Iron Age Hillfort Defences and the Tactics of Sling Warfare

Peter Robertson

• Publisher: Archaeopress
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781784914103
• eBook ISBN: 9781784914110
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

Was the purpose of an Iron Age hillfort to defend people and resources or was it there to show the power of the community and its leaders? Was the Middle Iron Age trend to large complex 'defences' a response to developing tactics of assault or did the huge amounts of construction work serve the purpose of building community identity through shared labour? The name 'hillfort' implies a defensive purpose, but in recent decades alternative interpretations have gained favour, based on analyses suggesting that hillforts are poorly suited to military purposes and on views of Iron Age society that emphasise the importance of boundaries, symbolic display and communitybuilding. Excavations of hillfort interiors reveal they were sites for many activities; large caches of stones suggest that sling warfare was one. This book reports an investigation of these issues. Sling accuracy at a hillfort was measured for the first time, in a controlled experiment comparing attack and defence across single and developed ramparts. Tactical scenarios modelled from the results showed that hillfort development gave defenders increased advantage. These results support defence as the explanation for the features of the enclosing works of hillforts. Full details of the method and analyses are included.

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Contents
• Copyright Information
• List of Figures
• Abstract
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• (from Cunliffe 2005, figure 15.1, 348; by kind permission of Barry Cunliffe).
• Figure 1. Distribution of Larger Hillforts in Southern Britain
• Chapter 2: Iron Age Hillfort Defences
• (reproduced by kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London, from Wheeler 1943, Plate CIV, A; © reserved).
• Figure 2. Hoard of 22260 Sling-stones at Maiden Castle
• (from Cunliffe 2005 figure 15.28: 389; by kind permission of Barry Cunliffe).
• Figure 3. Concentration of Hillfort Use in Middle and Later Iron Age
• (from Dyer 1981, figure 7: 41; by kind permission of Ann Boddy).
• Figure 4. Timber Box Rampart Constructions
• (from Dyer 1981, figure 8: 42; by kind permission of Ann Boddy).
• Figure 5. Glacis-style Rampart
• Figure 6. Stone Defences at Tre’r Ceiri.
• (from Fox, Quinnell and Rouillard 1987: 2; copyright Devon Archaeological Society).
• (from Weir 2013, by kind permission of Anthony Weir).
• Figure 7. Chevaux-de-Frise at Dun Aengus, Co. Galway
• Figure 8. Milber Down Multiple Enclosure Hillfort
• (from Cunliffe 2005 figure 15.12: 370; by kind permission of Barry Cunliffe).
• Figure 9. Three In-Turned Entrances
• Figure 10. Remains of Stone-Wall Entrance Passage at Maiden Castle, Swaledale.
• (from Cunliffe 2005, figure 15.13, 371; by kind permission of Barry Cunliffe).
• Figure 11. Five Developed Entrances
• (© Historic England).
• Figure 12. Maiden Castle, Dorset, Showing Multivallate Defences and the Western Entrance
• Figure 13. Rampart Kink Suggesting Blocked Entrance at Cadbury, Devon.
• (© Crown copyright. HE).
• Figure 14. Aerial Photograph of Hod Hill from the East
• (courtesy of David Stewart).
• Figure 15. Geophysical Survey of Hod Hill Interior
• (from Richmond 1968, figure 66; © The Trustees of the British Museum).
• Figure 16. Development of Hod Hill Defences
• (adapted from Richmond 1968, figure 65; © The Trustees of the British Museum).
• Figure 17. Section of Northern Defences of Hod Hill
• Figure 18. Enclosed Hilltop above Ramparts at Hambledon Hill.
• (from Hill 1996 figure 8.10: 110; by kind permission of JD Hill).
• Figure 19. The Orientation of 75 Hillfort Entrances in Southern England
• (from Harrison 2011; by kind permission of Alex Johnson).
• Chapter 3: The Sling and Sling Warfare
• Figure 20. Reproduction Plaited Sling
• (courtesy of Sami Taha, Biblical Artifacts, Jerusalem).
• (reproduced by kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London, from Wheeler 1943, Plate CIV, B; © reserved).
• Figure 21. Roman Biconical Shot
• Figure 22. Hoard of Sling-stones near Eastern Entrance of Maiden Castle
• (from Poole 1984, figure 7.44, 399; by kind permission of Cynthia Poole and Barry Cunliffe).
• Figure 23. Clay Shot from Danebury
• (from Mould et al. 2003, figure 1729: 3408;. © York Archaeological Trust).
• Figure 24. Leather Panels from Medieval York
• (courtesy of Jon Finney).
• Figure 25. Sling-Stone Trajectories Plotted against Hillfort Profiles
