Iron Age Britain Research Articles

That tower of Scottish prehistory—the broch

MacKie, the foremost Scottish scholar to address himself in recent years to the study of brochs, has said, with characteristic firmness, that ‘brochs are among the most striking of all the prehistoric monuments of Europe’ (1975, 72). Certainly this is so, and ever since the first real awakening of interest in Scottish antiquities around the midnineteenth century the broch has always been felt to be Scotland’s archaeological show-piece. Yet, close on a hundred years after Alexander Rhind set the ball rolling with his excavations at the broch of Kettleburn, Wick, Sir Lindsay Scott was forced to admit that ‘No ancient sites have been more excavated than those of the broch and, unfortunately, none with less result’ (1947, 3). In the 30 odd years since Scott, the full excavation reports of only three brochs have appeared. With this consideration it is perhaps less surprising to see so little space devoted to brochs in Cunliffe’s recent major review of the British Iron Age (1974a, 219–22; 2nd ed. 1978, 235–8) and their total omission from British prehistory (1974b) is marginally less startling; such summary treatment is a result of a dearth of the right kind of information, which itself derives from the whole approach to brochs throughout most of the history of Scottish archaeology.

The Later History of Icenian Electrum Torcs

Torcs made from the gold/silver alloy known as electrum are among the most striking features of British Iron Age craftsmanship; yet despite the interest they generate, little effort has been directed towards unravelling the problems of their development. This paper seeks to correct this neglect by considering the reasons for the decline of electrum torc art, with particular reference to those found in East Anglia.

J. R. Collis (ed.): The Iron Age in Britain—a review. Sheffield: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield, 1977. 72 pp., 6 pls., 43 figs. £2.50.

J. R. Collis (ed.): The Iron Age in Britain—a review. Sheffield: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield, 1977. 72 pp., 6 pls., 43 figs. £2.50.

Iron Age burial in southern Britain

Over 45 years have now elapsed since attention was first drawn to an apparent paucity of pre-Roman Iron Age funerary sites in southern Britain (Hawkes and Dunning 1930). This remarkable lacuna, contrasting with a wealth of Bronze Age burial forms, received little further attention until Hodson defined an absence of burials as a ‘negative type-fossil’ of his insular and otherwise prolific Woodbury Culture and emphasized the cultural implications of this uncomfortable gap in the archaeological record (Hodson 1964). With the exception of supposedly intrusive continental disposal forms in restricted areas of Yorkshire and south-eastern England and a third rather hazy rite from the extreme south-west, the British Iron Age was characterized by an embarrassingly invisible method of disposal that could neither be compared nor contrasted with contemporary continental traditions. Although efforts have been made to explain this absence in terms of hypothetical practices that would leave no archaeologically recognizable traces, there have been few attempts to consider in detail the scattered references to human remains that have slowly accumulated in the literature. A reconsideration of this evidence in the light of more recently excavated material suggests that the dearth of funerary remains is to an extent illusory and that further distinctive disposal rituals can now be added to those already recognized. It is also apparent that certain shared characteristics may force a general reconsideration of the origins of these different rites.

Iron Age Britain retraced

At first glance it may seem an extravagance that two substantial books on the British Iron Age should make their appearance at virtually the same moment. On the contrary, except for the expense, this is a very fortunate accident that will oblige real enquirers in this field to formulate in a more determined manner than heretofore their own opinions, and working hypotheses. There is no question of abandoning one author for the other on all points: both must be read, and full weight given to the diversity of material evidence presented, and to the interpretations offered. This all contributes to a great stimulation of interest, of opportunity to clarify issues, and to see what next most needs to be done.

The transmission of new ideas: Archaeological evidence for implant and dispersal

Abstract A well‐documented example of the implant and dispersal of a new idea of continental origin in Britain in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries A.D., the Shaped Gable, enables us to follow the multiple strands of its progress in terms of time/space trajectories, as patterns to be set against a background of the whole economy and higher culture of Britain at that time. These time/space patterns can be used effectively as analogies in studying the space and time dispersal of cultural idea units in Iron Age Britain.

