Enclosing the past inside and outside in prehistory

Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com Enclosing the Past: inside and outside in prehistory Edited by Anthony Harding, Susanne Sievers and Natalie Venclová Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 15 J.R Collis Publications Sheffield 2006 www.Ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com © Individual Authors and Editors 2006 Publisher: J.R Collis Editors: A Harding, S Sievers and N Venclová Cover design: Mark Lee Cover illustration: Modern enclosure on the Arran Islands, Ireland Photograph: Natalie Venclová A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-906090-53-4 Copies of this volume and a catalogue of other publications by J.R Collis Publications can be obtained from Equinox Publishing at the following address: Turpin Distribution Services, Stratton Business Park, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire SG18 8QB Tel: +44 (0)1767 604951 / Fax +44 (0)1767 601640 e-mail: turpin@extenza-turpin.com http://www.equinoxpub.com Printed in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd www.Ebook777.com LIST OF CONTENTS Introduction ix Anthony Harding, Susanne Sievers and Natalie Venclová Enclosures and fortifications in Central Europe Evžen Neustupný Large prehistoric enclosures in Bohemia: the evidence from the air Martin Gojda Does enclosure make a difference? A view from the Balkans 20 John Chapman and Bisserka Gaydarska, with Karen Hardy Neolithic and post-Neolithic enclosures in Moravia in their central European context 44 Vladimír Podborský and Jaromír Kovárník The first known enclosures in southern Britain: their nature, function and role, in space and time 69 Roger J Mercer Zambujal and the enclosures of the Iberian Peninsula 76 Michael Kunst Enclosing and excluding in Bronze Age Europe 97 Anthony Harding Defining community: iron, boundaries and transformation in later prehistoric Britain 116 Richard Hingley Oppida und ihre linearen Strukturen 126 Susanne Sievers 10 Spätkeltische Viereckschanzen in Süddeutschland: Umfriedung – Abgrenzung – Umwehrung 135 Günther Wieland 11 Enclosing, enclosures and elites in the Iron Age 140 Natalie Venclová 12 Enclosure in Iron Age Wessex viewed from modern Ávila 155 John Collis Index 163 AUTHORS’ ADDRESSES John Chapman John Collis Bisserka Gaydarska Martin Gojda Anthony Harding Karen Hardy Richard Hingley Jaromír Kovárník Michael Kunst Roger Mercer Evžen Neustupný Vladimír Podborský Susanne Sievers Natalie Venclová Günther Wieland Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK e-mail: j.c.chapman@durham.ac.uk Clifford Road, Sheffield S11 9AQ, UK e-mail: j.r.collis@sheffield.ac.uk Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK e-mail: b_gaydaska@yahoo.co.uk Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Letenská 4, 118 01 Prague, and Department of Archaeology, University of West Bohemia, Sedláčkova 31, 306 14 Plzeň, Czech Republic e-mail: gojda@kar.zcu.cz Department of Archaeology, Laver Building, University of Exeter, North Park Road, Exeter EX4 4QE, UK e-mail: A.F.Harding@exeter.ac.uk Department of Archaeology, The King’s Manor, York YO1 7EP, UK e-mail: karhardy@gmail.com Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK e-mail: richard.hingley@durham.ac.uk South-Moravian Museum in Znojmo, Přemyslovců 6, CZ-669 45 Znojmo, Czech Republic e-mail: kovarnik@znojmuz.cz Instituto Arqueológico Alemán, C/ Serrano, 159, 28002 Madrid, Spain e-mail: kunst@madrid.dainst.org Old Church Lane, Duddingston, Edinburgh, EH15 3PX, UK e-mail: RogerJMercer@aol.com Department of Archaeology, University of West Bohemia, Sedláčkova 31, 306 14 Plzeň, Czech Republic e-mail: neustup@kar.zcu.cz Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Arne Nováka 1, CZ-602 00 Brno, Czech Republic e-mail: podbor@phil.muni.cz Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Palmengartenstrasse 10-12, D-60325 Frankfurt/Main, Germany e-mail: sievers@rgk.dainst.de Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Letenská 4, CZ-118 01 Prague, Czech Republic e-mail: venclova@arup.cas.cz Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe, Referat 25 Denkmalpflege, Moltkestr 74, D-76133 Karlsruhe, Germany e-mail: guenther.wieland@rpk.bwl.de iv Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 The course of the large, Late Eneolithic enclosure at Kly (district Mělník) 2.2 Selected enclosures (Erdwerke) of the Michelsberg Culture 2.3 2.4 Urmitz (Rheinland/Pfalz, Germany): plan of the largest known Neolithic earthwork in Europe Chleby, distr Nymburk 10 2.5 Trpoměchy, distr Kladno 11 2.6 Almost vertical aerial photograph of the Kly enclosure (June 1997) 13 2.7 14 2.9 Schematic depiction of the areas in which magnetometer surveys were carried out in the Kly cadastre, 1997–2000 Kly: combined results of aerial prospection and the areas of positive magnetometric surveys of the large enclosure Kly, district Mělník: Surface artefact collection 2000 2.10 Kly, district Mělník: trench 1/99 – general plan 17 2.11 Kly, district Mělník: Inner ditch, northern section 18 3.1 Location map of sites discussed in chapter 22 3.2 General plan of Gradac-Zlokućane 24 3.3 Plan of the Durankulak complex 28 3.4 Contour map of the Csőszhalom tell 30 3.5 Magnetic map of the Csőszhalom tell 31 3.6 Plan of Iskritsa I pit site 33 3.7 Plan of Tell Merdzumekja, Karanovo VI level 36 4.1 Vedrovice, southern Moravia 45 4.2 Enclosures of the Early Neolithic LBK 46 4.3 Enclosures of the Middle and Late Neolithic 49 4.4 ‘Rondels’ of west-central Europe 51 4.5 Eneolithic enclosures 52 4.6 ‘Rondels’ of the Middle Danube 54 4.7 Distribution of ‘rondels’ in Moravia 56 4.8 58 4.9 Distribution of ‘rondels’ in the loess zone between the course of the rivers Tisza and Rhine Multiple enclosure of a Neolithic settlement: Inden, West Germany 4.10 Multiple enclosure of a Neolithic settlement of the Lengyel culture: Žlkovce, Slovakia 61 6.1 Zambujal Area VX during the excavation of 1972 77 6.2 Model of the horizontal and vertical stratigraphies of the walls of Zambujal 78 6.3 The five phases of Zambujal according to the excavations of Sangmeister and Schubart 79 6.4 Zambujal The ‘outer courtyard’ with its loopholes after the restoration in 1970 80 6.5 Zambujal Plan of the ‘outer courtyard’ and the second fortification line 81 6.6 Zambujal Calibration 12 radiocarbon dates from charcoal samples from phases 1c to 4d 86 6.7 Zambujal Calibration of radiocarbon dates from bone samples from phases before 1a to 2c and phase 86 2.8 v www.Ebook777.com 15 16 60 6.8 87 6.11 Zambujal Calibration of radiocarbon dates from bone samples from phases before 1a, 1a, 1c, 3c and Zambujal Air photograph from southwest to northeast with the excavation of the 4th fortification line Zambujal, October 1994 Air photograph from north to south of the end of the promontory Zambujal Air photograph of the 1st and 2nd fortification lines 6.12 Zambujal Air photograph of the fortification line 91 6.13 Zambujal Schematic plan of phase with indication of later constructions at the 4th line 92 6.14 La Revilla del Campo, Ambrona (Miño de Medinaceli, Soria, Spain) 93 7.1 Plan of Gardom’s Edge 98 7.2 Plan of Blackshouse Burn 99 7.3 Plan of the henge monument at Balfarg, Fife 100 7.4 Ring cairn on Danby Rigg, North Yorkshire 101 7.5 Plan of the Druids’ Circle at Penmaenmawr, North Wales 102 7.6 Plan of Loft’s Farm, Essex 103 7.7 Plan of Mucking South Ring, Essex 104 7.8 Plan of Rider’s Rings, Dartmoor, Devon 104 7.9 Plan of the crannóg of Clonfinlough 105 7.10 Plan of the crannóg of Knocknalappa 106 7.11 Probability distributions of the radiocarbon dates from Svodín 107 7.12 Plan of Nitriansky Hrádok 108 7.13 Published plan of Spišský Štvrtok 109 7.14 Plan of the Forschner site, Baden-Württemberg 110 7.15 Plan of the fort at Monkodonja 111 7.16 Plan of the central area at Velim, Czech Republic 112 8.1 Hillforts in southern Britain and the adjacent Continent 117 8.2 Enclosed Iron Age settlements 118 8.3 A currency bar from Park Farm, Warwickshire 119 8.4 Currency bars at eight hillforts in southern Britain 120 9.1 Das Oppidum von Villeneuve-St-Germain und sein Kanalsystem 127 9.2 Manching Von einer porticus umgebenes Gehöft der Südumgehung 128 9.3 Manching Dreiphasiger Tempel aus Schnitt 20 129 9.4 Plätze und Straßen des Oppidums Variscourt/Condé-sur-Suippe 130 9.5 Manching Das Osttor in seiner zweiten Bauphase mit Annäherungshindernis 131 9.6 Die Befestigungslinien des Oppidums auf dem Závist während LT C2 und LT D2 131 9.7 Das Oppidum auf dem Donnersberg und seine Befestigungslinien 132 9.8 Das Oppidum Stradonice und seine Befestigungslinien 133 10.1 Rekonstruktion einer Viereckschanze als Kultanlage mit weitgehend unbebautem Innenraum Schematisierter Grundriss der Toranlage von Einsiedel-Rübgarten 136 6.9 6.10 10.2 th vi 88 89 90 137 10.3 Rekonstruktionsversuch der Toranlage von Einsiedel-Rübgarten 138 10.4 Schematisierter Grundriss der Toranlage von Oberesslingen mit nach innen gesetztem Torbau 139 11.1 Local enclosures: examples from the oppida in Bohemia 141 11.2 142 11.5 Community enclosure: reconstruction of the Late Hallstatt to Early La Tène enclosure of Němětice, Bohemia Community enclosure: the Viereckschanze-type enclosure of Mšecké Žehrovice in Bohemia Community enclosures: farms - fermes - Einzelhöfe and Viereckschanze-type enclosures in the Iron Age Europe Wooden buildings from different contexts in the La Tène of Central and Western Europe 11.6 Dolní Břežany, Bohemia: reconstruction of an Early La Tène two-storied house 149 11.7 Types of boundaries of the Iron Age community enclosures (Viereckschanzen and fermes) 150 11.8 Stone heads from community enclosures (fermes) in Brittany: Paule and Yvignac 151 12.1 Owslebury, Hants 156 12.2 Gussage All Saints, Dorset 157 12.3 Old Down Farm, Andover, Hants 158 11.3 11.4 COLOUR PLATES Gojda: Hrušovany nad Jevišovkou, distr Znojmo Gojda: Chleby, distr Nymburk Gojda: Dolní Beřkovice, distr Mělník Gojda: Kly, district Mělník: a tulip-shaped beaker Harding: The outer ditch at Velim Harding: Ditch deposits at Velim showing the extensive deposition of human bone Wieland: Rekonstruktion einer Viereckschanze als zentrale Einheit einer ländlichen Siedlung Collis: Traditional house at Solosancho, Ávila Collis: Field enclosure near the village of Sanchorreja, Ávila 10 Collis: Terraced fields near Sanchorreja, Ávila 11 Collis: Ditched trackway and open fields at Salobralejo, Ávila 12 Collis: Heaps of harvested grain at the village of Salobralejo, Ávila 13 Collis: Elaborate entrance to a farm at La Colilla, Ávila 14 Collis: Construction of a gateway and faỗade, Salobralejo, vila 15 Collis: Simple entrance to the dehesa of El Cid at Sanchorreja, Ávila vii 143 144 147 LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Comparison of finds from different excavation sectors at Gradac-Zlokućane 23 3.2 Social practices on the tell and the horizontal settlement at Polgár-Csöszhalom 32 3.3 Pit stratigraphy and finds at Iskritsa I 34 5.1 Density per m2 excavated of the occurrence of worked flint and flint implements at a selection of