Bogucki P., Crabtree P. Ancient Europe 8000 B.C.-A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World. Volume 2

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

town, on which he built the “small camp,” linked

with the large one by a double ditch, or “duplex”

(Caesar’s use of the word “duplex” has been inter-

preted by some scholars to mean two parallel ditch-

es separated by a pathway, and by other scholars as

two ditches on the side facing the enemy protecting

the route). Rather than attempt a siege, Caesar

launched an attack; though his troops overran the

outer wall, attacked the gates, and even mounted

the town wall, they were forced to retreat, the only

defeat Caesar suffered in the ﬁeld. It led to a general

revolt among the Gauls, and but for a tactical mis-

take by Vercingetorix, leading to the siege at Alesia,

the Romans might well have been forced to retreat

from Gaul. The battle of Gergovia had almost

changed the course of the history of the Western

world.

As early as the sixteenth century the Italian car-

tographer Gabriele Simeoni located Gergovia on

the Plateau de Merdogne just south of Clermont-

Ferrand. On the summit there are traces of a ram-

part enclosing the 75-hectare plateau, with traces of

stone buildings, pottery, and Gallic coins. In the

1860s, as part of Napoleon III’s research project to

identify the sites in Caesar’s De bello Gallico, Colo-

nel Eugène Stoffel carried out excavations to locate

Caesar’s siege works. He claimed to have found

Caesar’s large camp on the Serre d’Orcet and the

small camp on a hill overlooking the village of La

Roche Blanche, as well as lengths of the double

ditch. The plan prepared by Napoleon III for his

Histoire de Jules César (1865–1866), based on Stof-

fel’s excavations, has illustrated almost every edition

of Caesar’s De bello Gallico since. At a visit by Napo-

leon III, the village of Merdogne ofﬁcially changed

its name to Gergovie. Unfortunately, the ﬁnds from

the excavations have been mixed inextricably with

those from Alise-Ste-Reine, and no details of Stof-

fel’s excavations were published. The ditches of the

large camp were conﬁrmed by excavations in the

1930s conducted by M.-M. Gorce, but his report is

fairly schematic and produced no datable ﬁnds.

Scientiﬁc excavations on the plateau itself be-

tween 1932 and 1949 showed that it had been

densely occupied in the second half of the ﬁrst cen-

tury

B.C. and abandoned about 10 B.C. for the new

town of Augustonemeton beneath modern Cler-

mont-Ferrand. Only a double stone temple of

Gallo-Roman type continued in later use. The exca-

vations located a sequence of small industrial stone

buildings on the southern side of the oppidum,

where the gateway attacked by the Romans proba-

bly lay. A second gate of mortared masonry was

found in the southwest corner of the site. The ram-

parts, still visible on the southern and western ﬂanks

of the oppidum, consist of a dry-stone wall, to whose

rear stone buttresses have been added; in front there

is a terrace 12.5 meters wide, producing a vertical

face some 3 meters high. Nothing, however, dated

to the period of the Caesar’s attack in 52

B.C.

Several other sites have been suggested, most

notably the site of the Côtes-de-Clermont, a vol-

canic plateau to the north of Clermont-Ferrand

with Iron Age occupation as well as a Roman temple

and settlement. Several books, including a detailed

analysis of Caesar’s text, have been published, pro-

moting this alternative site. Excavations by Vincent

Guichard from 1992 show that the Iron Age occu-

pation is too early for the period of Caesar, and the

claimed “defenses” are part of post-medieval ﬁeld

terracing. The supposed Roman structures on

Chanturgue (the “small fort”) also are more recent

ﬁeld boundaries, and the layout of the town of

Montferrand (the “large camp”) relate to the medi-

eval planned town, not a Roman fort.