A technical study of opaque red glass of the Iron Age in Britain

This opaque red glass occurs at an early date in Egypt in the decoration of glass vessels (Fossing, 1940) and other material has been found from excavations in the Near East at Nimrud, as circular cakes (Turner, 1954, 454), and at Persepolis, as a bead, a slab and a lump (Matson, 1957, 130). This ‘specialized’ glass continued to be made in Mediterranean countries down to the Roman era, and chemical analyses have been published of specimens from a number of sites including Pompeii and the Isle of Elephantine; these have been recorded by Caley (1962), who has conveniently collected many analyses previously published in various journals.As a result of the present work it is clear that there are two distinct types of opaque red glass. In the type which occurs earlier and then continues in use the colour and opacity are due to metallic copper in a colloidal state; in the type which occurs later, for a more limited period, much lead oxide is present and the colour and opacity are caused by small particles of cuprous oxide. Previous authors have not always clearly distinguished between the two types and therefore the frequent identification of an opaque red glass as a cuprous oxide type must be treated with some caution unless supported by microscopic or chemical evidence.

Bone Dice and the Scottish Iron Age

Parallelopiped bone dice form a small but important group in the bonework of the Scottish Iron Age. The overwhelming mass of this material has been produced by excavations in which the stratigraphy has not, save in exceptional circumstances, been recorded. Moreover, the large assemblages are from sites which give every indication of being multi-period, notably the brochs and wheelhouses of the Atlantic Province (the Province is defined in Piggott, 1966, 5, 4, fig. 1). This lack of meaningful cultural or chronological groups has been an open invitation to select those objects, with parallels in the supposedly better defined and dated groups to the south, in order to draw wide-ranging inferences concerning the pre-history of Scotland. Such a procedure enables the bulk of the material to be ignored assui generis. It is not the writer's intention to produce another study of the might-have-beens of the Scottish Iron Age, but rather to present a corpus of the dice and to consider the previous interpretations in which these dice have formed part of the evidence.

Credenhill Camp, Herefordshire: An Iron Age Hill-Fort Capital

SummaryExcavations in 1963 established that the 50 acre hill-fort was permanently occupied from perhaps c. 390 B.C. until c. A.D. 75. Comparison of its four-post rectangular huts with other rectilinear buildings in Iron Age Britain is held to support the view that the oblong buildings at Credenhill were dwellings. On the basis of the density of such buildings at Croft Ambrey a population of about 4,000 is suggested for Credenhill, which is twice as large as any other Herefordshire hill-fort. Its size and centrality in an Iron Age region characterized by large univallate hill-forts, rectangular buildings and Group B1 stamped pottery makes it an obvious candidate for the role of capital of a territory that was broadly co-extensive with the modern county. It is suggested that the Iron Age inhabitants were the Decangi of Tacitus, conquered by Scapula in A.D. 48.

Radiocarbon Dates and the Scottish Iron Age

Within the past two years the chronology of the later prehistoric period in Scotland has been given a new precision by no less than 24 C14 dates obtained from nine different sites, most of which are conventionally assigned to the pre- Roman Iron Age. Previously the identification and dating of the cultures and sites of this period had depended almost entirely on various exotic bronzes and the time that they and other traits were estimated to have reached Scotland from further south in Britain and from the Continent. The last phase of the Late Bronze Age was fairly confidently assigned a start in the mid-6th century BC on the basis of links with the continental Halstatt Iron Age [I] but the bronzes concerned are nearly all stray finds or from hoards and cannot be tied to any contemporary structures or material cultures except at Covesea and, tenuously, at Traprain Law. The same is true of the various examples of decorated Celtic metalwork which have been found in Scotland: these can be given rough dates on stylistic grounds but were stray finds and unconnected with other aspects of the contemporary material cultures. The dating of hillforts and domestic sites of late pre-Roman times has had to rely on the rare examples

The Origin and Development of the Broch and Wheelhouse Building Cultures of the Scottish Iron Age

The first account of the Scottish Iron Age which attempted to set its monuments and material cultures in their British and North European context was that published by V. G. Childe in 1935. Childe suggested that the brochs, which had hitherto been at best discussed in a purely local context, might be understood better if regarded as only one aspect of the more widespread phenomenon of the hundreds of tiny stone fortlets, or duns, of the highlands and islands, termed by him the Castle Complex to distinguish them from the larger forts of the lowlands. He also suggested that parallels between the bone weaving equipment found on broch sites and in the Glastonbury lake village provided a clue to the origins of their immigrant builders.Eighteen years ago Sir Lindsay Scott, following Childe's lead, published in theseProceedingstwo long papers on the brochs and wheelhouses of the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age and the fact that subsequent discoveries have disproved some of his ideas does not detract from the great service that he rendered with them to British archaeology. He was the first to undertake a comprehensive and detailed survey of the available evidence—both excavated and from surface fieldwork—about two classes of drystone structures which had previously all too frequently been treated as a peculiarly Scottish phenomenon having few clear relationships with Iron Age cultures further south.

