Talk:Hillfort

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hillfort article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Fortifications / Technology / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Norse history and culture High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spelling

moved from Talk:Archaeology

Hillfort or Hill fort? I created the former not thinking to search for the pre-existing latter. Now I need to merge and also include a redirect from 'hill-fort'. Has anyone got strong feelings about the rendering? My (British) Dictionary of Archaeology and the EH Monument Class Descriptions Thesaurus say it should be one word (which was why I got stuck into Hillfort) but various other books of mine have it as two. Which one should be the 'homepage' heritage fans? adamsan 18:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

PS the hill fort entry has inconsistent spelling anyway so I'd like to get an idea of what the standard wikispelling should be. adamsan 18:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting one. All my instincts as an English speaker say "hill fort", yet somehow "hillfort" looks better. I suppose it comes down to a "hillfort" being a specific archaeological feature, whereas a "hill fort" could be any old fort on a hill. Er... does that help? Deb 21:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the prior existence of the article at hill fort, and the absence of even a redirect at hillfort, indicates weakly that the former spelling is the better one. On the other hand, a Google search for "hill fort" returned 42,000 hits, compared to 154,000 for "hillfort"; in addition, some of the hits for the two-word spelling were probably extaneous. P.S: The earlier article is quite Britain-centric. I know nothing about hillforts, so I can't help fix that problem. --Smack 22:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the entry is anglocentric, especialy considering how international the concept of a high-up, fortified site is. The spelling isn't a big issue and in the meantime, once the redirects are all setup, I shall try to contribute to making hill fort a bit more cosmopolitan adamsan 13:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)~[reply]

As the one who wrote the original hill fort article, I have to agree that it was Anglocentric. I blame that on my sources, & give my thanks to adamsan's article I have tried to lessen the bias towards Britain. (More contributions are always welcome.)

And FWIW, the Ordnance Survey's Field Archeology in Great Britain (5th ed., 1973) uses the form "hill-fort", although the captions of its illustrations use "hillfort". -- llywrch 01:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Shall this discussion be moved to talk:Hill fort? --Smack 04:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

moved adamsan 20:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather amused that you continue to add to the article at this location, considering that the preponderance of evidence seems to point to Hillfort as the preferable spelling. Note that your activity only complicates the situation, because if this page is turned into a redirect to Hillfort, its page history will be all but lost. --Smack 17:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Curses. I'd wrongly got it into my head that llywrch had merged it all into hill fort. As nobody was complaining and having just fought my first battle over inter alia, henge. I was happy to leave it at hill fort and work with that. So, do we move it or not? adamsan 18:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for moving it. --Smack 23:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one in the last 2 weeks has opposed the idea of making Hillfort into a redirect, I decided to be bold & do it. Hope no one gets too upset about it. -- llywrch 01:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do Motte and Bailey castles count as hillforts (or even hill forts) Neonchameleon

A motte and bailey has a man-made mound rather than being on a natural hill so I'd say it doesn't conform. Someone mentioned acropolises (acropoleis?) earlier though and I'm wondering if it's possible to differentiate between them, and citadels for that matter, and the hill fort. adamsan 22:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Splitting ?

I think this entry should be split according to independent geography and history into at least 4 entries:

new European_Hill_fort
new Indian_Hill_fort
Lithuanian hill forts reference to Piliakalnis
Maori hill forts reference to Pa (Māori)

Presumably this will be 2 copies, with renaming, then edit out the other text, finally replace the old page with a disambiguation entry for the new articles and the existing Lithuanian and Maori articles.

The Lithuanian forts seem to be distinct in their usage and history from the more general European Bronze and Iron Age forts, even if they share some previously occupied sites.

Anyone agree ? disagree ? care ? know how to do it ?