Changes in the dating of Late Iron Age ﬁnds

also mean that some from the traditional site can be

dated to the middle of the ﬁrst century. Excavations

elsewhere, however, show that there was a succes-

sion of sites predating the foundation of Gergovie:

an open settlement at Aulnat (second century

B.C.),

followed by the oppida of Corent (c. 120–80

B.C.)

and Gondole (c. 80–70

B.C.). Thus, the Greek writ-

er Strabo’s statement that Vercingetorix was born at

Gergovia is unsupported. Ongoing excavations

show that the history of the rampart on Gergovie is

more complex than was assumed, with a Late

Bronze Age or Early Iron Age rampart preceding

the stone wall; the buttresses represent an Augustan

reconstruction. Guichard’s excavations on the

“forts” excavated by Stoffel have conﬁrmed the

ditches, with ﬁnds typical of the middle of the ﬁrst

century

B.C. as well as Roman military equipment

(stone ballista balls, iron catapult points). The Lac

de Sarliève, which Caesar’s large camp overlooks,

has been shown by recent excavations to be a post-

Roman phenomenon, which accounts for Caesar’s

6: THE EUROPEAN IRON AGE, C. 800 B.C.– A.D. 400

220

ANCIENT EUROPE

not mentioning it. The traditional site thus can be

accepted as Gergovia.

See also Warfare and Conquest (vol. 1, part 1); Oppida

(vol. 2, part 6).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brogan, Olwen, and Émile Desforges. “Gergovia.” Archaeo-

logical Journal 97 (1940): 1–36.

Chatelet, P., and H. Chatelet. “Eugène Georges Céleste

Stoffel, 1821–1907.” Association site de Gergovie 14

(1997): 5–20.

Deberge, Yann, and Vincent Guichard. “Nouvelles recher-

ches sur les travaux Césariens devant Gergovie (1995–

1999).” Revue archéologique du centre de la France 39

(2000): 83–112.

Eychart, Paul. La bataille de Gergovie (Printemps 52 av.

J.C.): Les faits archéologiques, le sites, le faux historique.

Nonette, France: Editions Créer, 1987.

Gorce, M.-M. César devant Gergovie. Tunis, Paris: Editions

Le Minaret, 1942.

Holmes, Thomas Rice Edward. Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul.

London: Macmillan, 1899.

Napoléon III. Histoire de Jules César. 3 vols. Paris: Plon,

1865–1866.

Provost, Michel, and Christine Mennessier–Jouannet. Le

Puy–de–Dôme, pp. 33–44, 266–291. Carte ar-

chéologique de la Gaule Series 63/2. Paris: Fondation

Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1994.

Texier, Yves. La question de Gergovie: Essai sur un problème

de localisation. Vol. 251. Brussels: Collection Latomus,

1999.

OHN COLLIS

GERGOVIA

ANCIENT EUROPE

221

THE EUROPEAN IRON AGE, C. 800 B.C.– A.D. 400

IRON AGE BRITAIN

■

FOLLOWED BY FEATURE ESSAY ON:

Danebury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

■

Iron Age Britain is conventionally deﬁned as the pe-

riod from the ﬁrst use of iron, c. 750

B.C., to the

Roman conquest, which began in southeastern En-

gland in

A.D. 43. It is known almost entirely

through archaeological evidence. Though the exis-

tence of Britain was known to the Classical world,

it was on the very margin of its knowledge, and

most of the classical authors provide little detailed

evidence. They regarded the inhabitants of Britain

as a separate people from those of Gaul, though

they recognized cultural similarities. Julius Caesar

was an eyewitness during his invasions of 55 and 54

B.C., and his account is valuable for the parts of

southeastern England he visited. The archaeological

record is dominated by evidence of domestic settle-

ments, of which several thousand are known, but

there is little evidence for burials or ceremonial

monuments.

The Iron Age is divided into Early (c. 750 to

300

B.C.), Middle (c. 300 to 100 B.C.), and Late (c.

100

B.C. to the Roman conquest) phases. This

scheme is best suited to southeastern England, and

elsewhere a simpler division into Earlier (to 300

B.C.) and Later (after 300 B.C.) is more appropriate.

AGRICULTURE AND SUBSISTENCE

Most people in Iron Age Britain were engaged in

agriculture, and agriculture was the main source of

food. Some coastal sites exploited ﬁsh and other

marine resources, but wild animals were elsewhere

a minimal part of the diet, though some wild plant

resources may have been more widely exploited.

The landscape of Iron Age Britain, however, had

been subjected to more than three thousand years

of farming and human over-exploitation had begun

to take its toll. Added to this was a long-term cli-

matic deterioration: the warmer and drier condi-

tions of the Bronze Age gave way to a cooler and

wetter climate. The combination of human activity

and climatic change made some marginal environ-

ments, especially upland and moorland areas, in-

creasingly hostile to agriculture. Thus, more em-

phasis was placed on the lower and more sustainable

regions.