Neolithic enclosures in southern England 74 6.1 Zambujal The calibration results of 12 radiocarbon dates from phases 1c to 4c 82 6.2 Zambujal The calibration results of radiocarbon dates from animal bone samples 84 6.3 Zambujal Comparison of the dates for the complex Z-1499 85 6.4 The areas of Portuguese fortifications based on published plans 90 8.1 Currency bars from various contexts 120 8.2 The contexts of currency bars from settlements 121 viii Introduction Anthony Harding, Susanne Sievers and Natalie Venclová The practice of creating an enclosure was a phenomenon that occurred at many times and in many places of the prehistoric past This volume sets out to explore the variability of enclosures, using a variety of approaches, and aims to explore possible reasons for enclosing rather than technical aspects of creating enclosures It proceeds from the belief that insights into past acts of enclosure might be gained from the study of the reasons for enclosing (or not enclosing) in various present-day territories When one speaks of enclosures in the prehistoric past, one is usually referring to a space, a piece of ground, surrounded by some feature that forms a barrier to movement Typically this would be a ditch, or a bank, or both, though a hedge or a line of trees might serve just as well For it is not just a question of creating an impenetrable barrier which physically prevents movement; it is at least as much a question of defining and delimiting an area which is to be regarded as in some manner separate or different, of creating an “inside” and an “outside” So even a modest physical barrier can represent a major change in attitude and function, and convention (social, religious) can suffice to prevent movement across it Seen in this light, enclosures can take on many forms, and it is by no means merely largescale earthworks or walls that come into consideration We should remember too that the delimiting of space could also have been represented by archaeologically invisible elements, e.g by an empty area, by surface structures, by natural features, or even by separate, discontinuous elements Searching for such “invisible delimiting” could be a theme on its own, perhaps philosophical or sociological rather than purely archaeological Typically archaeologists have assumed that enclosures were built for defensive purposes, that is, to keep people or wild animals out, and/or to protect what was inside from aggressive action (people, animals, food and other resources, valuables) This was no doubt one important function that was served, but there is plenty of evidence to show that there were a number of other functions Think of henge monuments, for instance The surrounding earthworks can be substantial, even massive; the interior is clearly defined and quite separate from the exterior; yet a defensive purpose seems unthinkable, mainly because a ditch lies inside the surrounding bank A true defensive establishment would place the ditch outside the bank, in order to serve as an impediment to attackers Furthermore, the internal features of henge monuments (rings of pits, posts or occasionally stones, sometimes graves) strongly suggest a non-domestic function for the sites They were in all probability part of a wider tradition that included other types of circular or near-circular sites, such as stone rings, or rings of posts found under Bronze Age burial mounds, in which what was important was the concept of enclosed circular space, and what happened inside was connected with the symbolic or psychological sphere (“ritual”) Defence and protection can only have been a function insofar as there were mental barriers preventing unauthorised persons from entering the interior and participating in the habitual activities carried out there, or coming into contact with whatever was kept there Although researchers may tend to prefer “practical” explanations for enclosed areas, the symbolical significance of boundaries might actually have been dominant in the minds of those who created them Even in the case of large-scale earthworks of the Iron Age (“hillforts”), it is by no means always obvious that the siting and form of the “defences” were best placed to serve a purpose in preventing hostile persons or groups from entering Although controversial, the concept of the “required barrier” (Bowden & McOmish in Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 1987, 76-84), that is, the construction of barriers as a matter of habitus rather than for specifically defensive purposes, has found favour in the thinking of many archaeologists, however counter-intuitive it might seem Hillforts are a special form of enclosure and they must be interpreted using a variety of approaches What is important here is to specify the context of construction of enclosures Causation is a difficult area in prehistory; the understanding of agency in the creation of the ancient past has rightly become an important preoccupation of many scholars, and it is in this field that future thinking is likely to be concentrated Seen in this light, “explanations” such as defence must be treated with caution Only after the specification of the context of construction can such a function be regarded as likely The authors of articles in this volume have, as is natural, different approaches to this question Some deal primarily with conceptual issues, stressing the symbolical aspects of enclosing; some concentrate on problems of the archaeological identification of enclosures, demonstrating that a large number of bounded features may escape recording altogether This is confirmed by detailed investigations showing more complex linear structures within some settlement sites than previously presumed Other authors are mainly concerned to chart the rise and fall of enclosure in particular periods or to display the history of individual sites, enclosure types or regions Attempts to view enclosure as part of a wider field of study, in which deposition practices and other “incidental” effects can be argued to be related to site form and type – for instance, whether they were enclosed or unenclosed – form another approach All authors agree that enclosure was a major phenomenon in later European prehistory from the point of view of landscape use or social complexity Most imagine that just as societies became larger and more complex during the course of prehistory, so enclosures became more variable over time Some go further, and believe that the functions of enclosures changed too, even within a single period It would be quite wrong, however, to suppose that they developed in a straight line from simple to complex; in fact the exact opposite might be true Thus the functions of Neolithic enclosures were far from simple or straightforward, while those of the Iron Age may arguably have been connected with purposes that to our modern eyes seem far more obvious Specifying how enclosure relates to society, or at least to social practice, is a recurring theme One can argue, of ix Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com course, that enclosure was a social practice, that it had more to with habitual action, the creation of what was expected, than with any particular function such as defence Whether this enables one to detect correlations between the form of enclosure and the form of society is, however, doubtful On the other hand, some authors have found it useful to contrast practices in enclosure (or non-enclosure) with practices in other aspects of life and death People in Neolithic Europe were active enclosers, sometimes (arguably) for defensive reasons, sometimes for symbolic or ritual reasons; the act of separation, of inside from outside, of us from them, of the initiated from the uninitiated, could be seen as a metaphor for the fragmented, small-scale society that one imagines existed at that time; while the large-scale boundaries of the Iron Age could be thought to reflect the scale of Iron Age society That this is a false comparison can be seen from our knowledge of the scale on which Neolithic and Eneolithic people built monuments The construction of an Avebury or a Stonehenge, the erection of the Carnac alignments or Le Grand Menhir Brisé, were colossal undertakings, and though the societies were small the modes of organisation were complex “In the beginning”, as the Bible says, the world was undivided and unenclosed It was humankind that began the process of division of the world into separate spaces To continue the biblical analogy: Paradise is a separate space, different from the rest of the world and no doubt marked by transition points Heaven has Gates through which one must pass These are mental forms of division and enclosure, but they indicate something of the imagery that human beings utilise in their everyday thinking In practice, we are confined to the real world around us, and the real traces of ancient activity that constitute the archaeological record And so we must begin at the beginning As far as we are aware, there are no enclosures in the Palaeolithic anywhere in the world Even in the Mesolithic, there is little or no sign that people constructed enclosures of any but the simplest kind to surround their dwellings or activity areas It is in the Neolithic and Eneolithic that we first see major enclosures developing, in the form of defensive (?) sites such as some LBK settlements in central Europe, or Hambledon Hill in England, and with massive earthworks like the rondels of central Europe and the henges of the west Some of these themes were continued in the Bronze Age, though in general the landscape of that period is less marked by the imposition of earthworks on the land than the preceding period; increasingly through the period there are enclosed settlements and the beginnings of regularised fort building In the Iron Age an increasing division of land is evident, not only in the form of complex arrangements inside settlements, forts and oppida, but through large land divisions that connect with major enclosed sites or hillforts (and stockades on lower ground) This thumbnail sketch merely sets out the markers for what follows in this volume Clearly there is no shortage of material to study; what has to be done is to work out how best to undertake the study Most of the contributions in the volume are based on papers read in the session “Enclosing the past: inside and outside in prehistory” organised by the present editors at the 7th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists at Esslingen (Germany) in September 2001, but some additional papers have been included, where they present fresh data, ideas and approaches to the subject The papers in question are those by Chapman (and colleagues), Kunst, and Podborský and Kovárník The world of enclosure that this volume studies and attempts to interpret was a very different one to the one we inhabit today It is essential, therefore, that we not impose our modern ideas on this long-vanished world of the past Notions of defence in dealing with enclosure die hard; we are perhaps too used to the idea of massive