Adams, S. Iron in a time of change: brooch distribution and production in Middle Iron Age Britain.

Hornung (Hrsg.) · Produktion - Distribution - Ökonomie

Universitätsforschungenzur prähistorischen Archäologie

Band 258

Aus dem Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichteder Universität Mainz

2014

Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

2014

Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

Produktion - Distribution - Ökonomie

Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsmuster der Latènezeit

Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums in Otzenhausen,28.-30. Oktober 2011

herausgegeben

von

Sabine Hornung

ISBN 978-3-7749-3883-0

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie.Detailliertere bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.

Copyright 2014 by Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

VORWORTDER HERAUSGEBER

Die Reihe „Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie“ soll einem in der jüngeren Vergangenheit entstandenen Bedürfnis Rechnung tragen, nämlich Exa-mensarbeiten und andere Forschungsleistungen vor-nehmlich jüngerer Wissenschaftler in die Öffentlichkeit zu tragen. Die etablierten Reihen und Zeitschriften des Faches reichen längst nicht mehr aus, die vorhandenen Manuskripte aufzunehmen. Die Universitäten sind des-halb aufgerufen, Abhilfe zu schaffen. Einige von ihnen haben mit den ihnen zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln unter zumeist tatkräftigem Handanlegen der Autoren die vorliegende Reihe begründet. Thematisch soll darin die ganze Breite des Faches vom Paläolithikum bis zur Ar-chäologie der Neuzeit ihren Platz finden.

Ursprünglich hatten sich fünf Universitätsinstitute in Deutschland zur Herausgabe der Reihe zusammengefun-den, der Kreis ist inzwischen größer geworden. Er lädt alle interessierten Professoren und Dozenten ein, als Mithe-rausgeber tätig zu werden und Arbeiten aus ihrem Bereich der Reihe zukommen zu lassen. Für die einzelnen Bände zeichnen jeweils die Autoren und Institute ihrer Herkunft, die im Titel deutlich gekennzeichnet sind, verantwortlich. Sie erstellen Satz, Umbruch und einen Ausdruck. Bei gleicher Anordnung des Umschlages haben die verschie-denen beteiligten Universitäten jeweils eine spezifische Farbe. Finanzierung und Druck erfolgen entweder durch sie selbst oder durch den Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, der in jedem Fall den Vertrieb der Bände sichert.

Herausgeber sind derzeit:

Kurt Alt (Mainz) Peter Breunig (Frankfurt am Main)

Philippe Della Casa (Zürich)Manfred K.H. Eggert (Tübingen)

Clemens Eibner (Heidelberg)Ralf Gleser (Münster)

Bernhard Hänsel (Berlin)Alfred Haffner (Kiel)

Svend Hansen (Berlin)Ole Harck (Kiel)

Joachim Henning (Frankfurt am Main)Christian Jeunesse (Strasbourg)Albrecht Jockenhövel (Münster)

Rüdiger Krause (Frankfurt am Main)Klára Kuzmová (Trnava)Amei Lang (München)Achim Leube (Berlin)

Andreas Lippert (Wien)Jens Lüning (Frankfurt am Main)

Joseph Maran (Heidelberg)Wilfried Menghin (Berlin)

Carola Metzner-Nebelsick (München)Johannes Müller (Kiel)

Ulrich Müller (Kiel)Michael Müller-Wille (Kiel)

Mária Novotná (Trnava)Bernd Päffgen (München)Christopher Pare (Mainz)

Hermann Parzinger (Berlin)Margarita Primas (Zürich)

Britta Ramminger (Hamburg)Sabine Rieckhoff (Leipzig)

Wolfram Schier (Berlin)Heiko Steuer (Freiburg im Breisgau)

Thomas Stöllner (Bochum)Biba Teržan (Berlin)

Andreas Zimmermann (Köln)

INHALT

INHALT

Sabine HornungVorwort .............................................................................................................................................................

Thomas KnopfEmbedded Economy – Ökonomie und Kultur: eine Annäherung an die Latènezeit ..........................

Gilles PierrevelcinVoies de passage et lieux de transit entre la région Rhin-Main-Moselle et la Bohême .........................

Sebastian FürstKorallen am Übergang zur Frühlatènezeit – Zum wissenschaftlichen Potential eines problematischen Schmuckmaterials ....................................................................................................

Marco Schrickel · Klaus Bente · Christoph Berthold · Wolfgang Grill · Ulrike Teschner · Claudia Sarge · Thomas HoppeVergleichende archäometrische Untersuchungen an mitteldeutschen Korallenfibeln. Fragestellungen und methodischer Überblick .............................................................................................

Anne BaronExploitation des roches noires à l’âge du Fer : vers une restitution des systèmes de production et de diffusion ..............................................................................................................................

Olivier BuchsenschutzUne enquête sur la production et la diffusion des meules de l’âge du Fer en France : méthodologie et premiers résultats ...............................................................................................................

Stefanie WefersSchwarzes Gold der Eifel – Distribution von latènezeitlichen Drehmühlen des Steinbruchreviers um Mayen ..........................................................................................................................

Bertrand BonaventureUne approche des réseaux économiques régionaux au Ier siècle av. J.-C. : l’exemple des céramiques de stockage en Gaule ..................................................................................................................

Roland SchwabEisenzeitliche Kupferlegierungen und Kupfermetallurgie zwischen Alpen und Eifel ..........................

Guntram Gassmann · Günther WielandFrühkeltische Eisenproduktion im Nordschwarzwald: Montanarchäologische Forschungen im Neuenbürger Erzrevier 2004-2011 ..........................................................................................................

Sophia A. AdamsIron in a time of change: brooch distribution and production in Middle Iron Age Britain .................

Stéphane MarionDe la consommation à la production : une mutation économique au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. dans le Bassin parisien ? ..................................................................................................................................

1

3

13

41

67

93

107

115

129

149

163

171

189

INHALT

Philippe Barral · David LallemandLes agglomérations ouvertes du IIe siècle av. J.-C. à spécialisation artisanale et commerciale : deux exemples du Centre-Est de la France, Varennes-sur-Allier (Allier) et Verdun-sur-le-Doubs (Sâone-et-Loire) ........................................................................................................

Clément FéliuStructures politiques, sociales et économiques dans deux cités du nord-est de la Gaule (Leuques et Médiomatriques) à La Tène finale ...............................................................................

Aline SpecklinLes activités de production sur l’oppidum mediomatrique du Fossé des Pandours (France, Bas-Rhin) .........................................................................................................................

Debora C. Tretola MartinezReinach-Mausacker (BL) – ein spätkeltisches Gehöft im Wandel der Zeit ...........................................

Gerd Stegmaier„Die Stadt im Kornfeld“. Untersuchungen zur Wirtschafts- und Besiedlungsstruktur des Oppidums Heidengraben ........................................................................................................................

Manfred Rösch · Elske Fischer · Jutta Lechterbeck · Gegeensuvd Tserendorj · Lucia WickLand use and food production of the Iron Age as indicated by botanical onsite- and offsite-data ................................................................................................................................................

Angela Kreuz · Klaus FriedrichIron Age agriculture – a potential source of wealth? .................................................................................

Sabine Schade-Lindig · Frank VerseLatènezeitliche Siedlungsstrukturen zwischen Lahn und Sieg .................................................................

Peter TrebscheSize and economic structure of La Tène Period lowland settlements in the Austrian Danube region .................................................................................................................................

Andreas G. Heiss · Marianne Kohler-SchneiderCurrent archaeobotanical research on agriculture and environment of La Tène settlements in Lower Austria .........................................................................................................................

Natalie Venclová · Jiří MilitkýGlass-making, coinage and local identities in the Middle Danube region in the third and second centuries B.C. ....................................................................................................................

Alžběta Danielisová · Mária HajnalováOppida and agricultural production – state of the art and prospects. Case study from Staré Hradisko oppidum (Czech Republic) .......................................................................................

