Enclosing the past: inside and outside in prehistory

176 Pages·2006·22.78 MB·English

by  Anthony Harding

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
© 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: [phone] / Fax [phone]
e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.equinoxpub.com
Printed in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd
LIST OF CONTENTS
Introduction ix
Anthony Harding, Susanne Sievers and Natalie Venclová
1. Enclosures and fortifications in Central Europe 1
Evžen Neustupný
2. Large prehistoric enclosures in Bohemia: the evidence from the air 5
Martin Gojda
3. Does enclosure make a difference? A view from the Balkans 20
John Chapman and Bisserka Gaydarska, with Karen Hardy
4. Neolithic and post-Neolithic enclosures in Moravia in their central European 44
context
Vladimír Podborský and Jaromír Kovárník
5. The first known enclosures in southern Britain: their nature, function and 69
role, in space and time
Roger J. Mercer
6. Zambujal and the enclosures of the Iberian Peninsula 76
Michael Kunst
7. Enclosing and excluding in Bronze Age Europe 97
Anthony Harding
8. Defining community: iron, boundaries and transformation in later 116
prehistoric Britain
Richard Hingley
9. Oppida und ihre linearen Strukturen 126
Susanne Sievers
10. Spätkeltische Viereckschanzen in Süddeutschland: Umfriedung – 135
Abgrenzung – Umwehrung
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 Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1
3LE, UK.
e-mail: [email protected]
John Collis 9 Clifford Road, Sheffield S11 9AQ, UK.
e-mail: j.r.collis@sheffield.ac.uk
Bisserka Gaydarska Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1
3LE, UK.
e-mail: [email protected]
Martin Gojda 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: [email protected]
Anthony Harding Department of Archaeology, Laver Building, University of Exeter, North Park
Road, Exeter EX4 4QE, UK.
e-mail: [email protected]
Karen Hardy Department of Archaeology, The King’s Manor, York YO1 7EP, UK.
e-mail: [email protected]
Richard Hingley Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1
3LE, UK.
e-mail: [email protected]
Jaromír Kovárník South-Moravian Museum in Znojmo, Přemyslovců 6, CZ-669 45 Znojmo, Czech
Republic.
e-mail: [email protected].
Michael Kunst Instituto Arqueológico Alemán, C/ Serrano, 159, 28002 Madrid, Spain.
e-mail: [email protected].
Roger Mercer 4 Old Church Lane, Duddingston, Edinburgh, EH15 3PX, UK.
e-mail: [email protected]
Evžen Neustupný Department of Archaeology, University of West Bohemia, Sedláčkova 31, 306 14
Plzeň, Czech Republic.
e-mail: [email protected]
Vladimír Podborský Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Arne
Nováka 1, CZ-602 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
e-mail: [email protected].
Susanne Sievers Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Palmengartenstrasse 10-12, D-60325
Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
e-mail: [email protected]
Natalie Venclová Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Letenská 4, CZ-118 01
Prague, Czech Republic.
e-mail: [email protected]
Günther Wieland Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe, Referat 25 Denkmalpflege, Moltkestr. 74, D-76133
Karlsruhe, Germany.
e-mail: [email protected]
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 The course of the large, Late Eneolithic enclosure at Kly (district Mělník). 6
2.2 Selected enclosures (Erdwerke) of the Michelsberg Culture. 7
2.3 Urmitz (Rheinland/Pfalz, Germany): plan of the largest known Neolithic earthwork in 8
Europe.
2.4 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 Schematic depiction of the areas in which magnetometer surveys were carried out in the 14
Kly cadastre, 1997–2000.
2.8 Kly: combined results of aerial prospection and the areas of positive magnetometric 15
surveys of the large enclosure.
2.9 Kly, district Mělník: Surface artefact collection 2000. 16
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 3. 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 Distribution of ‘rondels’ in the loess zone between the course of the rivers Tisza and 58
Rhine.