Iron Age agriculture involved an increasingly

complex strategy for the management of plant and

animal resources. The annual cycle of the seasons

dominated the rhythms of everyday life, and the

critical episodes of sowing and harvesting posed a

demand for the maximum labor force. Important

changes in the agricultural economy had begun in

the Bronze Age and continued throughout the Iron

Age. The landscape was increasingly organized and

divided, with ﬁeld systems and other boundaries be-

coming more common; this organization may have

had a functional role in managing crops and ani-

222

ANCIENT EUROPE

mals, but it also may have marked the beginning of

more strictly deﬁned rights to the use of land. New

crops were introduced; emmer wheat was replaced

by spelt, and naked barley by hulled barley. By the

end of the Iron Age, bread wheat was also common,

probably associated with an expansion of farming

into areas of heavier soils. As well as wheat and bar-

ley, other crops included peas, beans, and ﬂax.

There were fewer changes in animal-rearing

strategies, and most sites have produced evidence

for the three main domesticates: cattle, sheep, and

pigs. Dogs, horses, and domestic fowl were also

kept. Pigs were kept for meat and were killed when

they had achieved maximum body weight. Sheep

provided meat and milk, but many were kept for

longer periods as a source of wool and manure. In

the case of cattle, the costs of keeping and feeding

them beyond the point where they produced the

best meat had to be balanced against their value as

a source of milk, leather, and motive power for trac-

tion. Actual strategies varied regionally: in southern

England, sheep were valued for their manure to

support cereal production, while in other regions

pigs were more suited to the local environment.

Most agricultural production was for local con-

sumption. Storage of food, as well as seed for the

next year, was important, and many sites show evi-

dence of storage in pits or aboveground structures.

Salt production became increasingly important,

from both seawater and inland mineral sources. It

played a major part in the preservation and storage

of food, which may have permitted trade in food-

stuffs.

Much less is known about how such agricultural

produce was transformed into food for consump-

tion. Cereal crops were carefully processed, and the

grain ground with querns (grinding stones); a sig-

niﬁcant technological advance was marked by the

introduction of rotary querns in the middle of the

Iron Age. Initially, the only method of cooking was

over an open hearth, but the development of the

closed clay oven in the Middle Iron Age offered a

wider range of possibilities. There is little evidence

for a change of diet throughout the Iron Age, but

by the end of the period some sites showed a domi-

nance of pig similar to the pattern found in conti-

nental Europe. At the same time, Mediterranean

commodities, including wine and olive oil, were

being imported.

SETTLEMENT AND DOMESTIC SPACE

Evidence for settlements is plentiful, but quite var-

ied regionally. One common theme is the presence

of roundhouses, up to 15 meters in diameter,

though not all such structures may have been used

as domestic residences (ﬁg. 1). The houses had a

single entrance, orientated toward the east or south-

east, for ideological or cosmological reasons rather

than for functional purposes. They were mostly

built of timber, with wattle-and-daub walls and

thatched roofs, though where good building stone

was available, this was used for the walls. Regional

variations occurred, especially in the later Iron Age:

in Cornwall, courtyard houses were grouped

around a central open space, and in northern and

western Scotland the basic roundhouse plan was

elaborated into a stone tower, or broch.

The typical settlement may have contained an-

cillary structures such as pits and barns in addition

to the roundhouses. The sites were sometimes open

but often enclosed with a wall or bank and ditch.

Isolated settlements of a single household were

common, but they could be clustered into larger

groups. In eastern England in the Middle and Late

Iron Age, larger nucleated clusters of houses were

common. In parts of northern Scotland, brochs

were surrounded by smaller houses to make villages.

The reasons for these complex variations in settle-

ment type remain unexplained. Though settlements

were mostly stable and permanently occupied, other

sites may have been seasonally occupied for fairs, the

extraction and processing of raw materials, or for

seasonal grazing.

The most prominent of Iron Age settlements

were the hillforts, often very large and elaborately

defended enclosures. They were built in different

parts of Britain at different periods, and in some re-

gions they are rare or even nonexistent. The earliest

were built in the Late Bronze Age, while in south-

eastern England they all belong to the Late Iron

Age. Hillforts certainly had many different func-

tions: some were densely occupied, while others

show little evidence of permanent or large-scale oc-

cupation and may have been for other purposes

such as ceremonial gatherings or temporary refuges.