Joanna Ewa MarkiewiczPre-Roman Iron Age settlement structures in the middle Odra and middle Elbe regions .................

205

231

247

257

271

293

307

319

341

375

387

407

429

IRON IN A TIME OF CHANGE 171

INTRODUCTION

The Iron Age arrives late for brooches in Bri-tain. Not until La Tène C do we see any significant use of iron for such dress related items. With a long history of bronze production and well developed casting skills the question is not why iron broo-ches are rare in the preceding periods but why iron brooches were ever produced at all. This paper will examine the change in materials employed in the construction of bow brooches from La Tène B to C and examine the reasons for this change.

Stephane Marion’s research has examined this transition during the 3rd Century BC in continen-tal Europe1. By focussing on the material evidence from cemeteries in Western Europe he illustrated changes in craft production, the materials employ-ed and the numbers of specific objects found. In particular between La Tène B1 / 2a and B2b / C1 he observed a shift from almost equal numbers of bronze to iron brooches to a dominance of iron brooches (93.1 %). In Britain, without the nu-merous complex cemeteries present in Europe, we cannot produce such a refined chronology but the evidence still points to a shift in production beha-viour. Brooches are a particularly rare item in Early Iron Age Britain becoming more common in the Middle Iron Age and especially from the late 1st cen-tury BC. J. D. Hill has termed the latter change the ‘fibula event horizon’ marking a major increase in quantity and variety of brooch forms2. Throughout the Iron Age the majority of brooches are made of bronze but a shift takes place between La Tène B and La Tène C to a preference for iron. This period is identified through a change in brooch forms with greater differentiation from continental styles. In particular the so-called involuted brooches appear (Fig. 1). These have concave bows and pins with the decorative emphasis placed on the foot and, to a lesser extent the head of the brooch, rather than the bow.

Contra Hill, this paper proposes that a more sig-nificant brooch event in Britain actually took place

1 Marion 2011.

2 Hill 1995.

around the 3rd century BC and the 1st century BC brooches in fact represent a shift back to arched bow brooches and close links to continental de-velopments. Is the move to iron, that appears in tandem with the continental evidence, a result of external influences or a reaction to similar issues of economic changes brought about through strife as have been proposed for the rest of western Euro-pe in the 3rd century BC? Or is this interpretation too simplistic? Although there is a general pattern of change to a preference for iron at this time, if we consider the regional data the picture is more complicated. Certain areas see a shift to iron but these also tend to be the areas with limited presen-ce of brooches in the preceding La Tène A and B periods. Other regions adopt La Tène C styles but never make the shift to iron.

LIMITATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE

Furnished inhumations are rare in Iron Age Britain and cemeteries even more uncommon. The notable exceptions to this are the Middle Iron Age cemeteries from East Yorkshire. These burials and the quantity of brooches found can skew the data (as discussed later on). The majority of material evidence is recovered from excavations of settle-ment sites and enclosures. In the past hillforts have attracted much attention for research excavations; those subjected to large-scale excavation activity have yielded the greatest collections of artefacts in-cluding brooches. More recently, many metal finds from the period have been recovered by metal de-tector typically on cultivated land; the amount of detected finds reported has increased dramatically with the introduction of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS)3. PAS recorded finds now account for 25 % of all copper alloy La Tène A to La Tène C brooches found in Britain, representing a signi-ficant development in our understanding of their distribution.

Typically metal detectorists exclude iron in their surveys to avoid collecting more modern waste and the ubiquitous iron nail. This is also a result of

3 www.finds.org.uk/database.

IRON IN A TIME OF CHANGE:BROOCH DISTRIBUTION AND PRODUCTION IN MIDDLE IRON AGE BRITAIN

SOPHIA A. ADAMS

172 S. A. ADAMS

Fig. 1. British bow brooch types by period (not to scale): 1: possibly from Lakenheath, Norfolk (BM 1927,1212.8); 2: Middle Hill, Woodeaton, Oxfordshire (BM 1880,1214.13); 3: Batheaston, Avon (BM 1989,0601.192); 4: Lakenheath, Norfolk (BM 1882,0901.1592); 5: Thames, London (BM 1862,0212.5); 6: Hammersmith, London (BM 1898,06.1824); 7: possibly Abingdon, Oxfordshire (BM 1904,1213.1); 8: Rudston, East Riding of Yorkshire (BM 1975,0401.5); 9: Rudston, East Riding of Yorkshire (BM 1975,0401.63); 10: Burton Fleming, East Riding of Yorkshire (BM 1978,1202.14); 11: Middleton, Norfolk; 12: Middleton, Norfolk; 13: near Leeds, West Yorkshire (PAS: SWYOR-399938); 14: Danes Graves, East Riding of Yorkshire (BM 1918,0710.1); 15: Bur-ton Fleming, East Riding of Yorkshire (BM 1978,1203.7); 16: Middleton, Norfolk. © The Trustees of the British Museum, except: 11, 12, 16: © Archaeological Project Services.


the less appealing condition of iron objects: their corroded condition can make object identification difficult and their archaeological potential is often unknown amongst detecting groups. Perhaps be-cause of these factors iron brooches have only been found on controlled excavations. These excavations are limited to development sites (and brooches are more usually recovered from road schemes in ru-ral locations than from urban sites) or prominent landmarks and cropmarks explored for research purposes. We can only assume that iron is under-represented in the brooch record but we must keep in mind that bronze could also have been subject to later recycling. Therefore, when we observe the dif-ferences in the presence of iron in each period we must be aware this is an incomplete record but since each period is affected by similar preservation and retrieval issues it is still permissible to make compa-risons across temporally close periods. Though we may not have the detailed contextual data for many British brooches to compare to that from the inhu-mation cemeteries of continental Europe, we have the advantage of a naturally delineated geographical boundary and widespread data collection to build up a broad, island-wide distribution and develop our understanding of regional patterns.

The earliest brooches appear in Britain ca. 450 BC4. These are the La Tène A type with reverted foot and real bilateral springs with four large coils. The tightening of the coils to make a low spring and the reduction in the height of the bow are La Tène B features as well as the development of a cornered bow profile and revival of mock springs albeit more carefully integrated to give a full spring effect. Fi-nally the attachment of the reverted foot to the hip of the bow and the development of involuted bows is a feature of La Tène C brooches often associated by complex hinge designs and occasionally two coil bilateral springs5. At the boundary of La Tène B to La Tène C straight long bows are developed with reverted feet but it is only where these are attached to the bow that they are classified as truly La Tène C (Fig. 1). Where large groups of brooches have been recovered they tend to conform to these style groupings. For example La Tène C types dominate the brooch record in the East Yorkshire cemeteries and the large assemblages from hillforts in Wales.

4 Adams 2013.

5 We also see a widespread emergence of penannular brooches at this time. The chronology of these is currently under review so they will be excluded from the discussion here.

La Tène B style brooches are more typically isolated stray finds or recovered from sites with brooches spanning all three period styles such as the hillforts of Maiden Castle and Danebury6.

CHRONOLOGY: BRITAIN AND EUROPE

In Britain the Iron Age is most often divided into two or four periods. The former creates the two divisions of Earlier and Later Iron Age: c. 800-400 / 300 BC and c. 400 / 300 BC-AD 43 thereby enabling a broad perspective on landscape and ma-terial change7. The latter, better suited to focussed study of artefact types, is divided thus: Earliest Iron Age c. 800-600 BC, Early Iron Age c. 600-300 BC, Middle Iron Age c. 300-150 BC and Late Iron Age c. 150 BC-50 AD8. For much of Britain the two-fold division is the most accurate periodization possible. Fortunately for the analysis of brooches they tend to occur in the region where material does allow tighter subdivision. This still creates a rather unrefined middle period perhaps a hangover from the historic limitations created by the second of two plateaus in the radiocarbon calibration cur-ve: the first c. 800-400 BC and the second from c. 400-200 BC9. Attempts have been made to equa-te artefact chronologies with comparable material on the continent such as brooches10. As a result we might equate Hallstatt D on the continent with c. 600-450 BC in Britain; La Tène A with c. 450-375 BC; La Tène B with c. 375-300 BC; La Tène C with c. 300-150 BC and La Tène D from c. 150 BC to the end of the 1stcentury BC.

