DOCSLIB.ORG

Booklet & Abstracts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Booklet & Abstracts THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY Since 1935 The Prehistoric Society Europa Conference 2021 People and Society in Late Prehistoric Europe 18–19 June 2021 A virtual conference celebrating the achievements of Prof Colin Haselgrove, University of Leicester, in the field of European prehistory Timetable and Abstract Booklet Aerial view of Burrough Hill hillfort, showing excavations in 2013. A hoard was found in the far corner of the site (produced by Aerial Cam) © UoL. Timetable at-a-glance Friday 18 June 2021 09:45 Conference opens online 10:00–10:15 Welcome and introduction: Prof Clive Gamble 10:15–10:35 The Iron Age hoards from Snettisham in context, Dr Julia Farley, British Museum & Dr Jody Joy, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge 10:35–10:55 Ethnogenesis in Late Iron Age Britain: The case of the Silures, Dr Oliver Davis, Cardiff University 10:55–11:15 The origins of British oppida: Understanding transformation in Iron Age practice & society, Dr Nicky Garland, Durham University 11:15–11:30 Questions and discussion 11:30–11:50 Break 11:50–12:10 Facial recognition in Early Celtic Art: Perspectives from neuro-atypical experiences, Dr Tanja Romankiewicz, University of Edinburgh 12:10–12:30 From meanings to effects: A multi-scalar approach to anthropomorphic imagery in Middle–Late Iron Age Europe and beyond, Dr Helen Chittock, AOC Archaeology Group 12:30–12:50 Aspects of design in Iron Age and early Roman Europe, Christina Unwin, Durham University 12:50–13:05 Questions and discussion 13:05–14:05 Lunch break 14:05–14:25 Who were the potters of prehistory? Analysing fingerprints and finger impressions to uncover the identities of Bronze and Iron Age potters, Meredith Laing, University of Leicester 14:25–14:45 Home Birds or Social Butterflies? Debating the Iron Age by dating the Iron Age, Dr Sophia Adams, University of Glasgow 14:45–15:05 Home Birds or Social Butterflies? Iron Age mobility from a scientific perspective, Dr Derek Hamilton, University of Glasgow 15:05–15:20 Questions and discussion 15:20–15:40 Break 15:40–16:00 Investigating Iron Age cloth through experimental archaeology, Jennifer Beamer, University of Leicester 16:00–16:20 Beyond ethnicity: Re-interpreting the Chiavari cemetery, Elisa Vecchi, University of Nottingham 16:20–16:40 Belgic, British or a bit of both: Investigating the links between the Aylesford-Swarling culture and contemporary cremation burials from northern France, Dr Andrew Lamb, Independent Researcher & Dr Quentin Sueur, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege im Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart 16:40–16:55 Questions and discussion 16:55–18:00 Virtual wine reception and presentation of the Baguley award, hosted by Prof Clive Gamble Saturday 19 June 2021 09:45 Conference opens online 10:00–10:10 Welcome: Prof Clive Gamble 10:10–10:50 How we die: Violent death, display and deposition in Iron Age Britain, Dr Mel Giles, University of Manchester 10:50–11:30 Early La Tène elite burials in the Lower Rhine/Meuse region. Material culture, connectivity and social change, Prof Nico Roymans, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 11:30–11:45 Break 11:45–12:25 ‘I went out for a ride and I never went back’: Mobility in the British Iron Age, Prof Janet Montgomery and Dr Tom Moore, Durham University 12:25–12:45 Questions and discussion 1 12:45–13:45 Lunch break 13:45–14:25 Iron Age demographics: Community, mobility and scale, Prof Ian Armit, University of York 14:25–15:05 Motherhood and mothering in later European prehistory, Dr Katharina Rebay-Salisbury, Austrian Archaeological Institute – Prehistory, Austrian Academy of Sciences 15:05–15:20 Questions and discussion 15:20–15.40 Break 15:40–16:20 Our friends in the north: Stanwick, Traprain Law, and the encroaching Roman world, Dr Fraser Hunter, National Museums Scotland 16:20–17.00 Bibracte (Burgundy, France), witness of a world in transition, Dr Vincent Guichard, Centre archéologique européen/Bibracte 17:00–17:15 Questions and discussion 17:15–17:30 Closing, Prof Clive Gamble Friday 18 June 2021: Abstracts Morning Chair: Dr Rachel Pope, University of Liverpool 10:15–10:35 The Iron Age Hoards from Snettisham in context, Julia Farley, British Museum & Jody Joy, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge This paper will explore the hoards from the Iron Age site of Snettisham (Norfolk, UK) in their wider context. This exceptional site has produced at least fourteen separate hoards. The finds include almost 200 complete or fragmentary torcs, other types of jewellery such as bracelets and rings, numerous coins, and other material including ingots. The scale of the deposits makes Snettisham one of the largest finds of prehistoric jewellery from anywhere in Europe. Most of the hoards are comprised of intact torcs, whilst one hoard contained almost exclusively fragmented objects. The site itself lies on a low hill looking down towards the Wash, on the edge of the North Sea. Although there are no structural remains contemporary with the hoards, the site is enclosed by a polygonal ditch or palisade. A square structure, perhaps a temple, was added during the Roman period. Three avenues will be explored in this paper: the biographies of the torcs themselves (many of which show signs of wear and repair, and in rare cases may have been in use for over a century before their deposition), the depositional practices evidenced at the site, and the landscape location. These strands will be drawn together to consider the social and religious context of deposition in Late Iron Age Norfolk, possible motivations behind hoarding practices, and the relationship of the Snettisham hoards to contemporary deposits across the UK and continental Europe. 