• (courtesy of Margaret Brown Vega).
• Figure 26. Peruvian Slinger in Trials Reported by Brown Vega and Craig (2009)
• (from Cichorius 1896, Plate XLVII).
• Figure 27. Roman Auxiliary Slinger on Trajan’s Column
• Chapter 4: Background to the Experiment
• Figure 28. High Dump Glacis Rampart at Hambledon Hill.
• (courtesy of Jon Finney).
• Figure 29. Sling-stone Trajectories Plotted against the Northern Defences of Hod Hill
• Chapter 5: The Experiment
• (map created using OS VectorMap® Local, reproduced under OS Open Data Licence).
• Figure 30. Location Map for Hod Hill
• (© Historic England).
• Figure 31. Aerial View of Hod Hill from the West; Experiment Site is Bottom-Left
• Figure 32. Inner Rampart and Ditch of Hod Hill, Seen from Outer Rampart.
• (plan created using OS VectorMap® Local, reproduced under OS Open Data Licence).
• Figure 33. Plan of North-West Section of Hod Hill, Showing Slinging Lines
• (vertical scale exaggerated).
• Figure 35. Bivallate Profile and Slinging Positions
• Figure 36. Repeated Measures Experimental Design.
• Figure 37. Andean Sling.
• Figure 38. Modern Sling Similar to One Used in the Experiment.
• Figure 39. Staff Sling.
• Figure 40. Selection of Sling-stones.
• Figure 41. Comparison of Air-Dried Clay (Bottom Row) and Other Types of Shot.
• Figure 42. Target (metre rule on left).
• Figure 43. Target on Inner Face of Outer Rampart, Guyed Upright.
• Figure 44. Overall Slinging Results by Participant.
• Figure 45. Sling-stone Holes in Medium-Density Target.
• Figure 46. Table of Abbreviations Used in Results Charts.
• Figure 47. Legend for Results Charts.
• Figure 48. Average Hit Rates by Condition (percentages).
• Figure 49. Overall Hits by Position, All Participants.
• Figure 50. Time for Six Casts, by Participant and Position.
• Figure 51. Univallate Hit Rates, All Participants.
• Figure 52. Bivallate Hit Rates, All Participants.
• Figure 53. Defending Hit Rates, Participant 1-1D.
• Figure 54. Attacking Hit Rates, Participant 1-1D.
• Figure 55. Probability of Hit on Inner Target versus Distance, All Participants.
• Figure 56. Probability of Total Hits versus Distance, All Participants.
• Figure 57. Probability of Total Hits versus Distance, Participant 1-1D.
• Figure 58. Statistical Significance Summary from ANOVA.
• Figure 60. Individual Hits for Scenario 1.
• Figure 61. Defensive Advantage, Shown as Ratio and Difference in Hits per Man, for Scenario 1.
• Figure 62. Hits per Individual in Grouped Attack and Defence.
• Figure 63. Probability of Attacker Reaching Hand-to-Hand Combat for Three Speed-Tactic Combinations (Defensive Strength Constant).
• for Three Speed-Tactic Combinations, Including Effect of Attacking Shots.
• Figure 64. Probability of Attacker Reaching Hand-to-Hand Combat Distance
• Figure 65. Probability of Attacker Reaching Hand-to-Hand Combat for Selected Slinging Effectiveness Values.
• Figure 66. Results of Barrages.
• Figure 67. Numbers of Attackers or Defenders Left Standing for 24 Rounds of Slinging, for Three Levels of Effectiveness.
• (from Dixon 1994, ill. 185; by kind permission of Philip Dixon).
• Figure 68. Phase 3b Entrance at Crickley Hill
• Chapter 6: Discussion
• Figure 69. Southern Defences of Maiden Castle, Swaledale.
• Chapter 7: Conclusions
• Appendix A: Procedure Exhibits AND Experiment Equipment Procedure Exhibits
• Figure 70. The Target Represented a Group of Opponents.
• Figure 71. Clay Shot Broken by Impact on Target.
• Figure 72. Hole in Net Caused by Sling-stone.
• Figure 73. Sling-stone Having Penetrated Cardboard and Foam.
• Appendix B: Experiment Results and Data Analyses
• Figure 74. Participant Data.
• Figure 75. Raw Data for Participants 1-6.
• Figure 76. Raw Data for Participants 1A-1D and 7.
• Figure 77. ANOVA for ‘Same on the Ground’ Positions.
• Figure 78. ANOVA for ‘Relative to Defenders’ Positions.
• Figure 79. Details for Same on the Ground Analysis (5-Part Figure).
• Figure 80. Details for Relative to Defenders Analysis (5-Part Figure).
• Figure 81. Exposure Times of Attackers
• by Area of the Defences (seconds).
• Figure 82. Hits by Position, All Participants.
• Figure 83. Hits by Position, Participant 1-1D.
• Figure 84. Average Time for Six Casts by Position (seconds).
• Figure 85. Results of Effective Range Informal Trial.
• Figure 86. Effective Range Compared to Finney (2006).
• Figure 87. Probability of Attacker or Defender Being Hit at Least Once.
• Figure 88. Probability of Attacker Reaching Hand-to-Hand Distance.
• Figure 89. Effect of Reinforcing Outnumbered Defenders at Various Intervals.
• Bibliography
• Back Cover