The limited contextual information causes problems with dating. Few brooches come from contexts that can be independently dated with any confidence, whether by scientific methods or by comparison to other object chronologies. Pottery is often the most commonly associated material but debate over the widespread application of existing typologies means we can at best achieve a relative chronological order for a region, and dates for the introduction of particular brooch styles remain elu-sive. The pottery dating also rests on absolute mar-

6 Cunliffe / Poole 1991; Haselgrove 1997.

7 Haselgrove / Pope 2007; Haselgrove / Moore 2007; Garrow et al. 2009, 81.

8 Champion 2011.

9 D. Hamilton, pers. comm.

10 E. g. Hull / Hawkes 1987; Haselgrove 2001; Jope 2000. See sum-mary in Garrow et al. 2009.

174 S. A. ADAMS

kers, of which brooches are one11, so we are at risk of producing circular arguments if we use pottery chronologies to date brooches.

Thanks to the application of Bayesian model-ling to radiocarbon dates from East Yorkshire ce-meteries, it is possible to suggest a more specific correlation of Middle Iron Age brooch types with continental periods12. Low arched bow brooches with the reverted foot resting on the bow but not attached, and straight bows with attached reverted feet appear at ca. 300 BC. The calibrated dates for such brooches at Wetwang Slack cemetery in East Yorkshire range from 270-200 cal. BC (at 95 % probability). This reflects solely the possible earliest to latest dates for burials containing such brooches at this cemetery. The manufacture of the brooches may have commenced earlier and we must keep in mind the possibility for later burials containing cu-rated earlier brooches. Unfortunately the corroded condition of so many of the East Yorkshire broo-ches impairs any analysis of use wear.

Insular involuted forms dominate the La Tène C brooch types in Britain (Fig. 1). They can be ar-ranged into two main groups, supported by strati-graphic relationships: the shallow and often longer curved bows being the earlier and the shorter more tightly curved bows being the later13. The involuted types follow on from the La Tène C straight bow types. Radiocarbon dates were only available for the later short involuted types. These show they were buried by ca. 170 cal. BC at the latest, and potentially from the mid 3rd century14. If the shal-lower involuted bows are earlier then La Tène C1 brooch types potentially correspond in deposition and even manufacture date with the continental C1 brooches15. A definite transition phase occurs in the brooches of Britain roughly contemporary with the changes seen on the continent in the 3rd century BC from La Tène B1 / B2 to La Tène B2 / C116.

11 Willis 2002.

12 Jay et al. 2012.

13 Jay et al. 2012; Dent 1982; Stead 1991.

14 Jay et al. 2012.

15 Marion 2004.

16 Marion 2011.

DATA AND ANALYSIS

General Pattern

At present 716 La Tène A to La Tène C broo-ches have been found in Britain. Of these 69 % are copper alloys, which when tested have proved to be bronze with ca. 10 % tin content17. Only 31 % are iron. Only three definite La Tène A style brooches are made of iron; the remaining 40 or so are bronze (93 %). La Tène B form brooches make up 30 % of all the positively identified brooch types, with an additional ca. 8 % that are too fragmentary to confirm whether they are La Tène A or La Tène B. Only 3 % of definite La Tène B brooches are iron. La Tène B iron brooches also account for 2 % of the iron brooches from across all brooch types. The majority of iron brooches are La Tène C types accounting for 96 % of all iron brooches. La Tène C brooches also account for 57 % of all the early and middle Iron Age brooches. Only 46 % of the La Tène C brooches are bronze.

To summarise, from c. 450 BC bronze is the fa-voured material for brooches, although occasionally it is supplemented with iron axial rods to maintain the integrity of springs or to complete mock springs. Around 300 BC we see an increase in the number of brooches deposited in Britain and brooches constructed wholly from iron become as popular as bronze. Bronze continues in use but plays a lesser role. Although not analysed here, the popularity of copper alloy brooches increases again in the final La Tène phase and remains high into the Roman period18. The earlier shift from bronze to a preference for iron apparently mirrors that observed in inhumation cemeteries on the continent although with a more defined chronological boundary from La Tène B1 / B2 to La Tène B2 / C119. Like the continent there is a visible increase in quantity of brooches between the two periods. However in terms of the quantities of brooches found at individual sites there is also a marked change. This means that although iron is more common in the later period the number of specific findspots at which iron brooches have been recovered is considerably lower for the entire period: ca. 60 sites compared to ca. 350 sites for bronze brooches including individual findspots recorded

17 E. g. Dungworth 1996; 1997.

18 Hill 1997, Haselgrove 1997.

19 Marion 2011.


with PAS. It is therefore important in our under-standing and interpretation of this phenomenon to consider the regional and contextual evidence.

Regional Variations

The distribution of Early and Middle Iron Age brooches in Britain spreads across southern England from east to west and up into Wales, central Britain and East Anglia; as we move north the distribution is concentrated on the eastern side of the country with rare finds up towards the Scottish borders (Fig. 2). In Scotland a handful of brooches have been reco-vered from coastal regions, particularly on the west coast closest to Ireland. Throughout the Iron Age there appears to be very little uptake of brooches in Scotland while pins continue in use throughout the period20. In Ireland no identifiable brooches of this period have been recovered but later forms particu-lar to the region do exist21.

Iron brooches are underepresented in the east and southeast of England, with only eight examples. Iron brooches are also absent from most northern and north central regions yet they dominate the re-cord for East Yorkshire. Overall there is a wester-ly bias to the iron distribution with the exception of those towards the northeast coast of England (Fig. 3). 48 % of all the iron brooches derive from East Yorkshire, 97 % of which were found in the well-known inhumation cemeteries. Elsewhere in the country the Wessex region contains the greatest number of findspots for iron brooches. This may in part reflect the focus of archaeological investiga-tions of Iron Age sites in the past, a bias enforced through the landscape use in the region and the prominent survival of large earthworks including hillforts. However, the numerous bronze brooch findspots to the east and northeast of this region, and the intensity of developer led archaeology in other regions, lends credence to this being a genu-ine iron brooch distribution pattern rather than a distribution of archaeological investigations.

La Tène C brooches are found throughout the full brooch distribution zone and in fact extend the zone further into Wales and further to the west in Scotland. If one compares the distribution of La Tène B iron brooches with those of La Tène C one may observe that the uptake of iron reaches more

20 Hunter 2009.

21 Raftery 1983.

regions in the later period (Fig. 3). The Wessex and East Yorkshire zones are occupied in both periods but as time moves on iron spreads into more cen-tral areas plus coastal sites in the east, south and west. The following analysis will explore the regional variations in four zones: East and Southeast Eng-land, Central England, Northeast England, Wessex, Wales and Southwest England. These zones have been selected based on geographical proximity and identifiable groupings in the mapped distribu-tion of brooch types and materials. The Scottish ma-terial is excluded owing to the rarity of brooches in the region and the dispersed nature of their deposi-tion which is worthy of further analysis elsewhere.

East and Southeast England (1)

A quarter of all La Tène A to La Tène C broo-ches are found in east and southeast England, while the northeast zone (Yorkshire and Lincolnshire) ac-

Fig. 2. Distribution map of all Early and Middle Iron Age brooches in Britain (La Tène A to La Tène C) (Map: S. Adams).