10:35–10:55 Ethnogenesis in Late Iron Age Britain: The case of the Silures, Oliver Davis, Cardiff University The conventional model of Late Iron Age ethnicities reflecting the tribal configurations that Roman authors ascribed (and later fossilised within Roman civitates) has been increasingly challenged in recent years. The model was long supported by numismatic evidence, in which coin distributions were used to construct supposed tribal boundaries. However, even these data have now been questioned. Prof Haselgrove, amongst others, have argued that more subtle, smaller-scale patterns are evident in the generalised coin distributions, which are suggestive of more localised, and fluid, socio-political relationships. In western Britain, particularly those areas such as Wales where Late Iron Age communities did not mint or use coins during this period, the archaeological identification of ‘tribal’ entities has long been problematic. The literary evidence seems at odds with archaeological data, such as settlement or (the rather limited) ceramic distribution patterns, which appear to emphasise political and social fragmentation at this time. Nonetheless, the tribal model of social configuration persists in Wales, albeit in a refined form of federalised ‘clans’. These are characterised as somewhat independent groups, who recognised a shared heritage and cooperated together as supra-regional tribal entities in times of stress. This shared heritage has been suggested to have roots in the Late Bronze Age where the distributions of socketed axes are argued to conform to the later tribal boundaries. This paper seeks to critique this position by exploring the ethnogenesis of Iron Age communities in south-east Wales, an area routinely associated with the Silures. Drawing from my recent work at hillforts and smaller settlements 2 in the region I will argue that the archaeological evidence suggests the emergence of small-scale, localised, communities with unstable shifting socio-political relationships. This seems at odds with the notion of a shared Silurian identity and I will question whether one existed at all in the Late Iron Age. 10:55–11:15 The Origins of British Oppida: Understanding transformation in Iron Age practice & society, Nicky Garland, Durham University In Britain, large poly-focal complexes known as oppida formed an integral part of the social changes occurring in Late Iron Age Britain. Despite the importance of oppida within current narratives, how or why these settlements were established remains poorly understood. A pan-European tradition, it is often argued these sites emerged from empty or underused parts of the Iron Age landscape, marking the location of neutral meeting places where different mobile social groups came together to form new connections. However, new evidence suggests that ‘pre-oppidum’ landscapes were far from empty. Instead earlier occupation, particularly agricultural activities, had a dramatic impact on the formation of oppida in the Later Iron Age. This paper reviews the archaeological evidence for changing Iron Age settlement across several British oppida, including Chichester (West Sussex), Stanwick (North Yorkshire), Bagendon (Gloucestershire), Silchester (Hampshire) and Colchester (Essex). A review of past and recent evidence, partly from developer-funded archaeology, suggests British Late Iron Age oppida may have, in part, been established directly from Middle Iron Age settlement and traditions, alongside external influences. This new understanding for the origins of oppida has a wider importance for British Iron Age studies. If the origins of territorial oppida were influenced physically, socially and politically, by the interaction between and social structure of Middle Iron Age groups, should we now rethink changing settlement patterns and the structure of society at the end of prehistory? 11:50–12:10 Facial recognition in European Celtic Art: Perspectives from neuro-atypical experiences, Tanja Romankiewicz, University of Edinburgh This paper is interested in the visual impact of European Celtic Art. What can be recognized in these cusps and swirls that are so typical of this Iron Age art from Scotland to Continental Europe? Yet, this paper is not about what we can see – it is about what we cannot see, seemingly. Our 21st-century world is one of visual communication in which icons and emoji circumnavigate language differences.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Iron Age Tom Moore