Much attention has been paid to the hillforts of

southern central England, especially Danebury in

Hampshire and Maiden Castle in Dorset. Many hill-

forts were built in this region in the sixth and ﬁfth

IRON AGE BRITAIN

ANCIENT EUROPE

223

Fig. 1. Demonstration area at Butser Ancient Farm in the wintertime. © BUTSER ANCIENT FARM. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION.

centuries B.C. and show evidence of dense and orga-

nized occupation. From the fourth century, howev-

er, many were abandoned, while others continued,

often enlarged or provided with more elaborate and

impressive defenses. These developed hillforts are

interpreted as a sign of increasing centralization of

political and economic control, but the sequence in

this region is not typical of Britain as a whole.

In the Late Iron Age, a new type of site ap-

peared in southeastern England. These are called

oppida (oppidum—the singular form—is the Latin

term for town, used by Caesar to refer to similar

sites in France). They are large sites, often enclosed

with complex earthworks; many were in river-valley

locations, and some, such as Verulamium (later St.

Albans) and Camulodunum (Colchester), were suc-

ceeded by Roman towns. The Iron Age sites con-

tained areas for settlement, craft production, ritual

activity, and burial. In some cases, especially at Col-

chester, the evidence suggests the residence and

burial site of a royal elite.

TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTION

The production and distribution of manufactured

goods became more complex and more specialized

during the Iron Age, though with considerable re-

gional variation. There is little evidence of work-

shops or other places of manufacture, and most of

the evidence comes from the ﬁnished items them-

selves or the tools used to make them. New technol-

ogies were developed: as well as iron, the manufac-

ture and working of glass for beads, bracelets, and

enamel inlays was perfected by the end of the peri-

od. New uses were also found for existing technolo-

gies: rotary motion was adapted for use in wood

lathes, pottery wheels, and rotary querns for grind-

ing grain. Pyrotechnology was also improved: fur-

naces for smelting iron and ovens for cooking are

well documented, and it is possible that pottery

kilns were also used by the end of the Iron Age.

Though ﬂint was still used expediently for small

tools, and bronze for sheet-metal items and cast or-

naments, iron largely replaced them as the basic ma-

terial for tools and weapons. Iron ores suitable for

6: THE EUROPEAN IRON AGE, C. 800 B.C.– A.D. 400

224

ANCIENT EUROPE

smelting with the available technology were wide-

spread throughout Britain, which was a major factor

in its adoption. Until the Late Middle Ages in Eu-

rope, furnaces were unable to produce a tempera-

ture high enough to melt iron for casting, so all iron

objects were wrought by hammering. There is little

evidence for knowledge of techniques such as

quenching or tempering, but different ores were

recognized as having different properties and select-

ed for different purposes. Tool types suited to iron-

working were developed, and by the end of the Iron

Age, tools such as axes, hammers, knives, chisels,

and reaping hooks were produced in a form that

changed little for the next two thousand years. Iron

was rare in the early period, though complex objects

such as swords and wheel tires were produced, but

from the third century

B.C. onward it became more

common. At the same time, production was increas-

ingly concentrated in the areas with better ores, and

their products were distributed over long distances

as ingots in standard shapes and sizes. The ﬁnal

manufacture and repair of iron objects was much

less specialized, and most sites have produced some

evidence of ironworking.

Bronze continued to be used for sheet-metal

vessels such as cauldrons and bowls, as well as for a

variety of cast objects, including brooches. The cop-

per, tin, and lead used in its production came mainly

from western Britain, but in the Late Iron Age brass

(an alloy of copper and zinc) was imported from the

Roman world. There is no evidence of gold until the

introduction of gold coinage in the second century

B.C. It is possible, however, that gold may have been

more common, but it was recycled rather than de-

posited. In the Late Iron Age gold and silver coins

were produced in much of southern and eastern En-

gland, and gold was also used to manufacture torcs

(neck rings of twisted metal, see ﬁg. 2).

Stone was quarried to make querns and whet-

stones. In the Early Iron Age many local sources

were exploited, but later production was centered

on a restricted number of locations whose products

were traded over sometimes very long distances.

Salt, whether from marine or terrestrial sources, was

also derived from a limited number of locations and

exchanged over similar distances.