176 S. A. ADAMS

counts for just under a fifth of all the brooches. The frequency of findspots is far greater in the east and southeast in part owing to the PAS finds with 40 % of all PAS brooches of this period being recovered from this part of England. Despite these high fre-quencies iron brooches are almost absent in East An-glia22 and very rare in the southeast. This is less sur-prising if one looks at the brooch types. Only 45 % are La Tène C forms in comparison to 85 % in the northeast zone. Almost equal numbers are known for the periods under scrutiny: La Tène B (79 broo-ches) and La Tène C (85 brooches). If we set aside the collection of 40 brooches from Middleton, Nor-folk we are left with only 28 % La Tène C, showing how far one site can skew the distribution pattern. Only 4 % of the brooches from this region are iron.

Central England (2)

67 La Tène A to La Tène C brooches are known from central England, the region incorporating Ox-

22 The only known example from this region is the iron pin of a hinged shallow involute found at Fison Way, Thetford, Norfolk (Mack-reth 1991, 123 Fig. 113.27).

fordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Bed-fordshire, and up into the Midlands. Bronze domi-nates the record across all periods. Only ten broo-ches are iron, all of which are La Tène C. Out of La Tène B and La Tène C forms bronze accounts for 82 %, iron for 18 %. Of the definite recognisable types, 31 % are La Tène B and 54 % La Tène C. The movement into La Tène C increases the num-ber of brooches deposited in central England and sees the introduction of a few iron brooches (ten brooches only). This region therefore conforms to the general pattern for the southeast with the in-troduction of new styles as we move into La Tène C but the uptake of iron is limited and dispersed. Bronze brooches dominate the record even for the more frequent La Tène C types.

Northeast England (3)

As described above, iron dominates the record for northeast England with a ratio of iron to bronze 8:2. This region is also dominated by La Tène C brooches. It therefore corresponds with the general pattern of more iron brooches in La Tène C. The-

Fig. 3. Distribution of findspots of iron brooches. Map A: La Tène B types. – Map B: La Tène C types (Maps: S. Adams).


se brooches are mostly found singly in individual inhumations. These are burials of adult men and women but brooches are not found with children. In opposition to the east and southeast here we find a strong uptake of iron for brooch production in a region where pre La Tène C brooches are very rare. Over 88 % (i. e. 120) of all Early to Middle Iron Age brooches from this region were found in graves or 93 % of all La Tène C. Brooches were predominantly deposited in individual burials and rarely in settlement contexts and in these instances often in boundary locations.

Wessex, Wales and Southwest England (4)

Bronze dominates in south and southwest Eng-land but not in Wales. About 65 % of the La Tène B and La Tène C brooches are bronze. Of these 66 % are definite La Tène B style brooches; 34 % are La Tène C types. The inverse is true for iron brooches with 97 % La Tène C and only 3 % La Tène B types.

As one moves further west and up towards Wa-les the quantity of iron brooches increases. In Wales the increase is dramatic with iron brooches accoun-ting for 77 % of brooch finds compared to only 12 % in the southerly counties of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. In Wiltshire a third of the broo-ches are iron. Like other regions with a larger than average number of brooches many of the Wiltshire finds are derived from one site: Cold Kitchen Hill, Brixton Deverill (ca. 29 % of all the Wiltshire broo-ches). Iron brooches account for almost two thirds of the Cold Kitchen hill assemblage; all of which are La Tène C styles. This one site supports the general pattern of a shift to iron in the later period. All the iron brooches from Wales are also La Tène C types with one exception23. Early Iron Age brooches are rare in Wales, only four La Tène B examples and six La Tène A24.

The difference in quantity of iron to bronze broo-ches is partially reflected in the numbers of La Tène B to La Tène C brooches in this region. In Wales La Tène C outnumber La Tène B 9:1. In the southwest the ratio is just under 2:1. In the west of England we find roughly equal numbers of La Tène B brooches and La Tène C brooches and 1.25 times as many La

23 A La Tène A brooch from Castell Henllys: sf5855 context 3608.

24 The definite La Tène A brooches have a far more dispersed distri-bution across the entire Iron Age brooch zone of Britain than broo-ches of either La Tène B type.

Tène B in the south. Therefore relatively local va-riations are visible. We see a general consistency of quantity of brooch finds of both La Tène B and C types in southern and western England and some li-mited uptake of iron in La Tène C. Yet in Wales the quantity of brooches rises significantly in La Tène C in tandem with a shift to iron brooches in this area at this time. This would suggest that the brooches become popular in Wales later than in the south and east and in these later periods there is a preference for, even a reliance on iron as the primary material.

DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL EVIDENCE AND PRODUCTION

The lack of iron brooches in east and south-east England corresponds with a general lack of La Tène C brooches but not an absence of these types. All La Tène C forms are represented from straight bo-wed brooches to heavily decorated bows and all in-voluted forms; although the involutes are the least widespread. A large assemblage of bronze brooches recently excavated in Norfolk accounts for the majo-rity of involuted brooches from this region (86 %)25. This assemblage is best paralleled in terms of de-sign, but not material, in Yorkshire and Wales. Five further involutes, three iron and two bronze, come from Kent (2), East Sussex, Greater London and Norfolk. It would appear that this peculiarly insular style had limited uptake in this region.

Perhaps instead we should be looking for longevity of the La Tène B styles or an absence of brooch wearing or perhaps an earlier introduc-tion of what are traditionally considered to be La Tène D forms26. With such sparse dating evidence for this region we may only speculate. If the prefe-rence in La Tène C in the east and southeast is still for bronze over iron for dress related items then the downturn in numbers from this period may be owing to a difficulty in obtaining copper and tin. In the northeast and west this difficulty was negated by a preference for iron brooches, a locally available resource. The presence of iron tools in all regions shows the technology to create iron objects was available across Britain but in the east something stopped investment being made into creating fa-steners and adornments from the material. If the preference for bronze was sustained by maintaining

25 From Middleton, Norfolk.

26 Jay et al. 2012.

178 S. A. ADAMS

access to the raw materials, perhaps from the con-tinent, this could account for a possible longevity of La Tène B forms which are closer (although not identical) to European styles and might support an earlier introduction date for La Tène D styles. The comparative date and use of specific types is cer-tainly in need of further interrogation.

The intricacies of forging a brooch (usually hinged) from iron would have required a techno-logical shift for brooch manufacturers familiar with casting their shapes in a mould. This assumes, of course, that the same people manufactured both. Evidence exists from a small number of Middle and Late Iron Age sites for contemporary manufacture of bronze and iron objects at the same sites and even in the same structure; albeit usually towards the end of the Middle Iron Age or of Late Iron Age date27. We cannot assume then that the craft-workers needed to adopt new skills to manufacture brooches in iron instead of bronze. However it was not a simple transference of skills to produce an intricate brooch form through smithing where pre-viously this had been carried out through casting. The lack of Early Iron Age sites with evidence for directly associated bronze and iron working could hint at a technological and even conceptual change that enabled the two processes to be carried out side by side. We should also be wary of privileging metalwork evidence over that of other craft work which could have been carried out by the same people or certainly required cooperation between different skill sets28. Bronze casting, for example re-quired carved wax models and clay moulds as well as molten metal.

RESOURCES

In England, Wales and Scotland the copper ore sources exhibit a westerly and northerly distribution being confined to southwest England, north Wales and west central England, northern England, the Scottish borders and coastal locations around Scot-land29. The only known British source of tin occurs in southwest England. Iron sources are found across most of England. Although some sources could only be exploited by mining, surface collectable iron and

27 E. g. Glastonbury Lake Village, Somerset and Mine Howe, Orkney summarised in Joy 2010.

28 De Roche 1997, 23-4.

29 Bayley et al. 2008, 4-5 Fig. 2.

bog ores are widespread and may have been more so in the Iron Age30. Known exploited bog ore sour-ces occurred in East Yorkshire, North Wales and the Scottish Highlands31. Comparison of this data with the brooch distribution immediately highlights two issues (Fig. 2-3). The first, that the provenances of most bronze brooches in Britain are not local to copper or tin sources. In fact the distribution of the ores is almost diametrically opposite to the distribu-tion of the brooches, except in Scotland. The second and contrasting issue is the comparative distribution of iron ore deposits and iron brooches. Although the iron ores are widespread the distribution of the iron brooches is not so.