4.9 Multiple enclosure of a Neolithic settlement: Inden, West Germany. 60
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 8 radiocarbon dates from bone samples from phases before 1a 86
to 2c and phase 5.
v
6.8 Zambujal. Calibration of 7 radiocarbon dates from bone samples from phases before 1a, 87
1a, 1c, 3c and 5.
6.9 Zambujal. Air photograph from southwest to northeast with the excavation of the 4th 88
fortification line.
6.10 Zambujal, October 1994. Air photograph from north to south of the end of the 89
promontory.
6.11 Zambujal. Air photograph of the 1st and 2nd fortification lines. 90
6.12 Zambujal. Air photograph of the 4th fortification line. 91
6.13 Zambujal. Schematic plan of phase 2 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 136
Innenraum.
10.2 Schematisierter Grundriss der Toranlage von Einsiedel-Rübgarten. 137
vi
10.3 Rekonstruktionsversuch der Toranlage von Einsiedel-Rübgarten. 138
10.4 Schematisierter Grundriss der Toranlage von Oberesslingen mit nach innen gesetztem 139
Torbau.
11.1 Local enclosures: examples from the oppida in Bohemia. 141
11.2 Community enclosure: reconstruction of the Late Hallstatt to Early La Tène enclosure of 142
Němětice, Bohemia.
11.3 Community enclosure: the Viereckschanze-type enclosure of Mšecké Žehrovice in 143
Bohemia.
11.4 Community enclosures: farms - fermes - Einzelhöfe and Viereckschanze-type enclosures 144
in the Iron Age Europe.
11.5 Wooden buildings from different contexts in the La Tène of Central and Western Europe. 147
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
COLOUR PLATES
1 Gojda: Hrušovany nad Jevišovkou, distr. Znojmo.
2 Gojda: Chleby, distr. Nymburk.
3 Gojda: Dolní Beřkovice, distr. Mělník.
4 Gojda: Kly, district Mělník: a tulip-shaped beaker.
5 Harding: The outer ditch at Velim.
6 Harding: Ditch deposits at Velim showing the extensive deposition of human bone.
7 Wieland: Rekonstruktion einer Viereckschanze als zentrale Einheit einer ländlichen
Siedlung.
8 Collis: Traditional house at Solosancho, Ávila.
9 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 façade, Salobralejo, Ávila.
15 Collis: Simple entrance to the dehesa of El Cid at Sanchorreja, Ávila.
vii
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 74
selection of Neolithic enclosures in southern England.
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 out there, or coming into contact with whatever was kept
that occurred at many times and in many places of the there. Although researchers may tend to prefer “practical”
prehistoric past. This volume sets out to explore the explanations for enclosed areas, the symbolical significance
variability of enclosures, using a variety of approaches, and of boundaries might actually have been dominant in the
aims to explore possible reasons for enclosing rather than minds of those who created them.
technical aspects of creating enclosures. It proceeds from Even in the case of large-scale earthworks of the Iron
the belief that insights into past acts of enclosure might be Age (“hillforts”), it is by no means always obvious that the
gained from the study of the reasons for enclosing (or not siting and form of the “defences” were best placed to serve a
enclosing) in various present-day territories. purpose in preventing hostile persons or groups from entering.
When one speaks of enclosures in the prehistoric past, one Although controversial, the concept of the “required barrier”
is usually referring to a space, a piece of ground, surrounded (Bowden & McOmish in Scottish Archaeological Review 4,
by some feature that forms a barrier to movement. 1987, 76-84), that is, the construction of barriers as a matter
Typically this would be a ditch, or a bank, or both, though of habitus rather than for specifically defensive purposes,
a hedge or a line of trees might serve just as well. For it has found favour in the thinking of many archaeologists,
is not just a question of creating an impenetrable barrier however counter-intuitive it might seem. Hillforts are a
which physically prevents movement; it is at least as much special form of enclosure and they must be interpreted using
a question of defining and delimiting an area which is to a variety of approaches.