fortifications built in order to exclude an enemy to remember that other purposes are also served by enclosures Our study of ancient enclosure must therefore take place within a broad context and using a range of methods It is not only the outward form of earthworks or ditches found by aerial survey that we should study, important though these undoubtedly are It is also the nature of artefact creation, use and deposition, the form of buildings, the use of space, and the nature of technology that all bear on the way society ordered and reproduced itself Without an attempt to contextualise by making use of these and other factors, without getting away from a one-dimensional view of the past that looks at the sites themselves and ignores the world around, any interpretation of enclosure in a given period will merely be a modernistic imposition on the ancient data The creation of enclosures was a complex phenomenon related both to the nature of societies, to the status and prestige of communities and individual members of them, as well as to economic and ritual factors We believe it is unlikely that any one function, e.g defence, was the only one at a given site or in a given period, or that any one explanation can adequately account for the phenomenon of enclosing The authors of these articles have attempted to explore the complexity of enclosure in the ancient past, and to indicate some possible ways in which its interpretation can advance x www.Ebook777.com Enclosing the Past human form – this is apparent from Diodorus’ description of the reaction of the Celtic war leader Brennus to the statues of the gods at Delphi (cf Kruta 1992:821), and from the absence of sculptures of the gods in the documented La Tène sanctuaries of northern France and Britain Above all, however, it is demonstrated by La Tène art in general, which may be characterised as aniconic: the face or mask is always hidden, and ambiguous If these cases are indeed depictions of gods, then they (or rather, their parts and individual elements) are enciphered in complex images (Kruta 1992) Who, then, the rare realistic sculptures of human heads or figures represent? If the gods are ruled out, only concrete humans remain – probably significant or famous forebears, or, more generally, heroes The objects of heroisation among the Celts were (e.g according to the Irish myths) members of elites, often warriors, but also learned men and healers (Arcelin, Dedet and Schwaller 1992:202) Druids fit particularly well into this category, being characterised in written reports (e.g de bello Gallico VI:13) as seers, teachers, judges, counsellors, poets etc One of the four anthropomorphic sculptures found in the ferme at Paule in Brittany had a lyre, and was most likely a bard Bards, along with druids, belonged to a class or group or people held in particular reverence, and were thus potentially heroes Heroes were often venerated at a local or regional level The adoration of heroes was separate from the cult of the deities, and need not have taken place in sanctuaries; rather, it may be assumed to have been directly linked to community life and to have taken place on important routes, border locations or settlements with above-average (e.g production, trade etc.) functions The sculptures described match the notion of the local heroisation of a one-time important member of a non-military elite in the space of an above-average enclosed settlement unit number of cases preceded the former and are even termed “proto-villas” (Frey 2000) or “separate elite dwellings” (Haselgrove 2000:105), are being linked with appearance of classes of landowners and entrepreneurs (Haselgrove 1996:177–178), so that some fermes may be associated with the appearance of a more hierarchical social structure in the later La Tène (Roymans 1996:55–58) This is not to say, of course, that all of these enclosures must have been of equally high status The presumption of polyfunctionality of the Central European quadrangular enclosures in no way contradicts their present interpretation as the seats of a rural elite; S Rieckhoff regards this as a given fact supported by luxury items and architecture (Rieckhoff 2000:361–371) The idea expressed already by K Schumacher (see Wieland 1996:37–45 for an overview of opinions as to the function of these areas) has thus returned, supported by new archaeological finds On the basis of the excavations of the enclosure at Mšecké Žehrovice, which identified both an “exceptional” post-built structure and semi-sunken features with above-average settlement finds, the hypothesis was proposed that the quadrangular enclosures of the Central European La Tène, situated outside settlements and oppida, served as seats of the elite (Venclová 1998:221) The term elite is here understood to include individuals of druidic status Certain ceremonial activities and gatherings, as well perhaps as some central activities, possibly connected to the adoration of an illustrious forebear/hero or under the auspices of same, might well also have found a place within a seat of an elite group The enclosure of such loci by banks (sometimes even with stone facings) can clearly be explained by the higher status of the community at the site with its diverse and evidently above-average functions As has been demonstrated, the behaviour which typically implies an elite is reflected in the material culture of such enclosures This is not to say that the elite was not also seated elsewhere, for instance in other type of enclosed settlement sites such as oppida, or perhaps also in part in small “local” enclosures within open settlements The variability of the presumed seats of “high society” confirms that it was stratified Enclosing, if it employs elements more complex than a simple wooden fence, may be one of the indicators of the elite use of space Conclusion Iron Age single enclosures had multiple functions After a long period when they were exclusively identified with sanctuaries, this can also be said of the Central European Viereckschanze-type enclosures (Pauli 1991:129; Ralston 1992:116; Müller 1993:180; Venclová 1993; Krause and Wieland 1993; Wieland 1996:52) In Britain, small enclosures of the Iron Age have been interpreted as defined locales for meeting, communication, exchange and communal rituals, or as key places sited at points of tenurial or social transition (Taylor 1997:202) The French fermes are in general seen rather as agricultural settlement units in which cattle-breeding was important, but are also associated with the overproduction of foodstuffs, as manifested in their considerable storage capacity (Pion 1996:89; Gransar 1996:99–100), and are linked with the holding of land or with a rural elite which during the La Tène period was not based only in the oppida (Buchsenschutz 1996:9–12; Brunaux 2000:175–276) As we have seen, neither the storage or ritual activities are absent there A notable fact is the continual development, perhaps from as early as the LT C, of fermes and enclosures, leading, in those parts of Europe which became part of the Roman Empire, into Roman villas (Langouët and Daire 1990:110–111; Roymans 1996, 55– 58; Bayard and Collart eds 1996; Derks 1998:58–59) These villas, as well as La Tène enclosures – which in a Acknowledgements This research was conducted within a project supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, reg no 404/97/ K024 The figures have been adjusted and digitised by M Mazancová Bibliography Andersson, C and Hållans, A.-M 1997 No trespassing: physical and mental boundaries in agrarian settlements In Andersson, H., Carelli, P and Ersgård, L (eds) Visions of the past: trends and traditions in Swedish medieval archaeology Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 19:583–602 Appadurai, A (ed) 1986 The Social Life of Things: commodities in cultural perspective Cambridge Arcelin, P., Dedet, B and Schwaller, M 1992 Espaces publics, espaces religieux protohistoriques en Gaule méridionale Documents d´Archéologie Méridionale 15:181–242 152 Venclová: Enclosing, enclosures and elites in the Iron Age Audouze, F and Buchsenschutz, O 1992 Towns, Villages and Countryside of Celtic Europe London, Batsford Auxiette, G 1996 La représentation des espèces domestiques sur les établissement ruraux La Tène finale dans la vallée de l´Aisne In D Bayard and J.-L Collart (eds) 1996:100–103 Bayard, D and Collart, J.-L (eds) 1996 De la ferme indigène la villa romaine Revue Archéologique de Picardie, No spécial 11 Becker, H 1992 Das Grabenwerk von Weichering: ein hallstattfrühlatènezeitlicher Tempelbezirk und Vorläufer spätkeltischer Viereckschanzen? Das archäologische Jahr in Bayern 1991:89–93 Beech, M 1998 Animal bones from Mšecké Žehrovice In N Venclová 1998:225–258 Birkhan, H 1997 Kelten: Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Kultur Wien Bittel, K., Schiek, S and Müller, D 1990 Die keltischen Viereckschanzen Stuttgart, Konrad Theiss Verlag Bonin, T., Buchez, N and Marion, S 1994 Les installations agricoles aux âges des métaux sur le plateau de la Brie: l´exemple de Marne la Vallée (Seine-et-Marne) In O Buchsenschutz and P Méniel (eds) 1994:71–96 Brunaux, J.-L 1996 Les religions gauloises: rituels celtiques de la Gaule independante Paris, Errance Brunaux, J.-L 2000 Propriétés divines, possessions humaines: la fonction symbolique de l´enclos In Les enclos celtiques Revue archéologique de Picardie no 1–2:271–278 Brunaux, J.-L and Méniel, P 1997 La résidence aristocratique de Montmartin (Oise) D.A.F no 64 Paris, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l´Homme Buchsenschutz, O 1994 Introduction In Buchsenschutz, O and Méniel, P (eds) 1994:9–24 Buchsenschutz, O 1996 Les campagnes celtiques la veille de la conquête romaine: état de la question In Bayard - Collart (eds) 1996:9–12 Buchsenschutz, O 2000 Traces, typologie et interprétation des enclos de l´âge du Fer Revue Archéologique de Picardie 2000, No 1/ 2:7–11 Buchsenschutz, O 2002 Die Entstehung von Wirtschaftszentren in Gallien In C Dobiat, S Sievers and T Stöllner (eds) 2002:63–76 Buchsenschutz, O and Méniel, P (eds) 1994 Les installations agricoles de l´âge du Fer en Ile-de-France Paris, Presses de l´Ecole Normale Supérieure Buchsenschutz, O and Ralston, I.B.M 1986 En relisant la guerre des Gaules Revue Aquitania, Supplément 1:383–387 Champion, T.C and Collis, J.R (eds) 1996 The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends Sheffield, J.R.Collis Publications Chytráček, M 1994 Štítary n Radbuzou-Hostětice und Svržno im Bezirk Domažlice: zwei befestigte Höhensiedlungen der Hallstattzeit Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/ West- und Südböhmen, Treffen, 1994:58–66 Colgrave, B and Mynors, R.A.B (eds) 1969 Bede´s Ecclesiastical History of the English People Oxford, Clarendon Press Collis, J 1996 Hill-forts, enclosures and boundaries In T.C Champion and J.R Collis (eds) 1996:87–94 Creighton, J 2000 Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Daire, M.