    The Iron Age Tom Moore INTRODUCfiON In the twenty years since Alan Saville's (1984) review of the Iron Age in Gloucestershire much has happened in Iron-Age archaeology, both in the region and beyond.1 Saville's paper marked an important point in Iron-Age studies in Gloucestershire and was matched by an increasing level of research both regionally and nationally. The mid 1980s saw a number of discussions of the Iron Age in the county, including those by Cunliffe (1984b) and Darvill (1987), whilst reviews were conducted for Avon (Burrow 1987) and Somerset (Cunliffe 1982). At the same time significant advances and developments in British Iron-Age studies as a whole had a direct impact on how the period was viewed in the region. Richard Hingley's (1984) examination of the Iron-Age landscapes of Oxfordshire suggested a division between more integrated unenclosed communities in the Upper Thames Valley and isolated enclosure communities on the Cotswold uplands, arguing for very different social systems in the two areas. In contrast, Barry Cunliffe' s model ( 1984a; 1991 ), based on his work at Danebury, Hampshire, suggested a hierarchical Iron-Age society centred on hillforts directly influencing how hillforts and social organisation in the Cotswolds have been understood (Darvill1987; Saville 1984). Together these studies have set the agenda for how the 1st millennium BC in the region is regarded and their influence can be felt in more recent syntheses (e.g. Clarke 1993). Since 1984, however, our perception of Iron-Age societies has been radically altered. In particular, the role of hillforts as central places at the top of a hierarchical settlement pattern has been substantially challenged (Hill 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Old Oswestry Hillfort and Its Landscape: Ancient Past, Uncertain Future
    Old Oswestry Hillfort and its Landscape: Ancient Past, Uncertain Future edited by Tim Malim and George Nash Archaeopress Archaeology Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978-1-78969-611-0 ISBN 978-1-78969-612-7 (e-Pdf) © the individual authors and Archaeopress 2020 Cover: Painting of Old Oswestry Hillfort by Allanah Piesse Back cover: Old Oswestry from the air, photograph by Alastair Reid Please note that all uncredited images and photographs within each chapter have been produced by the individual authors. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Holywell Press, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com Contents Contributors ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ii Preface: Old Oswestry – 80 years on �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������v Tim Malim and George Nash Part 1 Setting the scene Chapter 1 The prehistoric Marches – warfare or continuity? �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 David J. Matthews Chapter 2 Everybody needs good neighbours: Old Oswestry hillfort in context ���������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Winchester Museums Service Historic Resources Centre
    GB 1869 AA2/110 Winchester Museums Service Historic Resources Centre This catalogue was digitised by The National Archives as part of the National Register of Archives digitisation project NRA 41727 The National Archives ppl-6 of the following report is a list of the archaeological sites in Hampshire which John Peere Williams-Freeman helped to excavate. There are notes, correspondence and plans relating to each site. p7 summarises Williams-Freeman's other papers held by the Winchester Museums Service. William Freeman Index of Archaeology in Hampshire. Abbots Ann, Roman Villa, Hampshire 23 SW Aldershot, Earthwork - Bats Hogsty, Hampshire 20 SE Aldershot, Iron Age Hill Fort - Ceasar's Camp, Hampshire 20 SE Alton, Underground Passage' - Theddon Grange, Hampshire 35 NW Alverstoke, Mound Cemetery etc, Hampshire 83 SW Ampfield, Misc finds, Hampshire 49 SW Ampress,Promy fort, Hampshire 80 SW Andover, Iron Age Hill Fort - Bagsbury or Balksbury, Hampshire 23 SE Andover, Skeleton, Hampshire 24 NW Andover, Dug-out canoe or trough, Hampshire 22 NE Appleshaw, Flint implement from gravel pit, Hampshire 15 SW Ashley, Ring-motte and Castle, Hampshire 40 SW Ashley, Earthwork, Roman Building etc, Hampshire 40 SW Avington, Cross-dyke and 'Ring' - Chesford Head, Hampshire 50 NE Barton Stacey, Linear Earthwork - The Andyke, Hampshire 24 SE Basing, Park Pale - Pyotts Hill, Hampshire 19 SW Basing, Motte and Bailey - Oliver's Battery, Hampshire 19 NW Bitterne (Clausentum), Roman site, Hampshire 65 NE Basing, Motte and Bailey, Hampshire 19 NW Basingstoke, Iron
    [Show full text]
  • 07 Cunliffe 1686 13/11/09 13:48 Page 161
    07 Cunliffe 1686 13/11/09 13:48 Page 161 ALBERT RECKITT ARCHAEOLOGICAL LECTURE Continuity and Change in a Wessex Landscape BARRY CUNLIFFE Fellow of the Academy THE WESSEX LANDSCAPE with which we are concerned is an area of some 450 sq km of chalkland situated in the centre of the chalk uplands of southern Britain (Fig. 1). Its central position gives it a special character. It is, above all, a route node where the east–west ridgeways from the North Downs, the South Downs, Cranborne Chase and the Marlborough Downs converge with the north–south river routes, the Avon and the Test, which provide access, through the forests and heathlands of the Hampshire Basin, to the waters of the Solent beyond. But there is an ambivalence about the region. While open to influences from all direc- tions, this very openness endowed it with a strategic significance well understood by those who, in the past, wished to control the movements of peoples and commodities. As we will argue below, the region became a frontier zone for much of the latter part of the first millennium BC, dividing east from west. This block of downland was chosen for detailed study partly because of its commanding position in the landscape of central southern Britain but also because previous archaeological activity has provided an exten- sive database invaluable in developing a detailed research strategy. Most notable among the earlier work were the pre-war excavations of the Cunningtons and J. F. S. Stone focusing on Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements in eastern Wiltshire and the campaign of hillfort excavations Read at the Academy 23 October 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wessex Hillforts Project the Wessex Hillforts Project