be regarded as in some manner separate or different, of What is important here is to specify the context of
creating an “inside” and an “outside”. So even a modest construction of enclosures. Causation is a difficult area in
physical barrier can represent a major change in attitude and prehistory; the understanding of agency in the creation of the
function, and convention (social, religious) can suffice to ancient past has rightly become an important preoccupation
prevent movement across it. Seen in this light, enclosures of many scholars, and it is in this field that future thinking is
can take on many forms, and it is by no means merely large- likely to be concentrated. Seen in this light, “explanations”
scale earthworks or walls that come into consideration. such as defence must be treated with caution. Only after
We should remember too that the delimiting of space could the specification of the context of construction can such a
also have been represented by archaeologically invisible function be regarded as likely.
elements, e.g. by an empty area, by surface structures, The authors of articles in this volume have, as is
by natural features, or even by separate, discontinuous natural, different approaches to this question. Some deal
elements. Searching for such “invisible delimiting” could primarily with conceptual issues, stressing the symbolical
be a theme on its own, perhaps philosophical or sociological aspects of enclosing; some concentrate on problems of the
rather than purely archaeological. archaeological identification of enclosures, demonstrating
Typically archaeologists have assumed that enclosures that a large number of bounded features may escape recording
were built for defensive purposes, that is, to keep people altogether. This is confirmed by detailed investigations
or wild animals out, and/or to protect what was inside from showing more complex linear structures within some
aggressive action (people, animals, food and other resources, settlement sites than previously presumed. Other authors
valuables). This was no doubt one important function that are mainly concerned to chart the rise and fall of enclosure
was served, but there is plenty of evidence to show that in particular periods or to display the history of individual
there were a number of other functions. Think of henge sites, enclosure types or regions. Attempts to view enclosure
monuments, for instance. The surrounding earthworks can as part of a wider field of study, in which deposition practices
be substantial, even massive; the interior is clearly defined and other “incidental” effects can be argued to be related to
and quite separate from the exterior; yet a defensive purpose site form and type – for instance, whether they were enclosed
seems unthinkable, mainly because a ditch lies inside the or unenclosed – form another approach. All authors agree
surrounding bank. A true defensive establishment would that enclosure was a major phenomenon in later European
place the ditch outside the bank, in order to serve as an prehistory from the point of view of landscape use or social
impediment to attackers. Furthermore, the internal features complexity. Most imagine that just as societies became
of henge monuments (rings of pits, posts or occasionally larger and more complex during the course of prehistory,
stones, sometimes graves) strongly suggest a non-domestic so enclosures became more variable over time. Some go
function for the sites. They were in all probability part of further, and believe that the functions of enclosures changed
a wider tradition that included other types of circular or too, even within a single period. It would be quite wrong,
near-circular sites, such as stone rings, or rings of posts however, to suppose that they developed in a straight line
found under Bronze Age burial mounds, in which what was from simple to complex; in fact the exact opposite might be
important was the concept of enclosed circular space, and true. Thus the functions of Neolithic enclosures were far
what happened inside was connected with the symbolic or from simple or straightforward, while those of the Iron Age
psychological sphere (“ritual”). Defence and protection may arguably have been connected with purposes that to our
can only have been a function insofar as there were mental modern eyes seem far more obvious.
barriers preventing unauthorised persons from entering the Specifying how enclosure relates to society, or at least
interior and participating in the habitual activities carried to social practice, is a recurring theme. One can argue, of
ix
course, that enclosure was a social practice, that it had more is evident, not only in the form of complex arrangements
to do with habitual action, the creation of what was expected, inside settlements, forts and oppida, but through large land
than with any particular function such as defence. Whether divisions that connect with major enclosed sites or hillforts
this enables one to detect correlations between the form of (and stockades on lower ground).