-Y and Langouët, L 1992 Une sculpture anthropomorphe gauloise dans un enclos Yvignac (Côte d´Armor) Les Dossiers du Centre Regional Archéologique d’Alet 20:5–16 Dannheimer, H and Gebhard, R (eds) 1993 Das keltische Jahrtausend Mainz, Zabern Derks, T 1998 Temples and ritual practices: the transformation of religious ideas and values in Roman Gaul Amsterdam Archaeological Studies Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Dobiat, C., Sievers, S and Stöllner, T (eds) 2002 Dürrnberg und Manching Wirtschaftsarchäologie im ostkeltischen Raum Bonn, Habelt Doll, M 1999 Tier- und Menschenknochen In G Wieland (ed) 1999:61–67 Drda, P 1998 Reconstruction of the structure 0/87 In N Venclová 1998:259–263 Drda, P and Rybová, A 1995a Les Celtes de Bohême Paris, Errance Drda, P and Rybová, A 1995b Prostorové rozložení specializovaného řemesla v zástavbě keltského oppida (Spatial distribution of specialized crafts at a Celtic oppidum) Archeologické rozhledy 47:596–613 Drda, P and Rybová, A 1997 Keltská oppida v centru Boiohaema (Die keltischen oppida im Zentrum Boiohaemums) Památky archeologické 88:65–123 Drda, P and Rybová, A 1998 Keltové a Čechy Praha, Academia Drda, P and Rybová, A 2001 Model vývoje velmožského dvorce 2.–1 století před Kristem (Model der Entwicklung des Herrengehöfts im 2.–1 Jahrhundert v Chr.) Památky archeologické 92:284–349 Foster, P.J Venclová, N and Křivánek, P 2004 Quadrangular enclosure at Rakovice In M Gojda (ed.) Ancient Landscape, Settlement Dynamics and Non-destructive Archaeology Prague, akademia, pp.249–265 Frey, M 2000 Die villa von Borg Ein reiches Landgut mit vorrömischer Tradition In A Haffner and S v Schnurbein, (eds) 2000:41–50 Gransar, F 1996 Le stockage sur les établissements ruraux de La Tène finale dans la vallée de l´Aisne In D Bayard and J.L Collart (eds) 1996:97–100 Guichard, V., Sievers, S and Urban, O.-H (eds) 2000 Les processus d´urbanisation l´âge du Fer Glux-en-Glenne, Centre archéologique européen du Mont Beuvray Gwilt, A and Haselgrove, C (eds) 1997 Reconstructing Iron Age Societies Oxbow monograph 71 Oxford Haffner, A., v Schnurbein, S (eds) 2000 Kelten, Germanen, Römer im Mittelgebirgsraum zwischen Luxemburg und Thüringen Bonn, Habelt Haselgrove, C 1990 Later Iron Age settlement in the Aisne valley: some current problems and hypotheses In A Duval, J.-P LeBihan and Y Ménez (eds) Les Gaulois d´Armorique Revue Archéologique de l´Ouest suppl no 3:249–259 Haselgrove, C 1996 Roman impact on rural settlement and society in southern Picardy In Roymans, N (ed) 1996:127–187 Haselgrove, C 2000 The character of oppida in Iron Age Britain In V Guichard, S Sievers and O.-H Urban (eds) 2000:103– 110 Hingley, R 1990 Boundaries surrounding Iron Age and RomanoBritish settlements Scottish Archaeological Review 7:96– 103 Kent, S (ed) 1990 Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Köhler, K.-J 1992 Siedlungsbefunde und Bebauungsrekonstruktion In F Maier et al 1992:5–64 Krause, R and Wieland, G 1993 Eine keltische Viereckschanze bei Bopfingen am Westrand des Rieses Germania 71:59– 112 Krausz, S., Soyer, C and Buchsenschutz, O 1989 Une statue de pierre anthropomorphe Levroux Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 28:77–90 Kruta, V 1992 Brennos et l´image des dieux: la représentation de la figure humaine chez les Celtes Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes rendus 1992:821–843 Langouët, L and Daire, M.-Y 1990 Les enclos protohistoriques et gallo-romains du nord de la Haute-Bretagne Les Dossiers du Centre Regional Archéologique d’Alet 1990:79–111 Lawrence, R J 1990 Public, collective and private space: a study of urban housing in Switzerland In S Kent (ed) 1990:73-91 LeBihan, J.-P 1990 Les mutations sur les sites ruraux de La Tène Finale Quimper (Finistère) In A Duval, J.-P LeBihan and Y Ménez (eds) Les Gaulois d´Armorique Revue Archéologique 153 Enclosing the Past de l´Ouest suppl no 3:261–270 Maier, F et al 1992 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1984-1987 in Manching Wiesbaden, Steiner Verlag Malrain, F., Meniel, P and Talon, M 1994 L´établissement rural de Jaux/Le Camp du Roi (Oise) In O Buchsenschutz and P Méniel (eds) 1994:159–184 Marion, S 1994 Ensembles fossoyés vocation agro-pastorale de la vallée de la Marne (Seine-et-Marne) In O Buchsenschutz and P Méniel (eds) 1994:97–102 Megaw, M.R and Megaw, J.V.S 1998 The stone head from Mšecké Žehrovice: an essay on the human head in Early Celtic art In N Venclová 1998:281–292 Ménez, Y and Arramond, J.-C 1997 L´habitat aristocratique fortifié de Paule (Côtes-d´Armor) Gallia 54:119–155 Ménez, Y et al 1999 Les sculptures gauloises de Paule (Côtesd´Armor) Gallia 56:357–414 Méniel, P 1996 Importation de grands animaux romains et amélioration du cheptel la fin de l´age du Fer en Gaule Belgique Revue archéologique de Picardie no 3–4:113–122 Michálek, J - Lutovský, M 2000 Hradec u Němětic (Hradec bei Němětice) Strakonice (Muzeum středního Pootaví) – Praha (Ústav archeologické památkové péče středních Čech) Motyková, K., Drda, P and Rybová, A 1988 Die bauliche Gestalt der Akropolis auf dem Burgwall Závist in der Späthallstattund Frühlatènezeit Germania 66:391–436 Müller, F 1993 Kultplätze und Opferbräuche In H Dannheimer and R Gebhard (eds) 1993:177–188 Murray, M.L 1995 Viereckschanzen and feasting: socio-political ritual in Iron-Age central Europe Journal of European Archaeology 3.2:125–151 Neustupný, E 1993 Archaeological Method Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Neustupný, E 1995 The significance of facts Journal of European Archaeology 3.1:189–212 O´Conor, K.D 2002 Housing in Later Medieval Gaelic Ireland Ruralia IV Památky archeologické - Supplementum 15:201– 210 Pauli, L 1991 Heilige Plätze und Opferbräuche bei den Helvetiern und ihren Nachbarn Archäologie der Schweiz 14:124–135 Peške, L 1993 Animal utilisation in the La Tène period In Actes du XII Congrès UISPP, Bratislava (Institut Archéologique de l´Académie Slovaque des Sciences) 1993:213–217 Ralston, I.B.M 1992 Les enceintes fortifiées du Limousin D.A.F no 36 Paris, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l´Homme Reichenberger, A 1994 „Herrenhöfe” der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit Regensburger Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie 1:187–215 Renfrew, C 1986 Varna and the emergence of wealth in prehistoric Europe In Appadurai, A (ed) 1986:141-168 Rieckhoff, S 2002 Der Untergang der Städte Der Zusammenbruch des keltischen Wirtschafts- und Gesselschaftssystems In C Dobiat, S Sievers, and T Stöllner (eds) 2002:359–379 Roymans, N 1990 Tribal Societies in Northern Gaul: an anthropological perspective Amsterdam Roymans, N 1996 The sword or the plough: regional dynamics in the romanisation of Belgic Gaul and the Rhineland area In N Roymans (ed) 1996:9–126 Roymans, N (ed.) 1996 From the Sword to the Plough Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press Sanders, D 1990 Behavioral conventions and archaeology: methods for the analysis of ancient architecture In S Kent (ed.) 1990:43–72 Schmaedecke, M 2002 Zur Kontinuität von Getreidespeichern auf Stützen von vorgeschichtlicher Zeit bis in die frühe Neuzeit Ruralia IV Památky archeologické, Supplementum 15:134–142 Schwarz, K 1975 Die Geschichte eines keltischen Temenos im nördlichen Alpenvorland In Ausgrabungen in Deutschland 1:324–358 Smrž, Z 1996 Das frühlatènezeitliche Gehöft bei Droužkovice (Kr Chomutov, NW Böhmen) Památky archeologické 87:59–94 Taylor, J 1997 Space and place: some thoughts on Iron Age and Romano-British landscapes In A Gwilt and C Haselgrove (eds) 1997:192–204 Vencl, S 1984 Otázky poznání vojenství v archeologii (Problems relating to the knowledge of warfare in archaeology) Prague, Archeologický ústav ČSAV Vencl, S 1994 The archaeology of thirst Journal of European Archaeology 2.2:299–326 Venclová, N 1993 Celtic shrines in Central Europe: sceptical approach Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12, no 1:55–66 Venclová, N 1997 On enclosures, pots and trees in the forest Journal of European Archaeology 5.1:131-150 Venclová, N 1998 Mšecké Žehrovice in Bohemia Archaeological background to a Celtic hero, 3rd–2nd cent BC Sceaux, Kronos Venclová, N 2000 Dvorce a druidové (Enclosures and druids) In I Pavlů (ed) In Memoriam Jan Rulf, Památky archeologické, Supplementum 13:458–471 Venclová, N 2002a The Venerable Bede, druidic tonsure and archaeology Antiquity 76, No 292:458–471 Venclová, N 2002b Celtes, idéologie et pensée independante: exemple des enceintes carrées en Europe Centrale Studia Hercynia VI:23–36 Wait, G.A 1985 Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain B.A.R British Series 149 Oxford Wieland, G 1996 Die Spätlatènezeit in Württemberg Stuttgart, Konrad Theiss Verlag Wieland, G 1999 Keltische Viereckschanzen Einem Rätsel auf der Spur Stuttgart, Konrad Theiss Verlag 154 12: Enclosure in Iron Age Wessex viewed from modern Ávila John Collis Summary: The article contrasts two areas, one in southern England which has been progressively enclosed since the Bronze Age, the other in central Spain which has largely remained unenclosed, indeed, is still undergoing the process The nature and circumstances of enclosure are contrasted, and, on the evidence of how the Spanish landscape is utilised, some traditional interpretations are queried of how the prehistoric and Roman landscape of Wessex functioned and woodlands occupied by herds of livestock under the control of cowherds, shepherds and swineherds Otherwise enclosure was sporadic – woodland enclosures, and deer parks where the elite could hunt the highly protected deer This medieval system started to come to an end in the 14th century with Acts of Parliament to allow rich landowners to enclose and appropriate the best agricultural land and the meadows for pasture, while their sheep flocks roamed the downlands, producing the all-important and lucrative wool As agricultural production intensified, more land was enclosed, a process which continued up to the 20th century The late prehistoric and Roman periods were more ambiguous Alongside the Iron Age hill-forts, the Roman towns and some Roman villas, the settlement system was dominated by small enclosed settlements mainly known from aerial photographs, but some still surviving as earthworks even now on areas of uncultivated or lightly cultivated downland In addition, usually surviving around them, were areas of small enclosed fields, the so-called ‘Celtic’ fields, though such fields also can occur as large systematically laid out blocks (‘co-axial’ field systems), which start appearing in the Middle to Late Bronze Age (Cunliffe 2000) Some of these are cut by linear boundaries enclosing large blocks of land, the so-called ‘ranch boundaries’ of Late Bronze Age date I have discussed elsewhere various aspects of enclosure in Wessex and in the Iron Age of Britain in general (Collis 1993, 1996), so here I shall only discuss them briefly Firstly we can talk of the scale of enclosure; I not use the word ‘hierarchy’ as different types of enclosure occur at different times and in different places; never they all occur together, indeed some of them may be mutually exclusive: 1: Regional: linear boundaries, perhaps defining