So copper alloy brooches are found at some di-stance from copper and tin sources but iron broo-ches are found relatively local to iron sources. How- ever, iron brooches are also rare in the vicinity of some iron sources such as the weald in south- eastern England32. The shift to iron may have been influenced by the availability of the resource in the west, central and northeastern England and the rarity of iron brooches in East Anglia may reflect the lack of local iron ores. In the preceding period the zones closest to the copper and tin ores were the locations less inclined to deposit bronze brooches. There ap-pears to be a change in favour of local resources in La Tène C in some regions.

In Britain from c. 400 BC we see a massive in-crease in the quantity of metal being deposited in the ground including iron. This is reflected in the increased finds of brooches from about this time. From the outset iron is incorporated into brooch production in Britain with some of the earliest in-sular products incorporating iron axial rods into bronze hinge mechanisms, often finished as skeu-morphic springs. This use of iron axial rods conti-nues in La Tène B on occasional examples across the country but never becomes a majority form. Very rare examples of La Tène A and B style broo-ches in iron have been found but it is not until La Tène C that iron brooches come to the fore.

Although some iron may have been obtained through mining activity it would also have been pos-sible in iron rich regions to obtain the ore by surface collection. The latter perhaps being carried out du-

30 Salter / Ehrenreich 1984.

31 Bayley et al. 2008, 4-5.

32 Despite evidence for exploitation of this resource in the Late Iron Age and early Roman period (Bayley et al. 2008, 45-47).


ring, or following, ploughing33. De Roche explores this activity further to locate the ore collection within the agricultural cycle and associate iron production with other productive activities from salt extraction to clothmaking34. Local access to iron ore and the possibility of its incorporation into agricultural acti-vity that is known to have sustained many Iron Age communities may have been influential factors in the increased production of personal objects such as brooches in the Middle Iron Age.

A closer examination of the distribution of iron ores shows that although the brooches are found in regions with available ore sources these can be at some distance from the actual deposition site of the brooches. As Salter identified for central southern England while some settlements were located in the immediate vicinity of ore sources others were at some distance away35. The latter may have had to foster relations with the former in order to gain access to either the raw material or smelted iron. Joy has also drawn attention to the separation of ore sources from settlements36. Although bog iron is widespread it is found in locations at a distance from and often unfavourable for occupation. It is proposed that the collection may have been seaso-nal to avoid periods of more intense rainfall and this marginality of the location could have increased the significance of the ore. Analysis has shown that a number of ore sources were exploited for the iron used at Danebury hillfort with Middle Iron Age products being derived from sources up to 120 km distant37. This could indicate the trade networks in which Danebury was involved. It illustrates that al-though iron resources may have been much closer to a site than copper and tin sources a system of negotiation would still have been required to obtain the metal. So the concept that a reliance on local materials avoids potentially volatile interaction with other groups is unfounded. However, the closer the connection with the miners and smelters the high-er the possibility for controlling these processes. Yet the transfer of the metals and perhaps even the production of some objects may still be outside the final deposition site for both bronze and iron broo-ches (and other objects).

33 Hingley 1997.

34 DeRoche 1997, 23-24.

35 Salter / Ehrenreich 1984, 147.

36 Joy 2010, 19.

37 Salter / Ehrenreich 1984, 152

In the Foulness Valley of East Yorkshire Hal-kon has identified evidence for iron industry that made use of the River Hull for connection and transport of materials from iron production sites to the cemeteries at Arras and Wetwang38. He suggests that the rare occurrence of exotic materials (e. g. gold and coral) and affinities in the iron technology with that of northern France indicates close contact via river and sea with the continent in the Middle Iron Age. This is perhaps further exemplified by the appearance of iron brooches in these cemeteries at approximately the same period as they become more common in the cemeteries of northern France. This would contradict the theory that increased exploita-tion of iron in this region stems from a need to con-centrate on local resources to avoid more volatile long distance trade networks. The insular brooch types39 remind us that while there may be a con-nection with production and deposition behaviour on the continent we do not find wholesale trans-ference of objects or ideas but assimilation within insular developed culture.

If the production of iron brooches was gover-ned by an economic concern to exploit local ore resources in northeastern and westerly regions the comparative size of iron and bronze brooches lends support to a hypothesis of economising activity. Take, for example the dimensions of iron involuted brooches from East Yorkshire and compare these to the bronze examples from Norfolk. The former range from c. 33 mm to 54 mm while the latter ran-ge from c. 13 mm to 33 mm. In every direction the bronze brooches tend to be smaller and daintier than their iron counterparts. An argument may be made for the technological aspect that the bronze casting process lent itself more readily to smaller objects than the forging process employed in iron brooch production. Yet it is wise to create a smal-ler object from material that is less readily availa-ble. It is perhaps fortunate, considering the greater rarity of tin over copper that each object required only c. 10 % tin to make the alloy fluid enough to cast and not too brittle for annealing40 but strong enough to retain its shape. The ratio of copper to

38 Such as the production site at Elmswell at the headwaters of the River Hull. Halkon, 2008, 208-9.

39 The involuted brooches, to name but one type of insular product occurring at these East Yorkshire cemeteries. Based on the differences in objects and the results of osteological analysis Halkon, advises against ‘overplay[ing] these overseas connections’ (2008, 208-9).

40 Dungworth 1996; 1997.

180 S. A. ADAMS

tin was achieved early on in the history of brooches in Britain (from the earliest known La Tène A types onwards) and the bronze brooches are very small from the start with rare exceptions. From the out-set brooch production was an economical process requiring minimal amounts of bronze from distant sources and even less of the rarer tin. If the ore resources were more readily available the final pro-ducts were usually larger.

Technological ability enabled the production of tiny bronze brooches and limited how small iron brooches could be. The golden colour of bronze brooches was emphasised by greater surface areas of the metal being visible on the earlier brooch forms and the use of large moulded foot discs on the La Tène C involutes. Although the silvered ef-fect of iron may have been preferred in the iron do-minant regions, the metal was often hidden by the use of concave bows. These drew the emphasis to the foot disc which was often decorated with large beads or rods of pinkish coral, or reddish glass or similarly coloured stone. The latter two were more readily available local products. Some iron broo-ches certainly clasped woollen fabrics as seen in the structure of mineralised deposits on some heavi-ly corroded examples41. Unfortunately we do not have comparative evidence for bronze brooches so it is not possible to ascertain if the size differences bore any relationship to the use of different cloth. The size difference would definitely have had an effect on the way brooches were worn with the tiny examples being of limited use for securely closing thick fabric garments. However the largest broo-ches are still quite small compared to the enormous heavy Italian Hallstatt period examples found in Roman contexts in Britain42. Or the generously proportioned La Tène brooches found in some gra-ves in France43. In each period, then the brooches had a display function but the way in which this was manifested changed over time and across regions.

CONTEXT

Table 1 combines brooches from excavated si-tes and other securely provenanced site finds for La Tène B and La Tène C. The provenances have been arranged into five categories of site and each result

41 Stead 1991.

42 Hull / Hawkes 1987, 23-29.

43 Stead / Rigby 1999.

expressed as a percentage of all brooches from that period. The categories were created to enable ana-lysis of deposition activity at different types of site: where deposition appears to be a primary activity in itself, compared to sites which also exhibit clear evidence for subsistence activity and sites which have other visible roles from possible defensive features to powerful landscape locations. The au-thor remains aware of the limitations and subjecti-ve nature of such categorisation and is employing them here solely to draw attention to the possible variations in the location of brooch deposition. Al-ternatively the evidence could be separated into up-land and lowland sites or the specific type of feature in which each brooch is located. Recent analysis of the data from Kent has shown that metal artefacts were recovered from deposits that were distinctive in other ways from the norm for each site44. This reminds us of the possibly special nature of their deposition regardless of the general character of the site at which they were discovered. The advantage of the categories employed here is their cross-com-parison to the data presented by Stephane Marion at Otzenhausen 2011: specifically from cemeteries, these he contrasted to settlement sites and sanctua-ry sites. Stray finds have been excluded from the analysis but detailed investigation of their location in relation to excavated sites could enhance future understanding45. The results show the same gene-ral shift from bronze deposition to iron deposition over time but this varies according to the type of site. The data also highlight change in the types of site at which the brooches are deposited over time. The sites are categorised as follows:

Sanctuary sites, incorporate all sites where the brooch deposition is on dryland in and around apparent temple structures and sanctuary sites or in large quantities in confined features away from other contemporary activity.

