Massive Prehistoric Fort Emerges From Welsh Woods

[Uthred]

"Commanded by warrior chiefs who loomed over the everyday lives of their people, the massive Iron Age fortress once dominated the landscape."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081121-underground-fort.html

pretty damn cool.

 

[Ruthven]

Prehistoric? Fort?

DINOSAURS MADE FORTS?!?

 

[James]

Prehistory: no written record
Ethnohistory: some other culture wrote about them
History: they wrote about themselves.

 

[FrisianDude]

Pretty sweet. 

 

[War_B*stard]

Good find. It will be interesting to see what they dig up.
5.8-hectares? That's big, but still no Maiden Castle (now there's a hill fort).

Prehistory: no written record
Ethnohistory: some other culture wrote about them
History: they wrote about themselves.

You're forgetting Herstory, you chauvinist pig! 

 

[Ruthven]

Prehistory: no written record
Ethnohistory: some other culture wrote about them
History: they wrote about themselves.

I know, I just think of Dinosaurs when I hear the word prehistoric.

 

[Cirdan]

Once again, the unattractiveness of Wales is proven by the size of the things that can go unnoticed in there.

 

[Zilberfrid]

I think it aids in the attractiveness...

 

[Llew2]

I think it aids in the attractiveness...

Truly.

Very cool find.

 

[pentagathus]

Lol the title has given me an image of a ton of mud rising up through some a forest with screaming angry welshmen on it.

 

[vorudain]

Lol the title has given me an image of a ton of mud rising up through some a forest with screaming angry welshmen on it.

Oh my...that's the fort. Its remains. It's  prehistoric fort, what did you expect?

 

[Endre Fodstad]

I guess "massive prehistoric fort" sounds better than "hill fort".

...which is what it is.

 

[vorudain]

I guess "massive prehistoric fort" sounds better than "hill fort".

...which is what it is.

Well, it IS massive, and it's prehistoric.

Should we call it a "Massive prehistoric hill fort"?

 

[Endre Fodstad]

We could call it "Massive prehistoric previously parth-and-wooden-now-only-earth fortification remnants in rural area that was important in the iron age for some reason and might have been used as a shelter for population in times of trouble".

If you'd like.

It is just shorter and just as descriptive to call it "hill fort".

 

[vorudain]

We could call it "Massive prehistoric previously parth-and-wooden-now-only-earth fortification remnants in rural area that was important in the iron age for some reason and might have been used as a shelter for population in times of trouble".

If you'd like.

It is just shorter and just as descriptive to call it "hill fort".

Well, since the important thing is not the fact that it's on a hill, but the wide area it covers and the fact it's builders desappeared in the pages of history, I believe calling it hill fort is no way descriptive.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Except that "Hill Fort" is what historians and archaeologists have been calling that sort of a fortification in the english language for the last 50 years (possibly more)...whether describing scandinavian, italian or english hill forts...

 

[vorudain]

Except that "Hill Fort" is what historians and archaeologists have been calling that sort of a fortification in the english language for the last 50 years (possibly more)...whether describing scandinavian, italian or english hill forts...

But who the hell cares if it's a Hill fort? The news is that it has been built by a faction powerful enough to create such a fortification that huge, that has been blasted from history completely!

 

[Endre Fodstad]

We have just as big (or at least close to in size) hill forts in Norway from the migration period, the cultures "blasted" from history completely because they didn't leave any written evidence.

 

[vorudain]

Did you pay attention to the article? They don't even have a clue on who could have been the builders (oh, well, they have, but not enough to make a statement) and this means, that's, WOW, a Prehistorical Massive fort. The fact that the kind of fort is a Hill fort, is not the news.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Well, I DID notice that once you get past the first (typical media sensationalist-articling) headline, they keep calling it "hill fort".

And they have plenty of clues as to the builders: the site has yielded finds before, as early as 1871 they found this boar helmet crest (also mentioned in the article):

http://www.gtj.org.uk/storage/components/batch_1106/GTJ31679_1.jpg

(Nice!)

...which fits nicely with other finds of the same period. I suspect british archaeologists have a name for the culture associated with this type of finds. Only prudent that they wait a bit to see the result of excavations before they publicice it.They also probably have roman written sources om the tribe occupying the area at a point where they seem quite sure it was still in use (the Silures, perhaps?). Plus. of course, they have uncovered early medieval ramparts there as well.

Not that it isn't an interesting find, but it is a bit like finding a new viking age grave complex or medieval harbour area: very interesting, but not an amazing sensation.