
The term hill fort is commonly used by archeology to describe fortified enclosures located to exploit a rise in elevation for defensive advantage. This fortification consists of one or more circular or sub-circular earth or stone ramparts, often with external ditches, following the contours of the hill. Beyond this definition the variation in types and periods is wide. Some were also settlements whilst others appear only to have been occupied seasonally or in times of strife. Further, many hill forts, after careful archeological excavation, have been discovered to have been used not for military purposes, but to pen in cattle, horses, or other domesticated animals. Hill forts are especially common across Europe. In Central Europe, hill-forts start with the late Neolithic, but are especially common in the Bronze Age Urnfield culture and in the Hallstatt culture of the early Iron Age, and were being built until the Roman Empire conquest in many areas. Julius Caesar described the large late Iron Age hill forts he encountered during his campaigns as oppidum. By this time the larger ones had become more like cities than fortresses and many were assimilated as Roman towns. ==Scandinavia== In Scandinavia, ''hill forts'' are fortifications from the Iron Age which may have had several functions. They are usually located on the crests of hills and mountains making use of precipices and marshes which worked as natural defenses. The crests' more accessible parts were defended with walls of stone and outer walls in the slopes beneath are common. Round and closed, so called, ''ring forts'' are common even on flat ground. The walls often have remaining parts of stone, which were probably the support of pales. They often have well delineated gates which were probably of wood. Hill forts with strong walls are often located beside old trading routes and have an offensive character, whereas others are reclusive and were weakly fortified, probably only for hiding during raids. Many forts, located centrally in densely populated areas, were permanently settled strongholds and can show traces of settlements both inside and outside. Older place names containing the element ''sten''/''stein'' were usually hill forts. In Sweden, there are 1100 known hill forts with a strong concentration on the northern west coast and in eastern Svealand. Only in Sudermannia, there are 300, in Uplandia 150, East Götaland 130 and Bahusia and Gotland 90-100 each. In Gotland, ''ring forts'' can be from the Pre-Roman Iron Age, but findings from the period 200 AD- 600 AD dominate. Many were still in use during the Middle Ages. For a unique fort, see Tingstäde Träsk. ==Britain and Ireland== Hill forts in Britain are known from the Bronze Age, but were a most prominent feature of the Iron Age. They were apparently used for habitation or as fortified encampments during the middle to late Iron Age, before the Roman invasion of Britain, and then again following the end of Roman Britain, for a period of several decades into the Anglo-Saxon period. There is however, strong debate among modern archeologists about their exact nature & use. In Britain the great age of hill fort construction was between 200 BC and the Roman conquest in AD 43. Where Roman influence was less strong (for example, in uninvaded Ireland and unsubdued northern Scotland) hill forts were still built and used for several more centuries. Some hill forts were reoccupied by the Anglo-Saxons prior to and during the Viking invasions. ==France== Well known French hillforts include Bibracte (Mont Beuvray) and Mont St. Odile (Mur Païen). The Gaul hero Vercingetorix was famously besieged by Julius Caesar in the hill fort of Alesia. ==New Zealand== The Maori people built hill forts, mostly in the country's North Island, during the Classic period (AD 1350-1800). Known as ''pa'', the fortresses were sometimes sited atop extinct volcanoes and consisted of a settlement, sometimes even with cultivation plots, surrounded by ditches and banks. Wooden palisade fences ran atop the banks along with raised fighting platforms. During the Maori Wars, the design was gradually modified, with more below ground trench warfare, thick earthern ramparts and camouflage, to better resist British cannon. ==Examples== *Borough Hill, Northamptonshire
*Danebury, Hampshire
*Dinas Emrys, Gwynedd
*Eildon hill, Scottish Borders
*Maiden Castle, Dorset
*Mount Wellington, Auckland, New Zealand
*Old Oswestry, Shropshire
*Old Sarum, Wiltshire
*South Cadbury, Somerset
*Heuneburg, Germany
*Traprain Law, East Lothian
*Uffington Castle, Oxfordshire
*The Wrekin, Shropshire
European archaeology Fortification Viking Age Monument types
I know that Caernarvonshire is an obsolete name, but I cannot find what the name of the current county is. Can someone please fix that? -- User:Llywrch 00:47 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC) ==Spelling== ''moved from Talk:Archaeology'' Hillfort or Hill fort? I created the former not thinking to search for the pre-existing latter. Now I need to merge and also include a redirect from 'hill-fort'. Has anyone got strong feelings about the rendering? My (British) Dictionary of Archaeology and the [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/thesaurus/mon_types/default.htm EH Monument Class Descriptions Thesaurus] say it should be one word (which was why I got stuck into Hillfort) but various other books of mine have it as two. Which one should be the 'homepage' heritage fans? User:Adamsan 18:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC) :PS the hill fort entry has inconsistent spelling anyway so I'd like to get an idea of what the standard wikispelling should be. User:Adamsan 18:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC) ::Interesting one. All my instincts as an English speaker say "hill fort", yet somehow "hillfort" looks better. I suppose it comes down to a "hillfort" being a specific archaeological feature, whereas a "hill fort" could be any old fort on a hill. Er... does that help? User:Deb 21:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC) :::I'd say that the prior existence of the article at hill fort, and the absence of even a redirect at hillfort, indicates