    The The earthwork forts that crown many hills in Southern England are among the largest and W most dramatic of the prehistoric features that still survive in our modern rural landscape. essex Hillfor The Wessex Hillforts Survey collected wide-ranging data on hillfort interiors in a three-year The Wessex partnership between the former Ancient Monuments Laboratory of English Heritage and Oxford University. Hillforts Project These defended enclosures, occupied from the end of the Bronze Age to the last few ts Project Extensive survey of hillfort interiors centuries before the Roman conquest, have long attracted in central southern England archaeological interest and their function remains central Andrew Payne, Mark Corney and Barry Cunliffe to study of the Iron Age. The communal effort and high degree of social organisation indicated by hillforts feeds debate about whether they were strongholds of Celtic chiefs, communal centres of population or temporary gathering places occupied seasonally or in times of unrest. Yet few have been extensively examined archaeologically. Using non-invasive methods, the survey enabled more elaborate distinctions to be made between different classes of hillforts than has hitherto been possible. The new data reveals Andrew P not only the complexity of the archaeological record preserved inside hillforts, but also great variation in complexity among sites. Survey of the surrounding countryside revealed hillforts to be far from isolated features in the later prehistoric landscape. Many have other, a less visible, forms of enclosed settlement in close proximity. Others occupy significant meeting yne, points of earlier linear ditch systems and some appear to overlie, or be located adjacent to, Mark Cor blocks of earlier prehistoric field systems.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DANEBURY IRON AGE METEORITE. C.T. Pillinger1, J.M. Pillinger1, R.C
    74th Annual Meteoritical Society Meeting (2011) 5321.pdf THE DANEBURY IRON AGE METEORITE. C.T. Pillinger1, J.M. Pillinger1, R.C. Greenwood1, D. Johnson1 A.G. Tindle2, A.J.T. Jull3 and D.W.H. Allen4. 1PSSRI, 2EES, Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. 3University of Arizona, Tucson AZ85721, USA. 4Hampshire County Museums Service, Winchester UK. [email protected] Introduction: The Danebury meteorite’s existence was first reported in the Meteorite Bulletin in 1991 [1] following an effort to characterize metal containing artifacts recovered in 1974 from an archaeological dig conducted at the site of an Iron Age hillfort, Danebury Ring, in the county of Hampshire, England. After that initial report the object was “mislaid” and no further details appeared. In 2008 we initiated a search for the specimen and it has been recovered, sadly less a central slice removed to make a probe mount. We are now able to provide a better petrological description using a PTS of an interior cut of the 20g surviving mass (H5, low weathering grade W1/2) and more information about the circumstances under which the meteorite was found. The Anatomy of a Hill Fort: The Iron Age is a period of prehistory which in Britain extends from around 800BC until the Roman occupation of the mid first century AD. Southern Britain abounds with sites affording evidence of a turbulent period when inhabited locations are identified by the emphasis placed on defence fortifications. Danebury Ring can be regarded as a classic Iron Age hill fort site. It has been studied throughout a major campaign of annual excavations undertaken between 1969 and 1988 [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Prehistoric Britain
    Prehistoric Britain Plated disc brooch Kent, England Late 6th or early 7th century AD Bronze boars from the Hounslow Hoard 1st century BC-1st century AD Hounslow, Middlesex, England Visit resource for teachers Key Stage 2 Prehistoric Britain Contents Before your visit Background information Resources Gallery information Preliminary activities During your visit Gallery activities: introduction for teachers Gallery activities: briefings for adult helpers Gallery activity: Neolithic mystery objects Gallery activity: Looking good in the Neolithic Gallery activity: Neolithic farmers Gallery activity: Bronze Age pot Gallery activity: Iron Age design Gallery activity: An Iron Age hoard After your visit Follow-up activities Prehistoric Britain Before your visit Prehistoric Britain Before your visit Background information Prehistoric Britain Archaeologists and historians use the term ‘Prehistory’ to refer to a time in a people’s history before they used a written language. In Britain the term Prehistory refers to the period before Britain became part of the Roman empire in AD 43. The prehistoric period in Britain lasted for hundreds of thousands of years and this long period of time is usually divided into: Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic (sometimes these three periods are combined and called the Stone Age), Bronze Age and Iron Age. Each of these periods might also be sub-divided into early, middle and late. The Palaeolithic is often divided into lower, middle and upper. Early Britain British Isles: Humans probably first arrived in Britain around 800,000 BC. These early inhabitants had to cope with extreme environmental changes and they left Britain at least seven times when conditions became too bad.