or defending tribal territories 2: Territorial: subdivisions of territory controlled by smaller units within some larger political or tribal entity, for instance the dyke systems of the Yorkshire Wolds (Dent 1983) 3: General Land Use Divisions: zones allocated for fields systems, areas of lowland pasture, and areas of apparently communal high-ground summer pasture 4: Specific Land Use Divisions: areas of fields and of pasture, divisions between houses or groups of houses, but we can also consider the external and internal walls of the buildings themselves, and individual rooms 5: Containers: furniture, even drawers and boxes, storage jars, silos and granaries Equally we can talk of a range of functions, though boundaries can have multiple functions We should beware of simplistic interpretations based on surviving dimensions The defensive ditches of the forts used by Caesar at Alesia and Gergovia are rarely more than a metre or two deep, and in the case of the large camp at Gergovia they may only survive to a depth of a few centimetres (Deberge and Guichard 2000) Functions I have defined are: 1: Defensive 2: Delimiting activity areas Keywords: Wessex, Ávila, Iron Age, Roman, modern, enclosure Introduction: Wessex I come from Winchester, the capital of the ancient Saxon kingdom of Wessex in southern England My childhood was spent in the suburbs of the city in an area of mainly middleclass houses, though with some ‘prefabs’ – temporary wartime housing for more working-class families But all of us had our gardens, for flowers, lawns, vegetables and, in the case of my own family, an orchard and areas for nut bushes and soft fruits Every garden was surrounded by a hedge, or, for more recent boundaries, fences of strands of wire stretched between concrete posts In the city itself almost everyone had a garden, at the back of the house an area for vegetables and lawns, divided from one another by walls of flint and brick, and at the front a small area for flowers, enclosed by low brick walls, often with the sawn off stumps of metal railings – the railings themselves had been removed and melted down as part of the ‘war-effort’ in the 1940s The countryside around consisted of fields enclosed by hedges usually some 2m high, of hawthorn, layered and trimmed Only in a few higher areas was there still open ‘downland’, areas of traditional pasture used mainly by flocks of sheep (though those were becoming rare) But in the years of land hunger during and after the war, up to the 1960s and even later, these areas too were being enclosed and ploughed, often for the first time in 2000 years I was brought up to assume that enclosure was the norm, to show ownership, to give privacy, to confine livestock, and to protect crops and garden produce Yet, even at school we were taught that it had not always been thus In the towns perhaps; Winchester was first enclosed in the early Roman period with a bank and ditch, and to this in the late Roman period was added a stone wall which was regularly repaired up to the 18th century when it became redundant and was largely demolished The rectilinear street layout we now know was laid out in the Late Saxon period, in the early 10th century, along with many of the burgage plots which are still recognisable on the city plan a thousand years later (Biddle 1973) In the countryside too the medieval villages had consisted of ‘crofts and tofts’, cottages with their enclosed gardens (Aston and Lewis 1994) But the landscape around was open, areas of cultivated fields shared in common, and outfield ploughed more rarely, and beyond, the pastures 155 Enclosing the Past 3: Boundaries between communities 4: Display and ostentation 5: Defining the status of the inhabitants 6: Symbolic The hill-forts are the most dominant feature of the Iron Age landscape Though there can be little doubt of their defensive nature – sling-stones are commonly found at the entrances and Maiden Castle at least was attacked and burned down by the Roman army (Wheeler 1943) – nonetheless there are also ideological aspects to them, and this may have been more important than defence in some cases Hill (1993) has demonstrated that entrances open predominantly to the east or the west Most archaeologists agree that they are generally a statement of power and prestige For Cunliffe (1983) it is a resident ‘king’ or ‘chief’; for Sharples (1991) and myself it is the whole community as there is little evidence for high- status individuals in the Early and Middle Iron Age when the hill-forts were at their zenith The density of the structures within varies very considerably, from almost nothing to the dense concentrations of houses, storage pits and four- and six-post structures Size too varies, and we all agree there is no simple explanation which encompasses them all I have looked at a hierarchy of sites in terms of size, and noted that the size and scale of the ramparts varies with the area enclosed – big hill-forts have big ramparts and little hillforts have little ramparts – not what one would expect if the ramparts were merely for defence (Collis 1977a) Cunliffe has suggested a ‘rise to dominance’ model in which hillforts succeed while their neighbours fail and are deserted (Cunliffe 1991); his ‘developed’ hill-forts becoming some sort of ‘central place’ I have suggested an alternative model, the ‘crisis model’ which has multiple trajectories and Figure 12.1 Owslebury, Hants, showing four phases of enclosure, starting with a banjo enclosure (source: author) 156 Collis: Enclosure in Iron Age Wessex viewed from modern Ávila Figure 12.2 Gussage All Saints, Dorset; showing the earlier single enclosure, followed by fragmentation in the 1st century BC (after Wainwright 1979) 157 Enclosing the Past Figure 12.3 Old Down Farm, Andover, Hants, showing the Early Iron Age enclosure and the fragmentation of the Late Iron Age and Early Roman periods (after Davies 1981) 158 Collis: Enclosure in Iron Age Wessex viewed from modern Ávila demands a more careful analysis of the data (Collis 1981) On the whole, my model fits the data better, but it is far from explaining everything (Collis 2002) In contrast, the smaller Iron Age enclosures are nondefensive Firstly, the ditches are of smaller dimensions – up to a maximum of 2–3m deep – and in some cases the bank seems to be external if not almost non-existent: Cunliffe (2000) has suggested that the chalk may have been removed for marling, house building, etc Thirdly, the dimensions of the ditch can be variable, often being larger around the entrance (in the case of Gussage All Saints the ditch defining the entrance is 2.20m deep and the enclosure ditch 1.30m deep near the entrance, while at the back of the enclosure the ditch is only 0.5m or less deep and was perhaps also discontinuous in some phases (Wainwright 1979) This was not true at Owslebury; the entrance ditches are 1m deep at most, the enclosure ditch at the entrance 1.20m deep, and at the back of the enclosure 1.70m deep Another peculiarity of Owslebury was that the ditch was backfilled not long after digging, and the fill included some fairly complete pots and many burnt flints; McOmish (2001:75) has noted this is not uncommon, suggesting that some enclosures may have only been for some short-lived purpose The enclosures also vary in size from 0.5 to about ha, and most contain storage pits, quarries, four-post structures and, if they survive, traces of round houses Though one or two lack such structures, and so may be for livestock, the majority are single farms or small hamlets of 3–4 houses The shape of the enclosures also varies considerably: banjo-enclosures such as Owslebury (Fig 12.1) and Bramdean (Perry 1982); beetle-shaped like Little Woodbury (Bersu 1940) or Gussage All Saints (Fig 12.2); or round or oval with a simple gap without the entrance ditches, like Old Down Farm, Andover (Fig 12.3, Davies 1981) The reasons for these differences are unknown The entrance ditches in the first two groups are interpreted as a means of channelling livestock towards the entrance At the end of the Middle Iron Age (around 100 BC) these single enclosures are fragmented into several enclosures of varying size and depth of ditch In the case of Owslebury several ditched trackways lead into the settlement instead of the one which existed previously, and there is no trace of monumentality at the entrance (Collis 1977b, 1996) There are several possible interpretations: • An increase in population, necessitating more enclosures; • A change in the activities of the internal organisation of the farmyard; • A change in the social structure from one which is more community based (i.e the ditch encloses the whole community) to one in which there is social differentiation within the settlements The Late Iron Age is certainly associated with increasing evidence of social differentiation, in the burial rite, in the deposition of gold objects (especially coins and torcs – one hoard has been found within a few kilometres of the Owslebury site), and the appearance of imported Mediterranean goods (amphorae and metal vessels), and there may also be a shift from intensive to extensive cereal production Enclosure continues until the end of the Roman period, but its importance varies from site to site; some sites have single enclosures, others continue with multiple enclosures The sites are universally abandoned by the late 4th or 5th centuries AD The ditched trackways linked the settlements with areas of open pasture, and generally seem to have run between enclosed ‘Celtic’ fields These were the areas cultivated for cereal production, and some have produced evidence for plough marks It is assumed that they were enclosed by hurdles, or even hedges, but on the chalklands there is no indisputable evidence for this, indeed, studies of snails at Owslebury suggest there were no hedges There are no obvious areas for orchards or gardens, though the fill in one of the Late Roman enclosures at Owslebury was noted for its black organic-rich soil, and had contemporary cess-pits within it which could have been used to collect dung for intensive horticultural use This then is the traditional interpretation of the Wessex landscape in the Iron Age, something comparable with that of the medieval period: small farms and hamlets with enclosure for livestock and habitation surrounded by arable fields, lying in an open landscape of pasture for the livestock I will now consider Ávila before returning to query some of these assumptions Ávila and the Ambles valley The Ambles valley lies to the west of the city of Ávila in central Spain, 100 km west of Madrid To the south and north it is bounded by ranges of granite hills It is a highland area; the valley itself lies at 1100m above sea level, and is characterised by hot dry summers and cold snowy winters Nowadays the area is best known for its animal products (sheep, cattle and especially pig), though the plain itself is largely agricultural, especially producing wheat, but now irrigation is allowing crops such as strawberries However, even in the valley there are drier hills