weakly that the former spelling is the better one. On the other hand, a Google search for "hill fort" returned 42,000 hits, compared to 154,000 for "hillfort"; in addition, some of the hits for the two-word spelling were probably extaneous. P.S: The earlier article is quite Britain-centric. I know nothing about hillforts, so I can't help fix that problem. User:Smack 22:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC) ::::I agree the entry is anglocentric, especialy considering how international the concept of a high-up, fortified site is. The spelling isn't a big issue and in the meantime, once the redirects are all setup, I shall try to contribute to making hill fort a bit more cosmopolitan User:Adamsan 13:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)~ ::::As the one who wrote the original hill fort article, I have to agree that it was Anglocentric. I blame that on my sources, & give my thanks to adamsan's article I have tried to lessen the bias towards Britain. (More contributions are always welcome.) ::::And FWIW, the Ordnance Survey's ''Field Archeology in Great Britain'' (5th ed., 1973) uses the form "hill-fort", although the captions of its illustrations use "hillfort". -- User:Llywrch 01:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Shall this discussion be moved to talk:Hill fort? User:Smack 04:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC) ''moved'' User:Adamsan 20:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC) :I'm rather amused that you continue to add to the article at this location, considering that the preponderance of evidence seems to point to ''Hillfort'' as the preferable spelling. Note that your activity only complicates the situation, because if this page is turned into a redirect to Hillfort, its page history will be all but lost. User:Smack 17:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC) ::Curses. I'd wrongly got it into my head that User:Llywrch had merged it all into hill fort. As nobody was complaining and having just fought my first battle over ''inter alia'', henge. I was happy to leave it at hill fort and work with that. So, do we move it or not? User:Adamsan 18:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC) :::I'm all for moving it. User:Smack 23:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC) ::Since no one in the last 2 weeks has opposed the idea of making Hillfort into a redirect, I decided to be bold & do it. Hope no one gets too upset about it. -- User:Llywrch 01:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Do Motte and Bailey castles count as hillforts (or even hill forts) User:Neonchameleon :A motte and bailey has a man-made mound rather than being on a natural hill so I'd say it doesn't conform. Someone mentioned acropolises (acropoleis?) earlier though and I'm wondering if it's possible to differentiate between them, and citadels for that matter, and the hill fort. User:Adamsan 22:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Hill_fort:
Hill_fort
Hill_fort
Hill_forts
Hill_forts
Hill_forts_in_Britain
Hill fort
The term hill fort is commonly used by archeology to describe fortified enclosures located to exploit a rise in elevation for defensive advantage. This fortification consists of one or more circular or sub-circular earth or stone ramparts, often with external ditches, following the contours of the hill. Beyond this definition the variation in types and periods is wide. Some were also settlements whilst others appear only to have been occupied seasonally or in times of strife. Further, many hill forts, after careful archeological excavation, have been discovered to have been used not for military purposes, but to pen in cattle, horses, or other domesticated animals. Hill forts are especially common across Europe. In Central Europe, hill-forts start with the late Neolithic, but are especially common in the Bronze Age Urnfield culture and in the Hallstatt culture of the early Iron Age, and were being built until the Roman Empire conquest in many areas. Julius Caesar described the large late Iron Age hill forts he encountered during his campaigns as oppidum. By this time the larger ones had become more like cities than fortresses and many were assimilated as Roman towns. ==Scandinavia== In Scandinavia, ''hill forts'' are fortifications from the Iron Age which may have had several functions. They are usually located on the crests of hills and mountains making use of precipices and marshes which worked as natural defenses. The crests' more accessible parts were defended with walls of stone and outer walls in the slopes beneath are common. Round and closed, so called, ''ring forts'' are common even on flat ground. The walls often have remaining parts of stone, which were probably the support of pales. They often have well delineated gates which were probably of wood. Hill forts with strong walls are often located beside old trading routes and have an offensive character, whereas others are reclusive and were weakly fortified, probably only for hiding during raids. Many forts, located centrally in densely populated areas, were permanently settled strongholds and can show traces of settlements both inside and outside. Older place names containing the element ''sten''/''stein'' were usually hill forts. In Sweden, there are 1100 known hill forts with a strong concentration on the northern west coast and in eastern Svealand. Only in Sudermannia, there are 300, in Uplandia 150, East Götaland 130 and Bahusia and Gotland 90-100 each. In Gotland, ''ring forts'' can be from the Pre-Roman Iron Age, but findings from the period 200 AD- 600 AD dominate. Many were still in use during the Middle Ages. For a unique fort, see Tingstäde Träsk. ==Britain and Ireland== Hill forts in Britain are known from the Bronze Age, but were a most prominent feature of the Iron Age. They were apparently used for habitation or as fortified encampments during the middle to late Iron Age, before the Roman invasion of Britain, and then again following the end of Roman Britain, for a period of several decades into the Anglo-Saxon period. There is however, strong debate among modern archeologists about their exact nature & use. In