Cultural Grouping within the British pre-Roman Iron Age

In a previous article in these Proceedings I raised some doubts about the current system of classifying the British pre-Roman Iron Age (Hodson 1962). My main criticisms were that the first stage of this classification into three divisions A, B and C did not reflect a clear threefold division within the material to be classified and also that this system did not deal satisfactorily with the British Iron Age as part of a wider European phenomenon. The purpose of this article is to look for steps towards a modified first classification that may overcome these objections. Following the four principles of classification suggested (Hodson 1962, p. 153) an attempt will be made to pick out the most distinctive characteristics or type-fossils within the pre-Roman Iron Age and to see whether these features recur together in definite groups in Europe as a whole. These groups should represent cultures in the archaeological sense and afterwards their interpretation should provide a general archaeological account of the early Iron Age in Britain.Although attempting to put forward for discussion a provisional classification of some sort, the real purpose of this paper is to emphasize serious gaps in the available evidence. Until these gaps are filled, no classification can hope to be in any way definitive.It is first necessary to establish some simple chronological system by which to inter-relate any cultures that may be established. A direct reference to absolute dates (or periods of, say, a hundred years) would be most convenient.

Some Pottery from Eastbourne, the ‘Marnians’ and the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Southern England

The pottery illustrated on Plates XXI-XXII and figures 1 and 2 was found some forty years ago by the Rev. W. Budgen at Green Street Drove, Eastbourne (Budgen 1922). It is displayed in the Lewes Museum, and I must thank the curator Mr N. E. S. Norris for permission to study and republish it.Three of the vases stand out from the others because they are misformed wasters—‘cripples’ Budgen called them. It is most likely that they were fired at the same time and it seems reasonable to treat this small series as a closed group. They appear, in any case, to have been found in the same pit (Budgen 1922, 355). The rest of the pottery, or at least the more complete vessels, could have formed part of the same assemblage, but there does not seem sufficient evidence to insist on any further associations within this material.Whether associated or not, the pottery merits republication as a whole, both for its intrinsic interest and as a tribute to the skill and patience bestowed on its reconstruction by Budgen, and one purpose of this paper will be simply to present this material. However, the small group of three ‘cripples’ raises some fundamental problems of interpretation and the main part of the paper will attempt to discuss some aspects of the British Iron Age and its classification in a more general way.

The Iron Age in Northern Britain

Professor Stuart Piggott, who opened the conference, began by tracing the history of Iron Age studies in Scotland. He referred to the idea that there was something essentially peculiar about the Scottish Iron Age, and attributed its growth to an over-emphasis on the distinction between Highland and Lowland Zones. It was not inevitable (though it frequently happened) that Scotland should receive its cultural stimuli at second hand from lowland England, and certainly not that every development in the north should be retarded in time. On the other hand, there were differences, above all the shortage of pottery, and this gave especial value to the recent field studies of monuments, notably those made by the Royal Commission.

Daggers of the Early Iron Age in Britain

The daggers of the Early Iron Age in Britain are remarkable technical achievements, among them some of the earliest iron implements to be made in Britain. They deserve detailed study particularly for the light they throw on the prehistory of its earliest phase, the Iron Age ‘A’. The earlier daggers may be classified quite straightforwardly according to their analogies among the continental daggers, six with the Hallstatt-D and eighteen with the La Tène I, thus giving a dating scheme, from the 6th century to the later 4th century B.C. All these come from southern England, and form a compact group mostly from the Thames in its reaches for about 8 miles west of London.

The Animal Art of the Scottish Iron Age and its Origins

(1961). The Animal Art of the Scottish Iron Age and its Origins. Archaeological Journal: Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 14-64.