which are only suitable for pasture, often with a scatter of oak trees, though some areas in the granite hills have extensive areas of terraced fields and evidence up to fairly recently of ploughing showing that agriculture was not confined to the valley The area is crossed by the Cañada Soriana Occidental, one of the official droveways set up by the mesta, the organisation of wealthy landowners which supervised the transhumance between northern and southern Spain; the one that crosses the Ambles Valley ran for over 700 km between Adehuela de Catalañazor near Soria in the north, and Olivenza near Badajoz in the south At the beginning of the 20th century the majority of the land was in the hands of a small number of landowners Compared with many other areas of Europe, the peasant farmers were quite poor, with the population nucleated in small villages of one-storey houses with limited architectural pretensions (Colour plate 8) The villages generally lie around natural water sources, mainly springs, as even the main river, the Adaja, which flows west-east through the valley often has little or no water in it during the summer months Under the ‘traditional’ system, enclosure of land was minimal, with at most boundaries marked by standing stones, occasionally inscribed, but, especially in the highland areas, usually a rough-hewn pillar Otherwise enclosure was mainly of two kinds: For the intensive cultivation of gardens for vegetables (beans, potatoes, onions, etc), or for fruit trees (apples, pears, peaches, etc.) As these relied on the availability of water, they were often concentrated around the village itself (Colour plate 9), but some of these enclosed gardens 159 Enclosing the Past can be 3–4 km or more from the village if the right conditions exist Such plots are usually highly visible in the landscape as they also include mature trees (especially poplars) to increase shade and protection Some gardens relied on water from small irrigation channels directed to them Many are still in use, especially for vegetables, though fruit growing is in decline, and many of the trees are dead or dying Rather larger enclosures sometimes, but not always, with a water supply These too are often close to the village, but may be on isolated hill-sides They may be rectangular or oval, and surrounded by a relatively substantial stone wall; most are now in a poor state of repair They seem to have been for penning livestock, especially overnight Otherwise enclosure was minimal, and for special functions (cemeteries outside villages are invariably walled) A small number of the wealthier landowners wall their properties, but much of this seems fairly recent In the hilly areas fields are usually marked by terraces, sometimes quite substantial, up to 2–3m on steep hill-slopes (Colour plate 10), but some fields are enclosed by walls of low boulders which would certainly not have been an effective barrier for livestock In the valley some fields are ditched (Colour plate 11), especially where they adjoin tracks, and seem mainly to be for drainage (though in some cases this hardly seems necessary, especially in the summer months); in most cases they can easily be crossed by livestock Wild animals are relatively rare; we have seen the occasional wild boar, but even rabbits are not very common, perhaps because of the intensive hunting Under such an open-landscape regime, the livestock has to be carefully herded, and each village has its complement of shepherds and cowherds who take the animals out each morning After the crops have been harvested, they are given the free-run of the fields, which obviously helps with the manuring A possibly recent feature are transportable metal fences for enclosing the sheep at night, and these are moved every few days, partly to give fresh food (though there is little) but especially to spread the effects of intensive manuring Most farms, especially in the highlands, have barns for overwintering the animals, and for the cattle overnight as well Presumably the same was true for the pigs, but these are now intensively reared in barns, and are never seen except on their way to the abattoir However, for someone such as myself raised in an enclosed landscape, it is surprising sometimes to see vegetable gardens which are completely unenclosed, with no apparent protection from wild animals (though the walls around the enclosed ones would certainly not keep deer out) Also, just after harvest, some of the threshed grain is just heaped outside the villages with no attempt to keep birds away (Colour plate 12) In the 1970s there was a major shift in the system of land tenure This did not affect the larger blocks of pasture, the estates and ranches (fincas and dehesas), but mainly the agricultural land and some of the areas of public grazing especially in the valley were divided up and handed out to individual farmers The boundaries of each field are often merely marked by stone heaps or small stele, more often with small concrete posts In the last forty years individual owners have started to enclose their land, not only the major landowners, but also many of the traditional peasant farmers The favourite method for the larger areas is with metal, wooden or stone posts with barbed wire strung between them, but for some of the smaller areas chain-link fences, or even walls built of breezeblocks The reasons for enclosure are varied, but generally not associated with agriculture; even the strawberry fields are not enclosed Some fields are being fenced for permanent pasturing of cattle or horses, with a piped water supply, but this is still the exception There are also enclosures for industrial and sports activities, but the majority are for private gardens, often with a small building used during the day for domestic activities On an increasing scale, more permanent houses are being built, some even with swimming pools There is thus the beginning of a dispersal from the nucleated settlement pattern, though the majority prefer to build their new houses either in the village, or on its fringe where it is possible to have a garden The traditional houses are gradually falling into disuse and being demolished Houses now tend to be of two or three storeys, with balconies where one can sit in the summer evenings Obviously the increasing affluence is one major factor, but technologically, perhaps the availability of piped water, is the decisive factor The whole development is very piecemeal, with the new enclosures usually isolated from one another An interesting phenomenon, found in other areas of Spain, is the ostentatious nature of the faỗades and gateways (Colour plates 13, 14) This is not part of the local tradition, at least in the countryside, and the one-storey traditional house has no elements of external display, except in some cases the chimney which may have decoration on its plaster, accompanied by the date of construction The faỗade is often the rst element to be built, with a wall of stone or brick, perhaps surmounted by an elaborate iron fence, and fine ironwork gates This is not a tradition taken over from the wealthier landowners (Colour plate 15); though the richer estates may have fancy gateways, they themselves are also a recent development, and are usually less elaborate and more functional than those on the smaller properties Though locally the nouveaux riches participate in the more universal western European status symbol of the four-byfour parked in front of the house, these elaborate faỗades seem to be a special Spanish phenomenon, indeed, perhaps even Castilian, as it is not so obvious, for instance, in the Catalan areas What I have labelled here the ‘traditional’ system presumably has its origins in the medieval period, after the territory was taken back from the Moors (Barrios García 2000) For earlier periods there seems to be little tradition for enclosure, as there are no field systems or settlement enclosures for the Iron Age and Roman periods, except perhaps for some villas In these periods enclosure is confined to the major settlements, the Roman town of Obila, and the Iron Age oppida and hill-forts of Ulaca, Las Cogotas, La Mesa de Miranda and Sanchorreja (Álvarez Sanchís 1999; Mariné 1995; Sánchez Moreno 2000) Though elements of these sites are clearly defensive (elaborate towers, chevaux de frise), this is not the only factor This is most clear at Ulaca, where the official panels on the site explain the small scale of the stone wall on the side facing away from the valley as being unfinished when the inhabitants were forced to leave by the Romans (in places it is only one or two courses high) However, this does not fit the evidence, as the ‘unfinished’ sections belong to the first period of the site, and a second enclosure was added later to the east (not recognised in most of the published plans) This suggests 160 Collis: Enclosure in Iron Age Wessex viewed from modern Ávila that the enclosure here (though protected by steep slopes) was more symbolic than functional more effective barriers to livestock, though he presents no evidence for this (Cunliffe and Poole 2000:91) Certainly at Owslebury the studies of the snail faunas in some of the linear ditches (especially ditches flanking trackways) showed slightly damp environments such as one might expect in a ditch, but otherwise an open landscape with little hint of the sorts of species one would associate with a hedge This implies that, though the ditches might be used to guide the livestock (and humans) along the track, they were not intended to provide a physical constraint, indeed when the crops had been harvested, stock-proof boundaries would have been a positive hindrance to the free movement of flocks of sheep or herds of cows across the landscape Control would have been maintained, as in the case of Ávila, by shepherds and cowherds accompanied by their dogs This then raises questions about the actual function of ‘Celtic fields’ We usually assume that these defined the areas of arable, and if there are no visible fields, then we are dealing with areas of pasture However, at some sites like Owslebury there are no obvious Celtic fields surviving even though some of the settlement enclosures survived as earthworks up to quite recently, yet we have grain storage pits on the settlement The assumption is that either banjo enclosures such as Owslebury were primarily used for livestock, or the fields have been destroyed by later agricultural activity (unlikely in the case of Owslebury) So, could it be that the main agricultural activity, the more extensive ploughed fields, have left little archaeological trace, and that, at least in the Iron Age, the Celtic fields were places where some more specialised and intensive cultivation was going on? We need to look a little more closely at the environment of some of our settlements, and also experiment more with the quantification of our data (e.g if storage pits are primarily for seed grain, this gives us some hint on the minimum area under cultivation) We also need to compare regions In central Hampshire, for instance, Celtic