One of the most common ﬁnds on archaeologi-

cal sites, especially in southern and eastern England

and western Scotland, is pottery; elsewhere, howev-

er, it is rare or even nonexistent, and its place was

presumably taken by containers of organic materials

such as wood or leather. Pottery was hand thrown

for most of the Iron Age, but in the last century be-

fore the Roman conquest wheel-turned vessels were

produced. The range of pottery forms varied greatly

from region to region and changed through time

but included versions of jars and bowls. From about

B.C. Roman ﬁne wares were imported and cop-

ied, and these included new forms of plates, beakers

and cups.

Technologies using organic materials have left

little trace apart from their specialist tools. Textile

production is indicated by spindle whorls and loom

weights, while little survives of leather and basketry.

Some of the most complex artifacts would have

been made of wood, such as houses, vehicles, and

boats, but little evidence survives. Most production

would have been for domestic or local use, but there

are increasing signs of specialized production and

distribution through the Iron Age. The increasingly

localized production of iron, stone, and salt has

been noted already, and other technologies such as

gold, bronze, and glass were probably also dominat-

ed by specialists. The growing standardization of

pottery forms suggests similar specialist production,

while petrological analysis shows that, especially in

western Britain, production was largely restricted to

a limited number of locations whose wares were

widely exchanged.

Some of the ﬁnest products of the Iron Age

were made for people of high status by highly skilled

craft workers. Decorated metalwork such as mir-

rors, shields, helmets, and sword scabbards, as well

as personal ornaments such as torcs and brooches,

show an extraordinarily high level of skill; other

items such as chariots and coins were also the work

of skilled specialists.

RITUAL, RELIGION, AND THE DEAD

For most of the Iron Age throughout Britain there

is no evidence of formal burial as a means of dispos-

ing of the dead. This does not imply that the dead

were not treated with respect, merely that, whatever

the rites adopted, they have left no regularly recov-

erable evidence. Many sites have produced small

fragments of human bone, and it is possible that the

normal rite in most regions was exposure and ex-

carnation—the body would have been left to de-

IRON AGE BRITAIN

ANCIENT EUROPE

225

Fig. 2. Gold torc from Snettisham, Norfolk. © ERICH LESSING/ART RESOURCE, NY. REPRODUCED BY

PERMISSION

compose and fragment naturally. There is, however,

growing evidence for regional traditions of formal

burial.

The best documented is that of East Yorkshire,

where from the fourth to the ﬁrst century

B.C. inhu-

mation burials were placed under small square-

ditched barrows. Many of the dead were simply ac-

companied by a pot or personal ornaments, but a

few graves were much richer. In these the dead were

buried with a chariot and other rich items. This style

of burial is similar to that practiced in western Eu-

rope, and it was once thought that this indicated an

actual migration from the Continent. The burial rite

is not identical, however, and other features of the

East Yorkshire people, such as houses and pottery,

are entirely indigenous. It is now thought that a

local group adopted Continental practices. Similar

burials are known in smaller numbers elsewhere in

eastern Britain, and such imitation of Continental

culture may have been more widespread.

Other regional groups of inhumations are

known. One in Cornwall is marked by the use of

stone cists. Elsewhere, radiocarbon dating is begin-

ning to identify groups of unaccompanied inhuma-

tions as belonging to the Iron Age. A small group

of burials of males with weapons is also known; such

warrior burials are not regional but widely scattered.

From about 100

B.C., cremation burial was

adopted in southern and southeastern England.

Many of the burials were poorly furnished but a

small number contained much richer grave goods,

including imported pottery, bronze and silver ves-

sels, and amphorae (wine containers). This burial

tradition is very similar to that of western Europe;

again, as with the East Yorkshire burials, these were

once attributed to immigrants but are now seen as

part of a much more complex pattern of social

change in the ﬁnal centuries of the Iron Age.

For most of the Iron Age there are no formal

sites of ritual activity separate from the domestic

sphere, but domestic life was highly ritualized.

Many of the ﬁnds from pits, ditches, and houses on

settlement sites are not casually discarded rubbish,

but carefully selected and deposited items. Human

remains are found in storage pits, but so too are

placed deposits of animal skeletons, pottery, and

querns. Some are the remains of feasting, others

may be deliberate deposits as part of ritual practices

designed to ensure the continuity of everyday life.