The Origins and Development of the Penannular Brooch in Europe

This paper is in a sense a by-product of a detailed study of ‘Dark Age’ metalwork and grew out of the realization that any interpretation of post-Roman history depends on an understanding of the archaeology of Roman and Iron Age Britain. For too long, the post-Roman world has been regarded as separate from the preceding periods, and has been seen mainly through aesthetic spectacles. Recent studies of the pottery of the period have to some extent corrected the perspective hitherto largely based on subjective and even nationalistic examinations of the better known art and metalwork. To make a new and comparable survey of the metalwork seemed worthwhile, and in doing this attention was focused on the ordinary, and common, pieces of metalwork which have been overshadowed by the more magnificent and highly decorated pieces. It became evident that in many ways the Roman occupation was not all important but was merely a minor factor in the development of material culture, and that this was particularly true of the Military Province of Britain. The specialist nature of so much of Romano-British archaeology has tended to obscure the continuity of Iron Age culture. It was felt that the selection of one or more pieces of metalwork might illustrate this as well as providing a background for the achievements in metalwork and design in the ‘Dark Ages’.The penannular brooch was chosen as the ‘type-fossil’ for this study because it was the typical and characteristic dress ornament of the Celtic post-Roman world, was equally common in Romano-British contexts and seemed to be native to these islands. A complete run through from Iron Age to Early Christian times has thus been obtained, and it is hoped that deductions drawn from a study of the penannular brooches may be paralleled and applied to other metalwork of the period and so allow general conclusions to be drawn. A more personal reason for selecting the penannular brooch was a desire to investigate the reasons for such a bewildering variety of contradictory opinions on the origin and development of the type.

The A B C of the British Iron Age

This article is something both more and less than the lecture that it represents. The lecture was given in London last December to open the Conference on the Southern British Iron Age which is reported here below by Mr Frere (p. 183). But it had the disadvantage of all introductory lectures to conferences, that they cannot anticipate what the other speakers will be saying later. And in this case, what the others said later was sometimes so new and striking as to leave the introductory lecture rather far behind. Of course, that was the measure of the conference’s success; yet I was gratified to find that what had happened, by the end, was that the others had not so much contradicted as carried further, in their various special fields, much of what was suggested in my more general talk. This surely means—and I think we can be gratified all round—that in the dozen years since the Council for British Archaeology last caused a general survey to be put forward, or the twenty years since Childe was writing in Prehistoric Communities, we have taken our Iron Age studies through a process of expansion, and of revaluation, and yet have emerged still pretty well together.These milestones in their history are worth remembering. Horae Ferales, in which Kemble and Franks first brought our Iron Age metalwork to recognition, appeared in 1863, and John Evans’s Coins of the Ancient Britons in 1864; Arthur Evans’s monograph on the Aylesford cemetery, with both metalwork and pottery shown for the first time in their European setting, in 1890; Canon Greenwell’s on the Yorkshire chariot-burials in 1906.

The Iron Age in Southern Britain

The Iron Age and Roman Research Committee of the Council for British Archaelogy organized a conference on ‘Problems relating to the Iron Age in Southern Britain’, which was held at the Institute of Archaeology from 12 to 14 December, 1958. A full report on this Conference is to be issued by the C.B.A. in the form of an Occasional Paper of the Institute of Archaeology; all that is here attempted is a short summary of the main points made.The Conference began on the evening of Friday, 12 December with a brilliant introductory lecture in his best manner by Professor C. F. C. Hawkes entitled The A B C of the British Iron Age. This lecture is represented by the paper printed here above (pp. 170-82), and thus no summary is necessary, though it would be difficult to overestimate its stimulating influence on the remainder of the Conference’s proceedings.

Tankards and Tankard Handles of the British Early Iron Age

British Iron Age tankards and their handles have been somewhat neglected in recent archaeological literature and so far have not received a separate study. This paper is intended to bring together such information as is available to the writer in the hope that it may prompt a greater interest in this minor field of Iron Age craftsmanship. The first part is a general discussion of those tankards which are either complete or could be reconstructed, their handles, and handles found unassociated with any vessel. The second offers some comment on chronology and typology. The appendix contains a distribution map and an inventory of all the known examples. A list of acknowledgments is at the end, but special mention must be made here to the generosity of Mr R. W. Feachem, who unreservedly placed at the writer's disposal all his material which had been collected for a similar study but which he relinquished on hearing of the present paper.