Danebury Danebury is an Iron Age hill fort in Hampshire in England , about north - west of Winchester ( ) . The site , covering , was excavated by Barry Cunliffe in the 1970s . Danebury is considered a type - site for hill forts , and was important in developing the understanding of hill forts , as very few others have been so intensively excavated . Built in the 6th century BC , the fort was in use for almost 500 years , during a period when the number of hill forts in Wessex greatly increased . Danebury was remodelled several times , making it more complex and resulting in it becoming a " developed " hill fort . It is now protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument , a Site of Special Scientific Interest . and a Local Nature Reserve . Investigation . Until the 19th century very little was known about hill fort s , as none had been excavated and their original purpose had been long forgotten . In the medieval period , their construction was attributed variously to iconic figures such as King Arthur , King Alfred , the Danes , Julius Caesar , and even giants . By the 18th century , it was widely thought that hill forts were Roman in origin . Interest in hill forts was roused by the investigation of a hill fort at Worlebury Hill in the early - 19th century . The first excavation at Danebury was carried out in November 1859 , under antiquarian Augustus Wollaston Franks . His workers cleared out an Iron Age pit that was deep and in diameter , although they were not able to ascertain its purpose . The first widespread investigation of hill forts was carried out in the second half of the 19th century under Augustus Pitt - Rivers . Pitt - River ' s work on the hill forts of Sussex led him to the conclusion that most hill forts were built in the Iron Age , and it paved the way for future work on hill forts . In the 1920s and 1930s , there was " hill fort mania " in British archaeology ; by 1940 , about 80 had been archaeologically excavated . In the late 1960s , Barry Cunliffe decided to examine a single hill fort and its surrounding territory in an attempt to shed light on Iron Age society , its politics , and population . With the permission of the site ' s owner , Hampshire County Council , archaeological excavations began in 1969 and continued until 1988 . Over the twenty seasons archaeologists spent examining the site , they looked at the defences and the gateway , and excavated 57 % of the interior , where the remains of wattle and timber houses were discovered . It was the lengthiest investigation of any hill fort in western Europe . A further non - invasive survey was carried out in 1997 , as part of the Wessex Hillforts Project , using a magnetometer . History . There is no historical record of events in Iron Age Britain , so archaeological investigation is the only way to reconstruct the history of Danebury , and other such hill forts . It is impossible to state with certainty every significant event in the hill fort ’ s history , but where an event leaves an archaeologically identifiable trace , a general chronology can be established , although dates are much less easy to establish . The hill fort was occupied from the mid - 6th century BC until around 100 BC , and the defences were remodelled numerous times . Early in its life the site consisted of a single ditch encompassing an area of about , with two gateways , one in the south - west and another in the east ; two more rings of ditches were added later . The north part of the fort was occupied by four - post structures , probably granaries , which were later replaced by storage pits , and in the south part , there were roundhouses in between granaries and storage pits . When Danebury was built in the 6th century BC , it coincided with the construction of several other hillforts in the Wessex region , all of a similar size and layout . The first phase of defences dates from around 550 BC , and consists of a rampart behind a ditch . When the ditch was cut , the chalk rubble fill was used to build the rampart , along with some of the local clay soil . The material was contained by timber , making it a box rampart with a vertical face . The east gateway was a simple wide gap in the defences with a timber gatehouse ( the south - west gateway has not been excavated ) . At least 50 years after the rampart was first built , it was raised with the addition of more chalk material ; this has been interpreted as maintenance work due to the ramparts beginning to collapse as the timber box started to rot . Around the same time the ramparts were altered , the east gateway was widened to . The gates were burnt down not long after the east gateway was altered . For a short time the hill fort was gateless , when the east gateway was repaired the passage from the entrance was lengthened . In around 400 BC the third phase heightened the rampart and at the same time the ditch was re - dug . The V - shaped ditch was deep and between and wide ; the size of the previous ditch is unknown as re - cutting the ditch has made it hard to ascertain . The wooden box was abandoned in favour of allowing the rampart to slope down to the ditch , but to provide protection the rampart would probably have been surmounted by a dry stone wall made from flint . From the top of the ramparts to the bottom of the ditch is about . Although the rampart and ditch were in use for a long time , during this period the east gateway was remodelled twice , making it longer , and creating earthwork s on each side of the approach . The south - west gateway was given extra defences in the form of earthworks before being abandoned and filled in . Also in this period , the southern part of the fort became populated with four - and six - post structures , probably granaries , replacing the earlier roundhouses . The fort ' s centre was probably used for shrines while houses were mainly built close to the ramparts . A new series of earthworks was created beyond the already existing ring , turning Danebury into a complex multivallate ( more than one series of earthworks ) fort . They added to the fort and probably were used to protect livestock . Danebury was abandoned around 100 BC , in common with the trend across Britain for hill forts to fall out of use around that time . Once again , the east gate was burnt down , although this time it was not replaced . Most of the inhabitants deserted Danebury , and groups of bodies were disposed of in charnel pits . The site continued in use , but on a much smaller scale than before . Buildings were left to decay and the interior of the fort became used for grazing . By the start of the 1st century AD , the settlement of Danebury was probably nothing more than a single farm . Interpretation . Danebury Hill , on top of which the hill fort sits , rises to . The hill fort dominates the local landscape , which rarely rises above , and has commanding views of the area . The surrounding country has light soil that would have been easily cultivated . Territory commanded by Danebury included areas of forest , pasture in the uplands , and access to water sources in the form of the River Test . To the west runs Wallop Brook which flows south east into the River Test . The nearby hill forts of Figsbury Ring , Quarley Hill , and Bury Hill were probably established around the same time as Danebury . All of a similar size , the hillforts were generally equally spaced , commanding similar sized territories and resources . There is some debate whether hill forts were purely defensive structures , and to what extent they were occupied . Cunliffe interprets the ramparts as essentially defensive , although he concedes that they may have been a means of displaying wealth and power , as Danebury would have been visible for miles around . The ramparts were the strongest part of the fort , with the entrances the weakest . The complex gateways support the view that the site was militaristic ; the long , curving east entrance maximised the time it would have taken for attackers to enter the fort and would have allowed defenders on the ramparts more time to hurl missiles , while the south - west entrance narrowed forcing attackers together and causing disarray . Iron Age society was , in Cunliffe ' s view , " effervescent . . . essentially unstable , and prone to conflict " , and he uses the possible military nature of hill forts to support this view . The burning of the gates was probably the result of an attack , and the charnel pits dating from the end of the intense period of Danebury ' s occupation contain about 100 bodies , many with injuries that appear to have been inflicted by weapons such as spears and swords . Surrounding Danebury hill fort are many smaller farmsteads , between and in size . The fort was supplied with grain from the surrounding farmsteads , and could hold 20 times more food than the average farmstead , indicating Danebury had a higher status than local farmsteads . This is further supported by the fact that the hill fort was used as a " central place " where people could gather to trade and store commodities . Periods of intensified activity in hill forts such as Danebury coinciding with depopulation of the surrounding landscape could indicate the increasing importance of hill forts in society , or that there were times of unrest when people would retreat to the relative safety of a hill fort ' s ramparts . While other hill forts were abandoned in the 4th century BC , in about 400 BC Danebury grew into what is known as a " developed hill fort " . Danebury ' s importance in the landscape increased over time , as demonstrated by its continued use until around 100 AD . It was possibly inhabited by a king or chieftain and his family , retinue , and craftsmen , and may have housed a population of 200 – 350 . There are traces of craft and industry on a large scale , and use of the site by a social elite is indicated by the presence of shrines in the centre of the fort .