field systems and linear boundaries seem relatively rare in comparison to, say, northern Hampshire and Wiltshire, due generally, it is assumed, to the later history of land use in the medieval and post-medieval periods, but perhaps we simply have different systems of land use in different areas of Wessex in the Bronze and Iron Ages Finally we have the question of the function of the clusters of enclosures that form the nucleus of many Late Iron Age and Roman farming settlements in parts of Wessex Some are certainly to define areas of domestic activity (houses, barns, granaries, etc.) but the case of Ávila warns us that some activities we have always assumed took place here, such as threshing and winnowing of cereals, could easily have taken place outside the settlements We have also, the case of Owslebury, the Late Roman enclosure with evidence of ‘black earth’ in the ditch fillings The same enclosure contains three cess pits, two quite substantial, which are a complete anomaly in a rural context; cess pits are associated with dense occupation, especially urban contexts, for reasons of health, and such apparent concerns with hygiene is totally unexpected on a rural settlement which, by late Roman times, was a low status site with none of the luxuries associated with contemporary villa sites, such as stone buildings, baths, mosaic pavements, etc Either part of the population was not free to roam (e.g slaves) and the burial evidence does hint at a very divided social set-up with cremation burials with pots even as late as the 4th century AD, contrasting with inhumations with no grave goods, often buried in ditches Reflections It is interesting to note that, in the two very different cases we have looked at, there are certain similarities and peculiarities like the piecemeal process by which enclosure expands across the landscape, and especially the very prominent role which is given to display in the faỗades and entranceways to the settlements But in the case of Middle Iron Age Hampshire it seems to be the whole community which parades its status, whereas in Spain it is the individual, and then not someone of high social or economic status Indeed, one of the major points I wish to make in this paper is that we can encounter superficially similar phenomena which may have very different ‘meanings’ and occur in very different sorts of society Thus, to repeat a point made earlier, in late medieval and post-medieval Britain enclosure is apparently associated with the appropriation of formerly communally held land by rich individuals In Ávila, in contrast, it is associated with a democratisation of private ownership by relatively poor individuals, and that initiated by a fascist right-wing government Another example of parallel change under differing social, economic and political conditions has been the process of increasing field sizes by the amalgamation of field plots, in Britain, at least, including the removal of often ancient hedgerows In part this is due to technological change, with the increasing shift from the 1930s onwards from animal powered traction (horses and oxen) over to larger mechanised equipment such as combine harvesters In Britain the farms were generally sufficiently large and the farmers sufficiently prosperous for this to happen early (in the 1930s), within the context of a competitive marketing system Inheritance laws (generally inheritance through male primogeniture) enabled large farms to remain intact In contrast, in much of France the peasant regime had remained largely intact, but with increasing fragmentation of ownership, as under Napoleonic laws land had to be shared between the descendants, so field plots were becoming increasingly smaller and less and less viable, preventing the physical use of large mechanised equipment even if the increasingly impoverished peasants could afford to invest in it The only solution was for state intervention to redistribute land by agreement among the owners and the farmers, to allow consolidated fields to be formed and exploited by an individual farmer using modern techniques: the remembrement which was carried out in the 1950s and 1960s, like Britain, in an increasingly competitive market economy, but with much greater centralised state involvement Central and eastern Europe represents a third case where, under the post-war communist regimes, collectivisation of farms was enforced, again allowing the shift to industrialised farming and mechanisation Can we, as archaeologists, differentiate between these three very different scenarios, or does their impact on the landscape and environment look identical? Returning to the Wessex landscape, it is clear that our ‘enclosed’ mentalities may be leading us to misinterpret the late Prehistoric and Roman landscapes Cunliffe, for instance, has postulated that the linear ditches around Danebury must have supported hedgerows to turn them into 161 Enclosing the Past and, at most, with a wooden coffin (Collis 1977b); or the human organic waste was being collected for intensive manuring Some of these enclosures could, therefore, be comparable with the intensively cultivated plots we find in and around the Ambles valley in Spain Iron Age and Roman Wessex is one of the most intensively investigated areas in Europe, yet because of our preconceptions, perhaps our interpretations are fundamentally flawed, and we need to have a major re-think Equally, there seems to be enormous potential in study the present changes around Ávila in terms of the impact on the landscape, rather than simply collecting old agricultural implements such as the trillos Ireland, pp 87-94 Sheffield: J.R Collis Publications Collis, J.R 2001 Society and Settlement in Iron Age Europe; L’Habitat et l’Occupation du Sol en Europe Actes du XVIIIe Colloque de l’AFEAF, Winchester - Avril 1994 Sheffield: J.R Collis Publications Collis, J.R 2002 Danebury, its environs and the Iron Age in Hampshire Landscape Archaeology 2002:91–94 Cunliffe, B.W 1983 Danebury: anatomy of a hillfort London: Batsford Cunliffe, B.W 1991 Iron Age Communities in Britain An account of England, Scotland and Wales from the 7th century BC until the Roman conquest Third edition London, New York, Routledge and Kegan Paul Cunliffe, B 2000 The Danebury Environs Programme: the Prehistory of a Wessex landscape Volume 1: Introduction English Heritage and Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 48 Oxford: Institute of Archaeology Cunliffe, B.W and Poole, C 2000 The Danebury Environs Programme: the Prehistory of a Wessex landscape Volume 2-4: New Buildings, Longstock, Hants 1992 and Fiveways Longstock, Hants, 1996 English Heritage and Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 49 Oxford: Institute of Archaeology Davies, S.M 1981 Excavations at Old Down Farm, Andover Part II: Prehistoric and Roman Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club 37:81–164 Deberge, Y and Guichard, V 2000 Nouvelles recherches sur les travaux césariens devant Gergovie (1995–1999) Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 39:83–111 Dent, J.M 1982 Cemeteries and settlement patterns of the Iron Age on the Yorkshire Wolds Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48:437–458 Hill, J.D 1993 Danebury and the hillforts of Iron Age Wessex In Champion and Collis 1993:95-116 McOmish, D 2001 Aspects of prehistoric settlement in western Wessex In Collis 2001:73–81 Mariné, M 1995 Historia de Ávila I Prehistoria e historia antigua Ávila: Institución ‘Gran Duque de Alba’ de la Exma Diputación de Ávila Perry, B.T 1982 Excavations at Bramdean, Hampshire, 1973 to 1977 Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club 38:57–74 Sánchez Moreno, E 2000 Vetones: historia y arqueología de un pueblo prerromano Collección de Estudios 64 Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma Sharples, N 1991 Maiden Castle London: English Heritage/ Batsford Wainwright, G.J 1979 Gussage All Saints: an Iron Age settlement in Dorset Department of the Environment Archaeological Reports No 10 London Wheeler, R.E.M 1943 Maiden Castle, Dorset Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, no 12 Oxford: Oxford University Press Bibliography Álvarez Sanchís, J.R 1999 Los Vettones Biblioteca Archaeologica Hispana Madrid Aston, M and Lewis, C (eds.) 1994 The Medieval Landscape of Wessex Oxbow Monograph 46 Oxford: Oxbow Barrios García, Á 2000 Historia de Ávila II Edad Media (siglos VIII–XIII) Ávila: Institución ‘Gran Duque de Alba’ de la Exma Diputación de Ávila Bersu, G 1940 Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire Part I: the settlement revealed by excavation Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 29:206–213 Biddle, M 1973 Winchester: the development of an early capital In H Jankuhn, W Schlesinger and H Steuer (eds.) Vor- und Frühformen der europäischen Stadt im Mittelalter Symposium Reinhausen 18.-24 April 1972 Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Phil.-hist Kl Folge, Nr 83, pp 229-261 Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Champion, T.C and Collis, J.R (eds.) 1993 The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends Sheffield: J.R Collis Publications Collis, J.R 1977a An approach to the Iron Age In J.R Collis (ed.) The Iron Age in Britain: a review, pp 1-7 Sheffield: Dept of Prehistory and Archaeology Collis, J.R 1977b Owslebury, Hants, and the problem of burials on rural settlements In R Reece, Burial in the Roman World, pp.26-34 CBA Research Report 22 London Collis, J.R 1981 A theoretical study of hill-forts In G Guilbert (ed.) Hill-fort Studies: papers presented to A H A Hogg, pp 66-76 Leicester: University Press Collis, J.R 1993 Structures d’habitat et enceintes de l’Age du Fer In A Daubigney (ed.) Fonctionnement Social de l’Age du Fer Opérateurs et hypothèses pour la France Table Ronde Internationale de Lons-le-Saunier (Jura) 24-26 octobre 1990, pp 231-238 Lons-Le-Saunier Collis, J.R.1996 Hill-forts, enclosures and boundaries In T.C Champion and J.R Collis (ed.) The Iron Age in Britain and 162 Index Abingdon, Oxfordshire 74 Acy-Romance 127 Aiterhofen 144 Alcalar 89−90, 93 Aldwincle 118 Alekšince 60 Alesia 155 Alpiarỗa 87 Altheim 51 Altheim-Heiligkreuztal 136, 148 Altheim culture 50, 64 Altranstädt 64 amber 112 Ambrona, Miño de Medinaceli 76, 93 Apony 55 Arnstorf 148 Asparn-Schletz 45, 47−8 Aszòd 55, 107 aurochs 32 Ávila 155, 159, 161−2 Brennus 152 Briar Hill, Northamptonshire 69, 70, 74 Brno-Líšeň 63 Brno-Nový Lískovec 44, 47 Brodzany-Nitra 50 Bronocice 57 Bučany, Slovakia 52, 55, 59, 62 bucranium 26 Bulhary 53, 55, 62−3 Bussy-le-Long 149 Bylany, Bohemia 11, 16, 57, 59, 62 Cadbury Castle, Somerset 121 Čakovice 11 Cañada Soriana Occidental 159 Carn Brea, Cornwall 69, 72, 74, 100 Căscioarele 21, 22, 25−7, 41 castellieri 107 Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão 90 causewayed camp 2, 10, 69− 71, 78−9, 100 Ceíde 20 Celtic fields 155, 159, 161 centaur 23 Cernavoda 38 Černá Hora 44 Cerro de El Albalate 91 Cerro de los Alcores 91 Český raj 110 Cham Culture 50, 64 Chleby, Nymburk 10, 51, 64 Cífer 52, 55, 57, 59 