enclosure and the form of society is, however, doubtful. On This thumbnail sketch merely sets out the markers for
the other hand, some authors have found it useful to contrast what follows in this volume. Clearly there is no shortage
practices in enclosure (or non-enclosure) with practices in of material to study; what has to be done is to work out how
other aspects of life and death. People in Neolithic Europe best to undertake the study.
were active enclosers, sometimes (arguably) for defensive Most of the contributions in the volume are based on
reasons, sometimes for symbolic or ritual reasons; the act of papers read in the session “Enclosing the past: inside and
separation, of inside from outside, of us from them, of the outside in prehistory” organised by the present editors at
initiated from the uninitiated, could be seen as a metaphor the 7th Annual Meeting of the European Association of
for the fragmented, small-scale society that one imagines Archaeologists at Esslingen (Germany) in September 2001,
existed at that time; while the large-scale boundaries of the but some additional papers have been included, where they
Iron Age could be thought to reflect the scale of Iron Age present fresh data, ideas and approaches to the subject. The
society. That this is a false comparison can be seen from our papers in question are those by Chapman (and colleagues),
knowledge of the scale on which Neolithic and Eneolithic Kunst, and Podborský and Kovárník.
people built monuments. The construction of an Avebury The world of enclosure that this volume studies and
or a Stonehenge, the erection of the Carnac alignments or attempts to interpret was a very different one to the one
Le Grand Menhir Brisé, were colossal undertakings, and we inhabit today. It is essential, therefore, that we do not
though the societies were small the modes of organisation impose our modern ideas on this long-vanished world of the
were complex. past. Notions of defence in dealing with enclosure die hard;
“In the beginning”, as the Bible says, the world was we are perhaps too used to the idea of massive fortifications
undivided and unenclosed. It was humankind that began the built in order to exclude an enemy to remember that other
process of division of the world into separate spaces. To purposes are also served by enclosures. Our study of ancient
continue the biblical analogy: Paradise is a separate space, enclosure must therefore take place within a broad context
different from the rest of the world and no doubt marked by and using a range of methods. It is not only the outward
transition points. Heaven has Gates through which one must form of earthworks or ditches found by aerial survey that
pass. These are mental forms of division and enclosure, but we should study, important though these undoubtedly are.
they indicate something of the imagery that human beings It is also the nature of artefact creation, use and deposition,
utilise in their everyday thinking. the form of buildings, the use of space, and the nature of
In practice, we are confined to the real world around technology that all bear on the way society ordered and
us, and the real traces of ancient activity that constitute reproduced itself. Without an attempt to contextualise
the archaeological record. And so we must begin at the by making use of these and other factors, without getting
beginning. As far as we are aware, there are no enclosures away from a one-dimensional view of the past that looks
in the Palaeolithic anywhere in the world. Even in the at the sites themselves and ignores the world around, any
Mesolithic, there is little or no sign that people constructed interpretation of enclosure in a given period will merely be
enclosures of any but the simplest kind to surround their a modernistic imposition on the ancient data.
dwellings or activity areas. It is in the Neolithic and Eneolithic The creation of enclosures was a complex phenomenon
that we first see major enclosures developing, in the form of related both to the nature of societies, to the status and
defensive (?) sites such as some LBK settlements in central prestige of communities and individual members of them,
Europe, or Hambledon Hill in England, and with massive as well as to economic and ritual factors. We believe it is
earthworks like the rondels of central Europe and the henges unlikely that any one function, e.g. defence, was the only
of the west. Some of these themes were continued in the one at a given site or in a given period, or that any one
Bronze Age, though in general the landscape of that period is explanation can adequately account for the phenomenon of
less marked by the imposition of earthworks on the land than enclosing. The authors of these articles have attempted to
the preceding period; increasingly through the period there explore the complexity of enclosure in the ancient past, and
are enclosed settlements and the beginnings of regularised to indicate some possible ways in which its interpretation
fort building. In the Iron Age an increasing division of land can advance.
x