Watery sites, combine all those finds from ri-vers, wetlands or the sea.

Cemeteries, all brooch finds from burials, all of which are derived from inhumations typically within cemeteries; so this category covers those bla-tantly associated with the funerary process.

44 Champion 2011, 231.

45 Adams 2013, 164-176.


Hillforts, include promontory forts, hillforts and other sites with large ditches and ramparts with defensive capabilities (even if these defensive capa-bilities have been unexploited in an archaeologically identifiable manner), many of which also make use of the topography to improve their visibility or pro-tective features.

Occupation sites, this combines enclosed and unenclosed settlements and other sites with evi-dence for occupation but of undefined type46.

a) Sanctuary sites. The quantity of brooches at sanctuary sites far exceeds the number of sites (93 brooches from nine sites). These include the entirely bronze collections from the sanctuary site at Middle Hill, Woodeaton, Oxfordshire; the assemblage from Batheaston, Avon47; and the spread of La Tène C brooches from an isolated natural gulley at Middle-ton, Norfolk. The Middle Hill site contained both La Tène B and La Tène C brooches as well as later and earlier types. The sanctuary site of Cold Kitchen Hill, Wiltshire, contained brooches from all three periods but half as many bronze as iron brooches48. This one site resembles a microcosm of brooch types in Wes-sex where one third of all brooches are iron. There is a shift over time away from deposition at watery sites but brooch deposition at sanctuary sites, both at the same locations or at different sites continues throughout. The wide-spread introduction of iron brooches in Britain at the boundary of La Tène B to C is not represented in the material preference for ritual deposition. These sites also tend to be located away from regions where La Tène C brooch deposi-tion occurs in burials.

b) Watery sites. 31 % of La Tène B brooches are deposited in watery sites; this is a rare practice in the later periods. All such La Tène B brooches are bron-ze and half of them were found in the river Thames. The nature of iron may prevent its recovery from a watery environment and the focus on the Thames may result from the high level of foreshore collec-tion activity in this heavily built up area; an area that

46 To divide this group into each type of occupation would have made the results meaningless in the broad sweep approach of this comparative analysis.

47 Although this hoard consists of La Tène B brooches numerous pins and several Bronze Age objects were apparently recovered from the same hoard (Stead 1998).

48 Later brooches were also found at this site Hull / Hawkes 1987, 41.

does not provide the same dry site opportunities for stray finds collection as are available in rural areas. La Tène C brooches are rare in the areas with higher brooch deposition in a watery environment. So the decline in the habit reflects a general decline in spe-cifically brooch deposition and possibly use in those areas rather than specifically a movement away from watery environments for deposition. This is best evi-denced by the continued deposition of swords (albeit of uncertain specific date within the Early to Middle Iron Age) as recorded on the Celtic Art Database49.

c) Cemeteries. Brooches are rare finds in buri-als and cemeteries until La Tène C. Iron brooches are more common in burials than bronze. The shift in material, therefore, seems to accompany the de-velopment of organised cemeteries as a funerary rite in this later period. The vast majority of these cemeteries are located in the northeastern region described above. Brooches are present in no more than 45 % of the graves from 11 cemetery sites showing their presence is not a prerequisite of La Tène C burials in this region.

Bronze brooches are found in burials in East Yorkshire, Kent, Southwest England, Shropshire and Cambridgeshire. They total 23 in all from La Tène A to La Tène C, about 70 % pertaining to this later period. Two brooches are from the B / C period and two are La Tène A in style. Four are the Iberian style brooches that could be late Hallstatt but are most probably 3rd century in date50. This collection sup-ports the move towards brooches being deposited in burials in La Tène C and illustrates that these need not exclusively be made from iron. They are generally the more elaborately decorated bronze brooches with La Tène style moulded decoration and / or in-lay of other materials such as coral (e. g. at Mill Hill, Deal, Kent51). 45 % of the bronze brooches in burials are found outside of the East Yorkshire cemeteries. Therefore, people were more frequently buried with iron brooches in East Yorkshire than anywhere else in Britain. Outside of this area almost as many burials contain iron brooches (6) as bronze brooches (10). Compare this to the brooches from sanctuary sites and three of the major sites exhibit a preference for

49 Garrow 2008; http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/project_archive/technologies_of_enchantment/the_celtic_art_database.aspx.

50 Whimster 1981, 60-67.

51 Parfitt 1995.

182 S. A. ADAMS

one material: Middle Hill, Woodeaton, Oxfordshire, Batheaston, Avon and Grandcourt Farm, Norfolk (all bronze) while Cold Kitchen Hill, Wiltshire con-tains both. Wiltshire has a higher incidence of iron brooches than these other counties. Perhaps then it is local preference for materials that influences what is buried with people or at sanctuaries rather than a particular association of iron with burials and bronze with sanctuaries. Just as the majority of finds on the continent at this time derive from graves and sanc-tuaries52 so too do we see higher quantities of broo-ches at these types of sites in Britain.

At sanctuary sites bronze dominates except at Cold Kitchen Hill, while at cemeteries iron domina-tes. Although this differentiation corresponds with site type, there are regional preferences visible in both the type of site and the material of the broo-ches. Brooch deposition at sanctuary sites occurs in central, southwest and eastern Britain but deposi-tion in graves is located primarily in the north east. Brooches as portable items associated with perso-nal dress and accessories create a direct link be-tween the object and the individual. In an inhuma-tion grave this connection is emphasised if the brooch clasps clothing even if that is used as a shroud wrap-ped around the body53. Although the brooches on shrouds could have belonged to the deceased they are items distinctly attached to the deceased by the living54. Whereas a brooch on the deceased’s clo-thing has a higher potential of being clasped in the same location as it was worn during their lifetime. At the sanctuary sites the brooch may have acted as a signifier of the individual. The deposition of the chattels in this instance acting in place of a body perhaps as an extension of the funerary process. Or the brooch’s owner was very much alive at the time of deposition and the significance of placing the brooch in the sanctuary is heightened by the loss this would have meant to the person. Loss in the practical sense of removing the brooch, and pos-sibly by consequence some piece of clothing, and in the emotional experience of parting with a personal possession. The low numbers of brooch finds from the period under study might also imply the high value such an object would have held for its owner if not for a wider group of people55.

52 Marion, this volume.

53 Giles 2012.

54 Adams 2013, 226-239.

55 Haselgrove 1997, 55.

d) Hillforts. Although brooches are found at hillforts in both periods they are more frequently deposited at such sites in La Tène C, particularly at the promontory forts and hillforts of Wales. The variety of brooch periods and types represented at Danebury and Maiden Castle, both hillforts subjec-ted to large-scale archaeological intervention56, in-dicates the possibly incomplete nature of the record from many hillforts. The previously proposed focus on boundary features for Iron Age brooch deposi-tion57 is no longer upheld but the evidence from excavations of enclosed settlement sites shows boundary features occasionally contain brooches in the upper fills. Pits and deposits are now as com-mon contexts for brooch finds58 indicating the need for further analysis of feature specific deposition.

