Editing Maiden Castle, Dorset (section)

==First hill fort==
[[File:Aerial photograph of Maiden Castle, 1935.jpg|thumb|The white line across the hill fort where the ramparts deviate inwards marks the extent of the early fort. Photograph taken in 1935 by Major [[George W. G. Allen|George Allen]] (1891–1940).]]
Hill forts developed in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, roughly the start of the [[1st millennium BC|first millennium&nbsp;BC]].<ref>Payne, Corney, & Cunliffe (2007), p.&nbsp;1.</ref> The reason for their emergence in Britain, and their purpose, has been a subject of debate. It has been argued that they could have been defensive sites constructed in response to invasion from continental Europe, built by invaders, or a military reaction to social tensions caused by an increasing population and resulting pressure on agriculture.

Since the 1960s, the dominant view has been that the increasing use of iron led to social changes in Britain. Deposits of iron ore were located in different places to the tin and copper ore necessary to make bronze. As a result, trading patterns shifted, and the old elites lost their economic and social status. Power passed into the hands of a new group of people.<ref>Sharples (1991a), pp.&nbsp;71–72.</ref>

Archaeologist [[Barry Cunliffe]] believes that population increase still played a role and has stated that 
<blockquote>[the forts] provided defensive possibilities for the community at those times when the stress [of an increasing population] burst out into open warfare. But I wouldn't see them as having been built because there was a state of war. They would be functional as defensive strongholds when there were tensions and undoubtedly some of them were attacked and destroyed, but this was not the only, or even the most significant, factor in their construction.<ref>{{citation |url=http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/T/timeteam/2008/swords/swords-found.html |title=Time Team: Swords, skulls and strongholds |publisher=[[Channel 4]] |date=2008-05-19 |access-date=2009-06-16}}</ref></blockquote>

There are around 31&nbsp;hill forts in Dorset; archaeologist Sharples, who undertook excavations at Maiden Castle, proposed that hill forts were used to control agricultural land to support a large community. Those in Dorset were situated near expanses of fertile land. Monumental defences such as the ditch at Maiden Castle indicate that the land was disputed and communities fought each other for control.<ref>Sharples (1991a), pp.&nbsp;76,&nbsp;82.</ref> This is supported by Cunliffe, who argues that the elaborate earthworks such as those around the entrances to Maiden Castle and [[Danebury]] were used to defend the weakest part of the hill fort. They increased the time the attackers took to reach the gateway, which would have left them vulnerable to defenders armed with [[Sling (weapon)|slings]]. Hoards of carefully selected sling stones have been found at both sites.<ref>Cunliffe (2000), pp.&nbsp;92–93.</ref><ref>Sharples (1991a), p.&nbsp;111.</ref>

[[File:Maiden-castle-SY669884.png|left|upright=1.4|thumb|Maiden Castle [[LIDAR]] topography]]

Constructed on a territorial boundary in about 600&nbsp;BC, the first hill fort at Maiden Castle was a {{cvt|6.4|ha|adj=on}} area surrounded by a single ditch.<ref name="Sharples 72">Sharples (1991a), pp.&nbsp;15,&nbsp;72.</ref> The hill it sits on is part of a ridge on the north side of the South Winterborne valley, which feeds the [[River Frome, Dorset|River Frome]]. At the eastern end of the ridge and rising {{cvt|132|m|ft}} above sea level, the site of the first hill fort was not the highest point along the ridge. The highest point is the neighbouring Hog Hill, which is only {{cvt|1|m|ft}} higher.<ref>Sharples (1991a), p.&nbsp;31.</ref> The hill [[Topographic prominence|projects]] about {{cvt|40|m|ft|0}} above the surrounding countryside, which is about {{cvt|90|m|ft|0}} above sea level.<ref>Sharples (1991b), p.&nbsp;13.</ref> The defences were {{cvt|8.4|m|ft}} high and consisted of the V-shaped ditch and a rampart.<ref name="Sharples 72"/> The rampart would probably have been timber-faced around just the entrances. Elaborate timber facing would have been used to impress visitors.<ref>Sharples (1991a), p.&nbsp;74.</ref> The site could be accessed by an entrance in the northwest and a double entrance in the east. The double entrance is unique in hill forts in the British Isles. The reason for a double entrance is unclear; however, archaeologist Niall Sharples has suggested that it was a form of segregation. It is likely that several farming communities lived in the hill fort and wanted different entrances.<ref name="Sharples 72"/>

The defences of the first hill fort were rebuilt on at least one occasion; the ditch was deepened by {{cvt|1.5|to|7|m|ft}}. The [[Earthworks (engineering)|spoil]] from re-digging the ditch was deposited on the back of the rampart. At the same time, the defences around the eastern entrances were made more complex. A bank and ditch were built outside the two entrances, and a bank was erected between them. The bank had a wall faced with limestone, which was brought from more than {{cvt|3|km|mi|0}} away. Sharples believes this would have created an impressive entrance and was a demonstration of the settlement's high status.<ref>Sharples (1991a), p.&nbsp;76.</ref> The Early Iron Age archaeology has been largely destroyed due to later activity on the site. However, nearby [[Poundbury]] and [[Chalbury Hill Fort|Chalbury]] date to the same period, so through comparison it is possible to infer the Early Iron Age activity at Maiden Castle.<ref name="Sharples 79">Sharples (1991a), p.&nbsp;79.</ref> From parallels at these sites, Sharples deduces that it was probably densely occupied, with separate areas for habitation and storage.<ref name="Sharples 79"/> Not much is known about the [[Archaeological culture|material culture]] and economy of the Early Iron Age, and the paucity of finds from this period at Maiden Castle makes it difficult to draw conclusions about activity on the site.<ref>Sharples (1991a), pp.&nbsp;81–82.</ref>