--Mikhailfranco 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Lithuania Piliakalnis holds all these meanings - not all (over 400) hill forths mentioned in the main article refer to the 12-15th century, rather about a half of them. There are also places of older settlements called that way.--Lokyz 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

While I put this merging on the backburner, someone has decided this article should be split. Whichever happens, I would hope that we could find a consistent solution for this as the Castro article even has a picture of a Scottish hillfort, which IMO infers that they are one and the same thing. I am for keeping all of the different types of hillforts in one article and for merging Castro (village) here. -Yupik 11:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Castro should be merged, under a Spain & Portgal section of the more general European Bronze/Iron age hill fort article. I also agree that Lithuanian Piliakalnis should be merged into the general European Bronze/Iron age hill fort article. The details of the later reoccupation in medieval times forms a natural part of the Lithuanian section, just as later reoccupations in Britain in response to Viking raids also deserves some attention. However, I still think the Indian and Maori articles should be split, because they are distinct in time and space, and few people would ever want to find out about the three types at once. I suggest we:

merge the Castro and Piliakalnis articles
see if the main article has become too large and confusing
then split if we think it's necessary

--Mikhailfranco 13:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging for now and then seeing if split comes natural. However I'd oppose splitting into articles on hill forts titled in each native language, Piliakalnis, Pilskalni, Grodzisko, Fornborg, Bryngaer and what not. --Lysy^talk 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have objections, although some regional and timeline separation would be useful IMO.--Lokyz 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems logical and see how it looks. Can always rethink it. - Ballista 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we do not want splits based on native language, but only for separate geographical and historical development. It appears that we agree on the merge of Castro and Piliakalnis. I have rearranged the article and made placeholders to show where the material will be inserted - let's do it ! --Mikhailfranco 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have completed the merges from Castro and Piliakalnis, and added a separate section for Ireland. --Mikhailfranco 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need more on Celtiberians, France, Germany and Central Europe, perhaps Italy. Just got Ralston's excellent book, see References --Mikhailfranco 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need to keep non-English language links consistent. We have grey (Lithuanian) prefix using a {lt icon} macro, and Spanish using [es] link. Not sure what the approved method is, but whatever it is, they should really be the same. --Mikhailfranco 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden

The information about the Swedish hill-forts are out of date, a lot =) New evidence suggests that the "fortifications" are from the megalith period (late stone age, early bronze age) and wehre not fortresses at all. The function was "cult", i.e. used to observe the stars of the night skys, moon and/or the suns movments. It's a bit like the walls around Stonehenge and similair structures.

If you can read Swedish you can go here (fornborgar) to read a bit about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.89.243.143 (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Lithuanian

i find the stated derivation of the lithuanian word very odd. why would lithuanian, a slavic language, take the roots of any words from english? moreover, i don't recognize either of those roots from modern, middle or old english. explanation please.Toyokuni3 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "Hill fort"?

My understanding (I'm no expert) of "hill fort" is that the term refers to a type of defensive earthwork, often inhabited, dating from a particular period of European history (or pre-history), used for defence of a community. It is does not include medieaval castles on hills, nor fortifications in other cultures, although the New Zealand pa is similar. Is this correct? If so, then we should say so and split other info into other articles, otherwise every castle or fortified town on a hill from Harlech to Krak des Chevaliers, perhaps including some WWII fortifications, would qualify Folks at 137 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my understanding of a hillfort (I'm no expert either), and I think this article should be strictly for the late Bronze and Iron Age fortifications. The New Zealand and Indian fortifications can go in the see also section. Nev1 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate reference

" Notes and Queries: a Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists. Oxford University Press. Page 299 " is not a proper ref: needs volume and page, or at least the year.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was added by 89.180.37.50 (talk · contribs) on 35 May 2008. A Google search suggests the incomplete citation refers to this, however because "cytian" is given only a passing mention I've removed it altogether. Better later than never? Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful sources

The articles in the following link look interesting and may be useful to anyone who wants to expand this article in the future. [1] Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Would anyone object to the article being moved to hillfort as opposed to hill fort? The former is far more common in archaeoogical literature. Nev1 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]