No brooches of this period are associated with deposits directly relating to warfare although their rare presence in burials containing weaponry, such as the Mill Hill Deal ‘warrior’ grave59 means they are not entirely disassociated from concepts of power through the articles of warfare60. The closest asso-ciation of brooches with an episode of violent at-tack on a hillfort comes from Late Iron Age / Ear-ly Roman phase deposits in the entrance at South Cadbury. This so-called massacre deposit contains only later brooch types. The myriad forms and large numbers represented there have been translated as perhaps the disturbed goods of a market stall rather than objects worn by the victims61. I prefer to see them as evidence for the quantity and variety of brooches worn at one time by the group of people slaughtered and buried at this location62. The com-plexity of the osteological and stratigraphic data leaves the matter open to interpretation.

Analysis of the pit contents at hillforts and the variable levels of occupation evidence at some exam-ples have brought into question the role of hillforts in Iron Age society. This evidence and data from the environs of hillforts has indicated a strong con-

56 Sharples 1991.

57 Haselgrove 1997, 56.

58 E. g. at Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire four of the five Middle Iron Age brooches were found in pits and the fifth possible example was recovered from a posthole. (Lambrick / Allen 2004).

59 Parfitt 1995.

60 There is not the space here to discuss the question of weapons = warrior but discussion of the matter can be found in e. g. Ballard 2007.

61 Alcock 1973 105-107.

62 Tabor 2008, 156-164.


nection with farming63. This is described in diffe-rent ways from the possible seasonal use of the sites for livestock sales to the storage capabilities of the immense beehive pits for maintaining reserves as insurance against poor harvests or other times of potential famine64. The placing of brooches in pits and their appearance in boundary features at some such sites may build a connection with the agricultu-ral and pastoral importance of these locations. This is further exemplified when one considers the po-tential harvesting of iron ore during the ploughing process65. On the continent there is an increase in corn production at the same time as the numbers of sumptuary goods increases and cemeteries and changes occur in their material makeup66. Perhaps the rise of iron brooch deposition at fort sites in, for example, Wales in La Tène C is also linked to such an increase in crop production. The brooches could then have been associated with concepts of fertility from a hopeful offering, to a protective contract for the crops to a gift in honour of a good yield. Giles, drawing on ethnographic analysis, proposes a me-

63 Sharples 2010, 122-123.

64 Cunliffe / Poole 1991; Sharples 2010.

65 De Roche 1997.

66 Marion 2011.

taphorical link between iron collection and produc-tion and the processes of crop harvesting, and food preparation67. This interpretation of brooch depo-sition needs further exploration but the possibilities raised certainly indicate that brooch deposition was a more complex activity than merely a reaction to unstable times of intergroup conflict.

e) Occupation sites. The occupation site evi-dence best illustrates the shift from bronze to iron during this period (Tab. 1). 32 % of the La Tène B brooches accounts for 23 bronze brooches at settlements while 9 % of La Tène C brooches equates to 29 iron brooches. This illustrates a clear shift from an emphasis on bronze in the earlier period at these sites to iron in the later period. Although more La Tène C brooches are found at settlements (44) than La Tène B (25) the former account for a smaller percentage of the overall deposition con-text of the later brooches. The preference for fort deposition over other occupation sites in La Tène C may reflect the greater use of hillfort sites for occupation in this later period although few have been subject to intensive excavation. The record is skewed by the dominance of brooches at forts in

67 Giles 2007, 399-401.

Tab. 1. Comparison of percentage of brooches from each period found at each type of site (S. Adams).

184 S. A. ADAMS

the southwest and particularly Wales at this time. Limited excavation has been carried out at hillforts in, for example, Kent which could account for their absence from the southeast but few occupation si-tes have produced brooches in this region across the three periods. The lack of Middle Iron Age settlement in Kent corresponds with a lack of Middle Iron Age brooches. Is this an actual situation of a general absence of occupation and activity in this area in this period, or is it in part owing to a misun-derstanding of the chronology of the finds? In Kent until recently there was a perceived lack of Early Iron Age occupation sites and difficulty in produ-cing a feasible ceramic chronology for this period68. This situation has since been rectified through ana-lysis of the evidence from large scale development projects69. These problems are still a feature of the Middle Iron Age evidence. A matter exacerbated by the lack of Middle Iron Age sites along the entire High Speed 1 route across the county. Where finds of this period are present the sites or the features appear to be of a unique / special character70. Cham-pion discounts the possibility that the ceramic se-quence is wrong owing to the sizeable assemblages at a number of sites along this route and notes the ‘proliferation of occupation evidence’ for the Late Iron Age71. Here is certainly a case for developing a detailed understanding of the associations of the numerous metal detected finds from this region.

CONCLUSION

Brooches first appear in Britain in the Early Iron Age ca. 450 BC. Bronze is the favoured ma-terial from then until sometime during the Middle Iron Age, approximately equivalent to La Tène C1 on the continent. In sepulchral evidence on the continent an increase is seen in the quantity of brooches and a major increase in the deposition of iron brooches during La Tène B and the start of La Tène C. The same shifts are seen in a general Britain wide pattern at this time. However, regional analysis shows a more complicated situation. In the northeast and west of England and in Wales there is an upsurge in the deposition of not only brooches but specifically iron brooches; although the context

68 Champion 2011, 181-182.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid.

71 Champion 2011, 181-182.

of the deposition varies between these regions. In the east and southeast there is minimal use of iron and La Tène C brooches are rare finds. Evidence for activity in this period in the southeast is rare altogether and in the east it is highly ritualised. Cen-tral England reflects the general patterns of the east and southeast while southern England favours the patterns seen in the west but not markedly so.

In his analysis of the material culture changes from La Tène B1 / 2 to B2 / C1, Marion proposed that the focus on local resources and developments in craft production could be a reaction to a time of strife; together these factors brought about a change in the economy72. In Britain the regional patterns show a more complex picture. Local resources are used in, for example, tool and weapon manufacture throughout the Middle Iron Age but they are not al-ways exploited in brooch manufacture. Some areas continue to deposit brooches made from distant ores while others with few brooches in the 5th-4th

centuries see a massive rise in the deposition of iron brooches in La Tène C.

In brooch production bronze is used where the raw materials are not available. Iron ores are widely available but their use in manufacturing brooches is limited more to the edges of the brooch distri-bution i. e. the northeast and west. In other words the choice of whether to use either material is not based solely on accessibility. The picture presen-ted here is one of a diverse population with strong communication links within England. Links that are constantly shifting suggestive of an unsettled time in terms of negotiation of power and access to resources. Contact with the continent varies and becomes more potent in different areas at different times. Closer connections with the continent ap-pear to shift from the southeast to the northeast during this period. These connections were always limited by a strong insular culture as evidenced by the widespread distribution of the La Tène C invo-luted brooches. Behavioural changes can be seen in brooch production and deposition that may be related to increased emphasis and reliance upon agriculture. These changes enabled innovations in terms of production and technology. Britain’s evi-dence need not be studied in isolation from the continent. For the Iron Age it provides a compli-mentary understanding of broad patterns of change and has the added benefit of an enclosed dataset to

72 Marion 2011.


enable the variability of regional behaviour to shine through.

AcknowledgmentsThis paper is based on recent PhD research at

the University of Leicester and the British Muse-um, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. I am grateful to Sabine Hornung for the opportunity to attend Otzenhausen 2011 and make a poster presentation of my preliminary results. Thanks also to my supervisors Professor Colin Ha-selgrove and Dr Jody Joy for their advice and com-ments on earlier drafts of this paper. Any omissions or errors are my own.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams 2013:S. A. Adams, The First Brooches in Britain: from Manufacture to Deposition in the Early and Middle Iron Age. PhD Thesis. University of Leicester (Lei-cester 2013).

Alcock 1973:L. Alcock. ‘By South Cadbury is that Camelot…’ The Excavation of Cadbury Castle 1966-1970 (London 1973).