Other deposits away from settlement sites, es-

pecially of metalwork, are also best interpreted as

deliberate offerings. Many were in rivers or other

watery places. At Flag Fen, Peterborough, a long

tradition of depositing metal objects, begun in the

Bronze Age, continued through most of the Iron

6: THE EUROPEAN IRON AGE, C. 800 B.C.– A.D. 400

226

ANCIENT EUROPE

Age. Many of the Iron Age swords and much of the

ﬁnest metalwork, such as shields and helmets, have

come from rivers in eastern England such as the

Thames. A Late Iron Age cluster of deposits at Snet-

tisham, Norfolk, was also a votive deposit, though

here on dry land. Many gold torcs have been found

there.

It is not until the ﬁrst century

B.C. that formal

shrines and temples appear, though only in south-

ern England. Some, as at Danebury, are buildings

of an unusual rectangular shape within settlements

and are thought to have a non-domestic function.

Others, such as Hayling Island, Hampshire, are

more clearly copied from the Continental style of

Roman-Celtic temple. Some of these temples are

accompanied by many deposits of coins, metalwork,

and other items.

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

Despite the plentiful evidence regarding everyday

domestic, agricultural, and craft activities, it is difﬁ-

cult to deﬁne the nature of Iron Age society and so-

cial organization. This is partly due to the almost

total absence of burials, which elsewhere are an im-

portant source of evidence for individual and group

identities. As it is, very little is known about how

concepts of age, gender, and the family were con-

structed in the Iron Age. The fact that one of the

rich chariot burials in East Yorkshire was that of a

female suggests that positions of high status were

not exclusively male.

Although not all round structures were neces-

sarily used as domestic residences, the ubiquitous

presence of the roundhouse implies a standard resi-

dential group, probably a single family. The limited

human skeletal evidence shows that survival beyond

the age of thirty-ﬁve was rare, and so families would

seldom have comprised three living generations,

though larger groups could have been constructed

genealogically.

Two critical questions concern the degree of so-

cial differentiation in terms of individuals’ status,

and the nature and degree of political centralization

and regional groups. Where there is burial evidence,

as in East Yorkshire or southeastern England in the

Late Iron Age, the presence of occasionally much

richer graves suggests the existence of some form of

social differentiation. Where this evidence is not

available, the picture is more difﬁcult to interpret.

The rich metalwork deposited in the rivers of east-

ern England suggests the presence of an elite, but

that is not matched by the settlement record. There

is very little differentiation in the size or contents of

individual roundhouses, and for most of the Iron

Age the archaeological record shows no sign of de-

posited wealth. Although by the end of the Iron

Age it is clear that, at least in the southeast, there

were political groupings ruled by kings, it would be

wrong to project that type of organization back into

the earlier periods. Discerning the extent and nature

of any elite remains problematic for much of the pe-

riod.

Social groupings and social organization above

the level of the family are very difﬁcult to determine,

and the dominant picture is one of regional variabil-

ity. Settlements vary from isolated houses to large

nucleated villages. Most nucleated sites show little

difference between houses, but the broch villages

found in parts of northwestern Scotland may have

been socially differentiated. A wide variety of com-

munity relations may have existed at the local level.

The ability of some Iron Age groups to con-

struct elaborate hillforts, and the presence of the

hillforts themselves, have been interpreted as a sign

of a hierarchical and politically centralized society.

It is not known, however, how the labor for such

projects was organized, and the hillforts show little,

apart from the defenses, to distinguish them from

ordinary sites in terms of architecture or material

culture. Even if they are taken as a symbol of politi-

cal organization, the hillforts were a very regional

phenomenon, and societies without hillforts may

have been very differently organized.

The archaeological record is characterized by a

pattern of regional variation in such themes as set-

tlement type, architecture, burial rites, and pottery

styles, but the meaning of such variation is unclear.

This variability occurs at different scales: in some

cases it may be a response to the availability of envi-

ronmental resources, or the product of specialist

rather than domestic production. Whether any of

these patterns of cultural variation should be seen as

the material expression of a regional social identity

remains to be clariﬁed.

Whatever type of social group existed in the

Iron Age, relations between them were not always

peaceful. The presence of sling stones, sometimes

IRON AGE BRITAIN

ANCIENT EUROPE

227

stockpiled, on many sites indicates warfare, and the

available skeletal remains show much evidence of

violence.