Britain the great age of hill fort construction was between 200 BC and the Roman conquest in AD 43. Where Roman influence was less strong (for example, in uninvaded Ireland and unsubdued northern Scotland) hill forts were still built and used for several more centuries. Some hill forts were reoccupied by the Anglo-Saxons prior to and during the Viking invasions. ==France== Well known French hillforts include Bibracte (Mont Beuvray) and Mont St. Odile (Mur Païen). The Gaul hero Vercingetorix was famously besieged by Julius Caesar in the hill fort of Alesia. ==New Zealand== The Maori people built hill forts, mostly in the country's North Island, during the Classic period (AD 1350-1800). Known as ''pa'', the fortresses were sometimes sited atop extinct volcanoes and consisted of a settlement, sometimes even with cultivation plots, surrounded by ditches and banks. Wooden palisade fences ran atop the banks along with raised fighting platforms. During the Maori Wars, the design was gradually modified, with more below ground trench warfare, thick earthern ramparts and camouflage, to better resist British cannon. ==Examples== *Borough Hill, Northamptonshire
*Danebury, Hampshire
*Dinas Emrys, Gwynedd
*Eildon hill, Scottish Borders
*Maiden Castle, Dorset
*Mount Wellington, Auckland, New Zealand
*Old Oswestry, Shropshire
*Old Sarum, Wiltshire
*South Cadbury, Somerset
*Heuneburg, Germany
*Traprain Law, East Lothian
*Uffington Castle, Oxfordshire
*The Wrekin, Shropshire
European archaeology Fortification Viking Age Monument types
Hill fort
I know that Caernarvonshire is an obsolete name, but I cannot find what the name of the current county is. Can someone please fix that? -- User:Llywrch 00:47 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC) ==Spelling== ''moved from Talk:Archaeology'' Hillfort or Hill fort? I created the former not thinking to search for the pre-existing latter. Now I need to merge and also include a redirect from 'hill-fort'. Has anyone got strong feelings about the rendering? My (British) Dictionary of Archaeology and the [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/thesaurus/mon_types/default.htm EH Monument Class Descriptions Thesaurus] say it should be one word (which was why I got stuck into Hillfort) but various other books of mine have it as two. Which one should be the 'homepage' heritage fans? User:Adamsan 18:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC) :PS the hill fort entry has inconsistent spelling anyway so I'd like to get an idea of what the standard wikispelling should be. User:Adamsan 18:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC) ::Interesting one. All my instincts as an English speaker say "hill fort", yet somehow "hillfort" looks better. I suppose it comes down to a "hillfort" being a specific archaeological feature, whereas a "hill fort" could be any old fort on a hill. Er... does that help? User:Deb 21:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC) :::I'd say that the prior existence of the article at hill fort, and the absence of even a redirect at hillfort, indicates weakly that the former spelling is the better one. On the other hand, a Google search for "hill fort" returned 42,000 hits, compared to 154,000 for "hillfort"; in addition, some of the hits for the two-word spelling were probably extaneous. P.S: The earlier article is quite Britain-centric. I know nothing about hillforts, so I can't help fix that problem. User:Smack 22:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC) ::::I agree the entry is anglocentric, especialy considering how international the concept of a high-up, fortified site is. The spelling isn't a big issue and in the meantime, once the redirects are all setup, I shall try to contribute to making hill fort a bit more cosmopolitan User:Adamsan 13:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)~ ::::As the one who wrote the original hill fort article, I have to agree that it was Anglocentric. I blame that on my sources, & give my thanks to adamsan's article I have tried to lessen the bias towards Britain. (More contributions are always welcome.) ::::And FWIW, the Ordnance Survey's ''Field Archeology in Great Britain'' (5th ed., 1973) uses the form "hill-fort", although the captions of its illustrations use "hillfort". -- User:Llywrch 01:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Shall this discussion be moved to talk:Hill fort? User:Smack 04:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC) ''moved'' User:Adamsan 20:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC) :I'm rather amused that you continue to add to the article at this location, considering that the preponderance of evidence seems to point to ''Hillfort'' as the preferable spelling. Note that your activity only complicates the situation, because if this page is turned into a redirect to Hillfort, its page history will be all but lost. User:Smack 17:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC) ::Curses. I'd wrongly got it into my head that User:Llywrch had merged it all into hill fort. As nobody was complaining and having just fought my first battle over ''inter alia'', henge. I was happy to leave it at hill fort and work with that. So, do we move it or not? User:Adamsan 18:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC) :::I'm all for moving it. User:Smack 23:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC) ::Since no one in the last 2 weeks has opposed the idea of making Hillfort into a redirect, I decided to be bold & do it. Hope no one gets too upset about it. -- User:Llywrch 01:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Do Motte and Bailey castles count as hillforts (or even hill forts) User:Neonchameleon :A motte and bailey has a man-made mound rather than being on a natural hill so I'd say it doesn't conform. Someone mentioned acropolises (acropoleis?) earlier though and I'm wondering if it's possible to differentiate between them, and citadels for that matter, and the hill fort. User:Adamsan 22:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Hill_fort:
Hill_fort
Hill_fort
Hill_forts
Hill_forts
Hill_forts_in_Britain
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