Cimbri, see Kimbern Clonfinlough 103, 105 co-axial’ field systems 155 Collfryn 118 Columbeira, Bombarral 90 Conchil-le-Temple 114 Corded Ware Culture Cranborne Chase 70, 72−4, 101 crannóg 102, 106−7 Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire 69, 71–4, 100 Csőszhalom 21, 22, 29−33, 41 Cucuteni 21–2, 26 currency bars 119–120, 122–3 Baden culture 63 Bajč-Vlkanovo, Slovakia 63, 51 Balbridie 20 Balfarg, Fife 100 Ballinderry, Co Offaly) 103 banjo-enclosures 159 Barca 105, 113 Beaker period 101 Bearwood, Dorset) 121 Beaurieux-Les Grèves 147 Beckford, Hereford and Worcester 121 Becsehely 45, 55 Běhařovice, Moravia 52−3, 57 Bell Beaker 64, 87, 89, 93, 100, 101 Benátky nad Jizerou 10, 57 Berching-Pollanten 147 Berlin Wall 97 Bernburg/Walternienburg culture Berry-au-Bac 147–8 Bibracte 126−7, 129, 131 Billingborough, Lincolnshire 123 Birdlip Camp 72 Biskupin 97, 107, 113 Blackheath, Todmorden, West Yorkshire 101 Blackshouse Burn, Lanarkshire 99−100 Black Patch 102 Blaufelden 135, 136 Blewburton (Oxfordshire) 121 Blučina, district Brno-venkov Bochum-Harpen 50, 55 Bochum-Laer 50, 64 Bodmin Moor, Cornwall 116 Bodrogkeresztúr Culture 50, 63 Bogenberg, Straubing 107 Bohemian Paradise 110 Boian Culture 25 Boitsfort Bonn-Venusberg 50 Bopfingen 135−6, 147–8 Borduşani 26 Bořitov 44 Božice, Moravia 64 Bramdean 159 Branč 50 Bredon Hill, Hereford and Worcester 121 Breiddin 105 Dacian calendar 59, 62, 64 Danby Rigg, North Yorkshire 101 Dan y Coed 118 Danebury 116, 118, 121, 161 Darion 44, 47 Dartmoor 102, 104, 116 dehesa 160 Delphi 152 Derenburg Děvín 60 Ditches, Gloucestershire 121, 122 Divostin 21 Dniestr flint 33 Dolné Trhovište 60 Dolní Beřkovice 57 Dolní Břežany 149 Dolní Němčí 55 Dolnoslav 38 Donnersberg 129, 132 Dorset Cursus 74 Down Farm, Cranborne Chase 102 Dresden-Nickern 57 163 Droužkovice 144 Druids 149 Druids’ Circle, Penmaenmawr 101, 102 Dünsberg 128 Durankulak 21–2, 25, 27–9, 41 Hayling Island, Hampshire 122 Heidetränk 129 Heilbronn-Hetzenberg Heilbronn-Ilsfeld Heilbronn-Klingenberg 14 Helman Tor, Cornwall 72, 74, 100 Hembury, Devon 70–1, 74 henge 11, 21, 57, 59, 62–3, 100–1, 105 Herpály 32 Heuneburg 126, 131 Hienheim, Bavaria 51 Hinchinbroke Park Farm, Cambridgeshire 119, 121–2 Hluboké Mašůvky 49, 50, 57, 60 Hod Hill, Dorset 121 Holohlavy 11, 57, 60 Holzhausen 135–6, 146–8 Homolka near Slaný 105 Hopferstad-Ochsenfurt 55 Horní Metelsko in West Bohemia 11 Hornsburg 52, 55, 60 Hrazany 126, 141 Hrdly, district Litoměřice 10 Hrušovany nad Jevišovkou Hunsbury, Northants 121 Hurst Fen, Suffolk 74 Eching-Vieht 64 Ehningen 136, 144, 147–8 Eilsleben 44, 48 Einsiedel-Rübgarten 137–8 Eitzum 44 Erkelenz-Kückhoven 44, 47 Esslingen-Oberesslingen 147–8 Etton, Cambridgeshire 73–4 Ewart Park 105 Eythra 55 Eythra-Zwenkau 55, 57, 62 faience 112 Falkenstein-‘Schanzboden’ 49, 53 Federsee 107 Fellbach-Schmiden 135 figurine 23, 25, 50 fincas 160 Fisher Road, Port Seaton, East Lothian 124 Forschner, Federsee 107, 110 Frauenhofen, Horn 47–50, 55 Freckleben Fresnes-sur-Marne 148 Friebritz 55, 57, 59, 60 Fuente de la Mora, Leganés 94 Funnel Beaker Culture (see also TRB) 5, 10 Füzesabony 63 Iclod 21, 32, 51, 55 Immendorf 55 Inden 50, 58, 60 Iskritsa 22, 33–5, 38 Iwno Culture 107 Jánoshida-Portelek 55, 64 Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom 107 Jaux 147–8 Jenštejn, Prague-East 16 Jevišovice 64 Jülich-Welldorf 49, 50 Galgenberg 51, 64 Gardom’s Edge, Derbyshire 98, 100 Gaudendorf 57 Gemering 55 Gergovia 155 glass 112 Glastonbury Somerset 121 Glaubendorf 59 Gneiding-Oberpöring 60 Golianovo 52, 59 Goljamo Delchevo 21 Goljemiya Ostrov 25, 27 Gollma Gorzsa 21, 29 Goseck 55, 57, 60 Gournay 145 Gózquez de Arriba, San Martín de la Vega 94 Gradac 21, 25 Gradac-Zlokućane 22, 24 Gradac-Zlokućani 21–5, Gretton, Northamptonshire 123 Grimspound, Dartmoor 102 Grossburgstall 63 Grossgartach Culture 50 Gubakút 31 Gumelniţa 22, 26, 27, 41 Gussage All Saints 159 Kamegg 55, 57 Karanovo IV 35–6 Karanovo V 35–7 Karanovo VI 25, 36–8 Kelheim 129, 131 Kimbern 132, 137 Kingsdown, Somerset 121–2 Kitzen 64 Klačany 52 Kly, Mělník 5–6, 12–4, 16–8 Knocknalappa 103, 106 Knovíz Culture 11 Kưln-Lindenthal 47 Komjatice 64 Kostice 64 Kothingeichendorf 50, 53, 55, 59 Kraków flint 33 Krašovice 147 kręgi 64 Křepice 53, 57 Krisigk Krpy 9, 11, 57 Künzing-Unternberg 50, 55, 57, 59, 62 Kyhna 55, 57 Haddenham, Cambridgeshire 73–5, 74 Hallstatt period 10, 64 Hamangia 27 Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England 69–75, 100 Ham Hill, Somerset 121 Hardwick 118 Hasting Hill, Tyne & Wear 100 Hayhope Knowe 118 Langweiler 44, 47, 48, 50, 59 Las Cogotas 160 Las Matillas, Alcalá de Henares 94 Lausitz Culture 113 La Mesa de Miranda 160 La Pijotilla 94 164 La Revilla del Campo, Ambrona 93 La Tène period 140 LBK 9, 44, 45, 47, 48, 55 Leceia (Oeiras) 90 Ledce, Moravia 51, 64 Lengyel Culture 1, 21, 45, 48–50, 59, 61–64 Levroux 151 Lhánice 64 Lich-Steinstrass 50 Linear ditches 64, 65, 161 Linzing-Osterhofen 51, 64 Little Woodbury 159 Loanhead of Daviot 101 Lochenice 9, 11, 55, 57, 59 Lochenice-Unternberg 50 Lofts Farm, Essex 102–3 Los Millares 77, 91 Luant 131, 148 Lubelsko-Wolynia Culture 57 Ludanice 50 Neutz-Lettewitz 64 Nitrianský Hrádok 52, 55, 62, 105, 107–8 Nordheim 135 North Mains, Strathallan, Perthshire 101 Oberesslingen 138, 139 Oberlauterbach Culture 55, 57 Obrovci 21 Ochsenberg at Wartau, canton St Gallen 107 Oderbruch 57 Offham, Sussex 73–4 Old Down Farm, Andover 121, 158–9 Oleksovice 64 Ölkam 55 Opolany, district Nymburk 10 oppidum 2, 126, 128–9, 131–3, 138, 141, 148, 152 Orsett, Essex 69, 73, 74 Ostrovul Corbului 25 Ovcharitsa 21 Ovcharovo 21 Owslebury, Hampshire 159, 161 Madmarston, Oxfordshire 121, 123 Maiden Castle, Dorset 70, 71–4, 121, 116, 156 Makotřasy 51, 64 Mam Tor, Derbyshire 103 Manching 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 147–8 Marden 63 Maritsa Iztok 35, 38 Marroqes Bajos, Jắn 91 Martberg 126, 127 Mašovice 57 Mataci, in Dalmatia 38 Mayen 7, 50–1 Mecsek 55 Meisternthal 50 Meisternthal-Landau 60 Mengen-Ennetach 135 Měnín, district Brno-venkov Meon Hill, Warwickshire 121 Merdzumekja 22, 35, 38 mesta 159 Meunet-Planches 131, 148 Michelsberg/Untergrombach Michelsberg Culture 5, 6, 8, 13, 50, 60, 64 Midsummer Hill, Hereford & Worcester 121 Miel 7, 50, 60 Mödling-Zöbing-Jevišovice Culture 63 MOG see Moravian/Austrian Group Monkodonja, Istria 107, 111 Monta da Tumba, Torrão 90 Montes Claros 87 Monte da Ponte, Évora 90 Montmartin/Oise 148 Mont Beuvray 132 Moravian/Austrian Group (MOG) 50, 57, 59, 63 Moravian Painted Pottery (MPP) 48, 50, 53, 55, 57, 59, 63–4 Most 11 Mount Pleasant 63 MPP, see Moravian Painted Pottery Mšecké Žehrovice 143–4, 146–9, 152 Mucking, Essex 102, 104 Mühlbach am Mannhartsberg 57 Münchshöfen Culture 64 Munzingen Murr, Munich 64 murus gallicus 131, 148 Painted Pottery Culture, see Moravian Painted Pottery Palmela 87 Papa Uvas 94 Park Farm, Warwickshire 119, 121 Pasohlávky 64 Passau-Hartkirchen 135 Paule 144, 147, 151 Pavlov 49, 50 Penard phase 103, 105 Perdigões, in the Portuguese Alentejo 93 Pfaffenhofen-Beuren 136 pillar shrine 26 pit alignment 64, 120 Planig-Friedberg 55 Platkow 57 Plattling-Pankofen 135, 149 Plotištĕ nad Labem 49, 50 plough-share 122 Polgar-Bosnyak domb 29 Polgár-Csőszhalom 21, 32, 53, 55, 59 Poljanitsa 21 Pottenbrunn 50 Prague-Vinoř 57 Přítluky 64 Puch 55, 60 Puch-Kleedorf 57 Pulkau 45 Quappendorf 57 Quenstedt 55, 57–60 Quimper-LeBraden 148 Raddon Hill, Devon 72 Radíčeves, Louny 10 Rájec-Jestřebí 44 Rakovice 148 Ramsdorf-Wallerfing 60 Rams Hill, Berkshire 103 Rašovice 52–3, 57, 62 remembrement 161 Rider’s Rings, Dartmoor 102, 104 Riedlingen 135, 136 Řípec, Trpoměchy 64 Řivnač Culture 105 rondel 5, 9, 16, 21, 44–5, 50, 52, 55–64, 105 Roquepertuse 151 Rosenburg 52, 55, 57, 60 Rössen Culture 50, 55, 60 Nadbury, Warwickshire 121, 123 Němčičky 52–3 Němětice 142 165 Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com Ružindol-Borová 55, 57, 60, 63 Uherský Brod 55 Uivar 21, 29 Ulaca 160 Uleybury, Gloucestershire 121 Uničov 44, 47 Unternberg 59 Urmitz 6, 8, 14, 50–1, 60 Salmonsbury, Gloucestershire 121 Samborzec-Opatów 32 Sanchorreja 160 Santa Justa 89, 90 Santa Vitória at Campo Maior 93 São Brás, Serpa 90 Šárka 48 Sarmizegethusa Regia 64 SBK, see Stichbandkeramik Schletz 60 Schmiedorf 50, 55, 64 Schmiedorf-Osterhofen 60 Sé 47, 55 Seloutky 50, 55, 57, 63 Serris-Les Rouelles 148 Shaugh Moor, Dartmoor 102 Silbury Hill 21 Skupice, Louny 10 Slavhostice 57 Spettisbury, Dorset 121 Spišský Štvrtok 105, 109, 113 Springfield Lyons 102 Staines, Surrey 73–4 Stansted 118 Stanway, Essex 119, 121–2 Staré Hradisko 126, 129 Steinabrunn 60 Stichbandkeramik 32, 48, 50, 57, 62 Stillfried-Auhagen 50 Stillfried-Ziegelei 50 Štítary-Hostětice 144 Stonehenge 32, 63, 101 Stone of Scone 27 Stradonice 129, 133 Straškov 10, 57 Straubing-Lenchenhaid 47 Strögen 52, 55, 60 Strögen, Lower Austria 52 stroke-ornamented pottery, see Stichbandkeramik Šumice 64 Svodín 52, 55, 57, 59, 62, 105, 107 Szarvas 22 Vaihingen 48 Valač 21, 23, 25 Valač-Krš 22 Valencina de la Concepción 93, 94 Variscourt / Condé-sur-Suippe 12–7, 130 Varna 27 Vedrovice 44–5, 47–8, 52–3, 55, 57, 59, 62 Vel’ký Cetín 57, 60 Velatice 57 Velim 97, 107–8, 110, 112–3 Velíš 57 Vieht 55 Viereckschanze 10, 64, 127, 131, 135–6, 138, 144–150 Vila Nova de S Pedro 77, 89, 90 villas 152 Villeneuve-St-Germain 126, 127, 129 Vinča 23, 25, 32 Vinča-Belo Brdo 23 Vinitsa 22, 25, 29 Vitiněves 57 Vlčnov 55 Vochov 11, 55, 57 Vokány 55 Vrbně, Mělník 10 Vrbno, Mělník 16, 18 Wakerley 118 Walesland Rath 118 Weinsteig-Großrußbach 45 West Brandon 118 Wetzdorf 55 Wetzleinsdorf 49, 50, 60 Whitesheet Hill, Wiltshire 70, 72–3 Wiesbaden-Schierstein Wilburton 105 Winchester 155 Windmill Hill, Wiltshire 69–70, 72–4 Winklebury, Hampshire 121 Winnal Down, Hampshire 124, 144 Winster, Derbyshire 122 Worthy Down, Hampshire 119, 121 Taunton metalwork 103 Tell Merdzumekja 35, 36 Těšetice-Kyjovice 9, 52–3, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62–3, 105 Teutonen 132, 137 Thalheim 48 throned figurines 23 Tiszalúc-Sarkad 50 Tiszapolgár Culture 55 Tisza incised ware 32 Titelberg 126 Tizsaluc-Sarkad 51 Tomerdingen 135 tortoise shells 37 TRB (Trichterbecherkultur) 5, 50, 64 trillos 162 Tripolye 22 Troskotovice 62–4 Trpoměchy, distr Kladno 10–11 Truşeşti 21 Tuchlovice 147 Tuchoraz 57 Yvignac 151 Zadubravlje 21 Zadubravlje-Dužine 21 Zambujal 76–94 Zangentor 127 Závist 126, 129, 131, 141, 146–7 Želiezovce 45, 48 Želízy, Mělník 10 Žitavce 53, 55, 57, 59 Žlkovce 57–9, 61–3 Zlokućane 21 Zuchering 147 166 www.Ebook777.com ... undertake the study Most of the contributions in the volume are based on papers read in the session Enclosing the past: inside and outside in prehistory organised by the present editors at the 7th... the northern side the feature is delimited by the edge of the terraces above the river Rhine The outer and inner ditch, and the inner ditch and palisade trench, are 9m apart from each other The. .. making the act of an individual inseparable from the antecedent acts of the community In the following pages, these insights will be explored in the context of the contrasts between unenclosed and