LATE IRON AGE CHANGES

From c. 150 B.C. many important changes are visi-

ble in the archaeological record for Iron Age Brit-

ain. The underlying social and cultural changes pri-

marily affected southern and eastern England, but

their impact may have been felt much farther aﬁeld.

The changes affected settlement patterns, material

culture, technology, burial, and ritual and political

organization. Many of the key elements of these

changes have already been noted.

Coinage of gold and cast bronze began to circu-

late in southeastern England c. 150

B.C. The earliest

coins were imported from France, but they were

soon imitated locally. By the end of the Iron Age,

gold and silver coins were in use over most of south-

ern and eastern England, and in the extreme south-

east, bronze coinage was in circulation, too. The

gold, silver, and early bronze coins were all of high

value and were used for political purposes rather

than for commercial transactions; the smaller

bronze coins are found mainly on the Late Iron Age

nucleated sites and may represent a move toward a

money-based exchange system.

Roman amphorae containing wine were im-

ported from c. 100

B.C., ﬁrst in southern England

and then in the southeast. During the ﬁrst century

B.C. other Continental practices were adopted in

Britain: cremation burial, wheel-turned pottery,

and temples. In other ﬁelds, such as the design of

swords and brooches, Britain continued to follow

prevailing Continental fashions. Roman bronze ves-

sels for serving wine and for washing were imported,

and from c. 20

B.C. ﬁne tableware was imported and

imitated. Other innovations included the introduc-

tion of sets of bronze implements for toilet and cos-

metic purposes, suggesting a new concern for the

body and cleanliness.

In settlement terms, the most obvious change

is the emergence of the nucleated sites, or oppida,

in the southeast. These represented a strikingly new

element in the landscape and a new focus for politi-

cal and ritual activity.

The explanation of these changes in the archae-

ology of southern and eastern England has been a

major point of debate. Older interpretations tried to

account for them as the result of immigration from

the Continent, either before or after Julius Caesar’s

conquest of Gaul in the 50s

B.C., but neither the na-

ture nor the chronology of these changes ﬁts well

with such an idea. More recent explanations have

referred to the political and economic impact of the

expanding Roman Empire on regions beyond the

military frontier. Critics of these ideas have in turn

questioned the quantity of Roman imports and

their signiﬁcance, as well as the rather passive role

assigned to Britain in such accounts. They have in-

stead emphasized the developments in indigenous

social organization that allowed these emerging

contacts with the Roman world to be exploited so

successfully.

The problem is undoubtedly complex, involv-

ing both indigenous development and interaction

with the rapidly changing political structure of west-

ern Europe as Rome expanded its empire in the late

second and ﬁrst centuries

B.C. It is important to rec-

ognize that these changes took place over a long pe-

riod. Indigenous Iron Age society had been chang-

ing through the Middle Iron Age, not least by

increased specialization of production, agricultural

expansion, and changes in settlement pattern; the

sheer quantity of manufactured artifacts increased

enormously at that time. The importation and imi-

tation of Roman goods was also a long process, not

a single event. It is equally important not to project

the post-conquest conditions back to an earlier peri-

od: the fact that the site of Iron Age Verulamium

(St. Albans) became the site of a Roman town does

not imply that it functioned as a town in the pre-

conquest period. There is also a question whether

the changes in the archaeological record reﬂect real

changes in Iron Age social and economic organiza-

tion, or in their cultural practices. Politically, the

rich burials, the coins, and evidence of the classical

authors suggest the emergence of a hierarchical and

tribal society ruled by kings. It is possible, however,

that changes in practices for the disposal of the dead

and the deposition of wealth simply make this pat-

tern of social organization more visible than it had

been previously. Perhaps more far-reaching may

have been cultural changes such as the adoption of

Roman eating habits, including wine, foodstuffs,

and tablewares, as well as a concern for bodily hy-

giene and cosmetics.

6: THE EUROPEAN IRON AGE, C. 800 B.C.– A.D. 400

228

ANCIENT EUROPE

When Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55 and

B.C., it had already been undergoing major polit-

ical and economic changes for a century, at least

partly due to contact with the Continent. Caesar’s

invasions drew Britain, or at least southeastern En-

gland, still further into contact with the Roman

Empire, with signiﬁcant effects on indigenous cul-

ture. When the ﬁnal Roman conquest began in

A.D.

