Abstract
The concept "henged mountain" refers to different archaeological categories of enclosure (hill-forts, enclosures and ceremonial enclosures) that have one thing in common; they all delimit a mountain top. This study focuses on the henged mountains of east central Sweden, taking its point of departure in the henges of eastern Södermanland. It is argued that the henges need to be understood as monuments with an influence over time. Instead of grouping henged mountains into separate categories divided by time, variation between areas is considered. The aim is to show that variations in the henge material express different ways of perceiving landscape and organising social life.
Highlights
The concept "henged mountain" refers to different archaeological categories of enclosure that have one thing in common; they all delimit a mountain top
In the course of this paper I will argue against the use of the term "hill-fort" and the different classes that have generated from it: enclosures (Sw. vctllctnläggning) and ceremonial enclosures (Sw. gravhägnad, i.e., enclosures containing graves [the English translation of these definitions is from Olausson 1995]).I will begin by introducing a Curren(Swedish Archaeotogy, Vot. 10, 2002
In contrast to the hillfort concept, the concept of henged mountain is intentionally heterogeneous and includes all structures defined as enclosures, ceremonial enclosures and hill-forts, and it is neither static, pure, clean or sharply defined
Summary
The concept "henged mountain" refers to different archaeological categories of enclosure (hill-forts, enclosures and ceremonial enclosures) that have one thing in common; they all delimit a mountain top. This study focuses on the henged mountains of east central Sweden, taking its point of departure in the henges of eastern Södermanland. Instead of grouping henged mountains into separate categories divided by time, variation between areas is considered. In this paper I intend to discuss the hill-forts of east central Sweden, concentrating on eastern Södermanland and Södertörn. Any regional or local variation in this material is impossible to discern. In my opinion this is one of the major stumbling-blocks within hill-fort research at present. In the course of this paper I will argue against the use of the term "hill-fort" and the different classes that have generated from it: enclosures (Sw. vctllctnläggning) and ceremonial enclosures (Sw. gravhägnad, i.e., enclosures containing graves [the English translation of these definitions is from Olausson 1995]).I will begin by introducing a Curren(Swedish Archaeotogy, Vot. 10, 2002
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