Ballard 2007:S. Ballard, Warriors and Weaving. In: S. Hamil-ton / R. Whitehouse / K. I. Wright (eds) Archaeo-logy and Women. Ancient and Modern Issues (Ca-lifornia 2007) 167-182.

Bayley et al. 2008:J. Bayley / D. Crossley / M. Ponting, Metals and Metalworking. A research framework for archaeo-metallurgy. The Historical Metallurgy Society Oc-casional Publication No. 6 (London 2008).

Champion 2011:T. Champion, Later Prehistory. In: A. Smith (ed), On Track. The archaeology of High Speed 1. Sec-tion 1 in Kent. Oxford and Wessex Monograph 4 (Oxford 2011).

Cunliffe / Poole 1991:B. W. Cunliffe / C. Poole, Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire. Vols. 4-5: the excavations 1979-88. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 73 (London 1991).

Dent 1982:J. S. Dent, Cemeteries and settlement patterns of the Iron Age on the Yorkshire Wolds. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48, 1982, 437-457.

De Roche 1997:C. D. De Roche, Studying Iron Age production. In: Gwilt / Haselgrove 1997, 19-25.

Dungworth 1996:D. B. Dungworth, The Production of Copper Al-loys in Iron Age Britain. Proceedings of the Prehi-storic Society 62, 1996, 399-421.

Dungworth 1997:D. B. Dungworth, Copper metallurgy in Iron Age Britain: some recent research. In: Gwilt / Haselgro-ve 1997, 46-50.

Garrow 2008:D. Garrow, The space and time of Celtic Art: inter-rogating the technologies of Enchantment databa-se. In: D. Garrow / C. Gosden / J. D. Hill, Rethin-king Celtic Art (Oxford 2008) 15-39.

Garrow et al. 2009:D. Garrow / C. Gosden / J. D. Hill / C. Bronk Ram-sey, Dating Celtic art: a major Radiocarbon Dating Programme of Iron Age and Early Roman Metalwork in Britain. Archaeological Journal 166, 2009,79-123.

Giles 2007:M. Giles, Making Metal and Forging Relations: Ironworking in the British Iron Age. Oxford Jour-nal of Archaeology 26 (4), 2007, 395-413.

Giles 2012:M. Giles, A Forged Glamour. Landscape, Identi-ty and Material Culture in the Iron Age (Oxford 2012).

Gwilt / Haselgrove 1997:A. Gwilt / C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. New approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxbow Monograph Series 71 (Oxford 1997).

Halkon 2008:P. Halkon, Archaeology and Environment in a Changing East Yorkshire Landscape. The Foulness Valley c. 800 BC to c. AD 400. British Archaeologi-cal Reports British Series 472 (Oxford 2008).

186 S. A. ADAMS

Haselgrove 1997:C. Haselgrove, Iron Age brooch deposition and chronology. In: Gwilt / Haselgrove 1997, 51-73.

Haselgrove 2001:C. Haselgrove, Understanding The British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action. Trust for Wessex Ar-chaeology Ltd. (Salisbury 2001).

Haselgrove / Moore 2007:C. Haselgrove / T. Moore, The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond (Oxford 2007).

Haselgrove / Pope 2007:C. Haselgrove / R. Pope, Characterising the Earlier Iron Age. In: C. Haselgrove / R. Pope (eds), The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near Continent (Oxford 2007) 1-23.

Hill 1995:J. D. Hill, Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age in Wessex: a study on the formation of a specific Ar-chaeological Record. British Archaeological Re-ports British Series 242 (Oxford 1995).

Hill 1997:J. D. Hill, The end of one kind of body and the beginning of another kind of body? Toilet instru-ments and ‘Romanization’ in southern England du-ring the first century AD. In: Gwilt / Haselgrove 1997, 96-107.

Hingley 1997:R. Hingley, Iron, Ironworking and regeneration: a study of the symbolic meaning of metalworking in Iron Age Britain. In: Gwilt / Haselgrove 1997, 9-18.

Hull / Hawkes 1987:M. R. Hull / C. F. C. Hawkes, Corpus of Ancient Brooches in Britain: pre-roman bow brooches. Bri-tish Archaeological Reports British Series 168 (Ox-ford 1987).

Hunter 2009:F. Hunter, Miniature Masterpieces: unusual Iron Age brooches from Scotland. In: G. Cooney / K. Becker / J. Coles / M. Ryan / S. Sievers (eds), Re-lics of old decency: Archaeological studies in later prehistory (Dublin 2009) 143-155.

Jay et al. 2012:M. Jay / C. Haselgrove / D. Hamilton / J. D. Hill / J. Dent, Chariots and context: new radiocarbon dates from Wetwang and the chronology of Iron Age bu-rials and brooches in East Yorkshire. Oxford Jour-nal of Archaeology 31(2), 2012, 161-189.

Jope 2000:E. M. Jope, Early Celtic Art in the British Isles (Ox-ford 2000).

Joy 2010:J. Joy, Iron Age Mirrors. A biographical approach. British Archaeological Reports British Series 518 (Oxford 2010).

Mackreth 1991:D. Mackreth, Brooches of copper alloy and of iron. In: T. Gregory (ed), Excavations in Thetford, 1980-1982. Volume One. East Anglian Archaeology Re-port 53 (Dereham 1991) 132.

Marion 2004:S. Marion, Recherches sur l’âge du Fer en Île-de-France entre Hallstatt final et La Tène finale. Ana-ly-se des sites fouillés. Chronologie et société. Volume 1. British Archaeological Reports International Se-ries 1231 (Oxford 2004).

Marion 2011:S. Marion, De la consummation à la production; une mutation économique au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. (Otzenhausen Colloquium paper 2011).

Parfitt 1995:K. Parfitt, Iron Age Burials from Mill Hill Deal. British Museum Press (London 1995).

Raftery 1983:B. Raftery, Catalogue of Irish Iron Age Antiquities. Veröffentlichung des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars. Sonderband 1 (Marburg 1983).

Salter / Ehrenreich 1984:C. Salter / R. Ehrenreich, Iron Age iron metallur-gy in central southern Britain. In: B. Cunliffe / D. Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain (Oxford 1984) 146-161.

Savory 1976:H. N. Savory, Guide Catalogue of the Early Iron


Age Collections. National Museum Wales (Cardiff 1976).

Sharples 1991:N. M. Sharples, Maiden Castle: Excavations and field survey 1985-6. English Heritage Archaeologi-cal Report no 19 (London 1991).

Sharples 2010:N. M. Sharples, Social Relations in Later Prehistory. Wessex in the First Millennium BC (Oxford 2010).

Stead 1998:I. M. Stead, The Salisbury Hoard (Stroud 1998).

Stead 1991:I. M. Stead, Iron Age cemeteries in East Yorkshire: excavations at Burton Fleming, Rudston, Garton-on-the-Wolds and Kirkburn (London 1991).

Stead / Rigby 1999:I. M. Stead / V. Rigby, Iron Age Antiquities from Champagne in the British Museum: The Morel Collection (London 1999).

Tabor 2008:R. Tabor, Cadbury Castle. The Hillfort and Land-scapes (Stroud 2008).

Whimster 1981:R. Whimster, Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain. A Discussion and Gazetteer of the Evidence c. 700 B.C. – A.D. 43. British Archaeological Reports Se-ries 90(i) (Oxford 1981).

Willis 2002:S. Willis, A Date with the Past: Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Pottery and Chronology. In: A. Woodward / J. D. Hill (eds), Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis (Oxford 2002) 4-21.

Sophia A. AdamsSchool of Archaeology and Ancient HistoryUniversity of LeicesterUniversity RoadLeicesterLE1 [email protected]

Adams, S. Iron in a time of change: brooch distribution and production in Middle Iron Age Britain.

Documents

Transcript of Adams, S. Iron in a time of change: brooch distribution and production in Middle Iron Age Britain.