43, southeastern England fell very rapidly, but resis-

tance was much stronger in the north and west. It

took several decades to subdue England and Wales;

the northern frontier ﬂuctuated through time, but

although much of Scotland was at one time under

Roman rule, the whole of Iron Age Britain was

never conquered.

See also Maiden Castle (vol. 1, part 1); Flag Fen (vol. 2,

part 5); Oppida (vol. 2, part 6); Hillforts (vol. 2,

part 6); Ironworking (vol. 2, part 6); Coinage of

Iron Age Europe (vol. 2, part 6); Iron Age Social

Organization (vol. 2, part 6); Danebury (vol. 2, part

6); Agriculture (vol. 2, part 7).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Champion, T. C., and J. R. Collis, eds. The Iron Age in Brit-

ain and Ireland: Recent Trends. Shefﬁeld, U.K.:

J. R. Collis, 1996.

Creighton, J. Coinage and Power in Late Iron Age Britain.

Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Cunliffe, Barry W. Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Ac-

count of England, Scotland, and Wales from the Seventh

Century

B.C. until the Roman Conquest. 3d ed. London:

Routledge, 1991.

———. Danebury: Anatomy of an Iron Age Hillfort. Lon-

don: Batsford, 1983.

Gwilt, Adam, and Colin Haselgrove, eds. Reconstructing

Iron Age Societies: New Approaches to the British Iron

Age. Oxford: Oxbow, 1997.

Hambleton, Ellen. Animal Husbandry Regimes in Iron Age

Britain: A Comparative Study of Faunal Assemblages

from British Iron Age Sites. BAR British Series, no. 282.

Oxford: Archaeopress, 1999.

Haselgrove, Colin. “The Iron Age.” In The Archaeology of

Britain: An Introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to

the Industrial Revolution. Edited by John Hunter and

Ian Ralston, pp. 113–134. London: Routledge, 1999.

Hill, J. D. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A

Study on the Formation of a Speciﬁc Archaeological

Record. BAR British Series, no. 242. Oxford: Tempus

Reparatum, 1995.

James, Simon, and Valery Rigby. Britain and the Celtic Iron

Age. London: British Museum Press, 1997.

Morris, Elaine L. “Production and Distribution of Pottery

and Salt in Iron Age Britain: A Review.” Proceedings of

the Prehistoric Society 60 (1994): 371–393.

Piggott, Stuart. The Druids. New York: Thames and Hud-

son, 1985.

Sharples, Niall M. English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle.

London: Batsford, 1991.

Stead, I. M. Celtic Art: In Britain before the Roman Con-

quest. 2d ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press, 1996.

———. “The Snettisham Treasure: Excavations in 1990.”

Antiquity 65 (1991): 447–465.

Whimster, Rowan. Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain: A

Discussion and Gazetteer of the Evidence c. 700

B.C.–A.D.

43. BAR British Series, no. 90. Oxford: British Archaeo-

logical Reports, 1981.

IMOTHY CHAMPION

■

DANEBURY

The Iron Age hillfort of Danebury dominates the

chalk lowland of western Hampshire. Although the

hill is not particularly high—only 465 feet above sea

level—it can be seen from miles around, and from

the hilltop a vast panorama of lowland opens up

with distant views of several other contemporary

hillforts.

The earthwork fortiﬁcations of Danebury occu-

py the end of an east–west ridge and are very well

preserved. Three distinct circuits can be traced. The

inner earthwork, which was the main defensive cir-

cuit throughout, encloses a roughly circular area of

some 12 acres (almost 5 hectares). As originally

built the fortiﬁcation had two entrances on opposite

sides of the enclosure, but during the life of the fort

one entrance was blocked, whereas the other, on

the east side of the fort, was strengthened with for-

ward-projecting hornworks that still dominate the

approach. The middle earthwork ran between the

two gates and was constructed to create an annex,

possibly for corralling animals, sometime during the

life of the fort. The outer earthwork is comparative-

ly slight. Unlike the other two earthworks, which

comprise a rampart and a ditch, the outer earthwork

is really only a ditch with the spoil thrown up in low

mounds on both sides. The outer earthwork is the

earliest of the enclosures on Danebury Hill and

DANEBURY

ANCIENT EUROPE

229