it's no good me saying "all structures of this type were built for X reason" when my knowledge is based on Brigantia, this is because Brigantia had a very different pre-Roman history to those say in the south.

Having said that I will try to generalise, so we can be a bit more inclusive. I have noticed several apparently different sorts of defended structures. Firstly, there seems to a type of large "artistic" one that tends to sit in the middle of a local territory, is built in a location for maximum visual impact, and has significant ramparts. These seem to have been designed primarily for the wow factor rather than defence. My reasoning is that it seems silly to let the enemy destroy all your crops and animals (many do not have sufficient internal space) only to surround you in your pretty fort. Often these forts fail to make maximum use of the local landscape and also fail to add extra defences where they are impaired by the local geography. Uffington may be such a fort.

Oh is that the time! I'd better crack on with some work, back later or tomorrow :o)
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index