    [Show full text]
  • Mourning the Sacrifice Behavior and Meaning Behind Animal Burials
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CLoK Mourning the Sacrifice Behavior and Meaning behind Animal Burials JAMES MORRIS The remains of animals, fragments of bone and horn, are often the most common finds recovered from archaeological excavations. The potential of using this mate- rial to examine questions of past economics and environment has long been recognized and is viewed by many archaeologists as the primary purpose of animal remains. In part this is due to the paradigm in which zooarchaeology developed and a consequence of prac- titioners’ concentration on taphonomy and quantification.1 But the complex intertwined relationships between humans and animals have long been recognized, a good example being Lévi-­Strauss’s oft quoted “natural species are chosen, not because they are ‘good to eat’ but because they are ‘good to think.’”2 The relatively recent development of social zooarchae- ology has led to a more considered approach to the meanings and relationships animals have with past human cultures.3 Animal burials are a deposit type for which social, rather than economic, interpretations are of particular relevance. When animal remains are recovered from archaeological sites they are normally found in a state of disarticulation and fragmentation, but occasionally remains of an individual animal are found in articulation. These types of deposits have long been noted in the archaeological record, although their descriptions, such as “special animal deposit,”4 can be heavily loaded with interpretation. In Europe some of the earliest work on animal buri- als was Behrens’s investigation into the “Animal skeleton finds of the Neolithic and Early Metallic Age,” which discussed 459 animal burials from across Europe.5 Dogs were the most common species to be buried, and the majority of these cases were associated with inhumations.
    [Show full text]
  • Structures Within Our Iron Age Area Are Built to Match the Original Excavated Footprint of Each Site
    All structures within our Iron Age area are built to match the original excavated footprint of each site. This includes post size and spacing. The materials used to construct each house are sourced to match those that could have been found in the landscape, local to the excavation, at the time the original structure was built, and construction techniques are based on appropriate available technology. LITTLE WOODBURY ROUNDHOUSE Aim: To explore the engineering and construction of a major two-ring Wessex house and to record the material quantities required to build a house of this scale. This building is based on an excavation from just outside Salisbury of a 14.5 metre diameter Roundhouse. In our recent re-thatching (2018/19) 7 tonnes of thatch were used for the roof, requiring an estimated 10 acres of land to produce this historic yield. The oak used in the frame and walls weighs 12 tons, the rafters are ash and elder weighing 4 tons with 1.5 tons of hazel in the wattle and 20 tons of daub. MOEL Y GERDDI ROUNDHOUSE Aim: To explore the engineering and construction of a smaller two-ring roundhouse. To explore the use of a back door, the running of a fire in a sunken fireplace in the floor and monitor burning under the hearth. This house is based on excavations from Harlech in North Wales. In 2009 we noticed the main posts were all showing signs of decay and experimented to see if they could be replaced in situ rather than rebuild the house. Each post was removed and a new post (with charred end to prevent rotting) slotted into place.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. a History of Dorset Hillfort Investigation
    2. A HISTORY OF DORSET HILLFORT INVESTIGATION John Gale Most of Dorset’s hillforts are to be found on the chalk downlands of the county but others are found on the limestone of Purbeck and in the clay vales to the extreme west of Dorset as well as those on the gravels of Poole basin. Of the 34 sites identified, more than a third have been the subject of some form of excavation but only four of these (Chalbury, Hod Hill, Maiden Castle and Pilsden Pen) could claim to have been significantly sampled. The problem is not that the sites are especially difficult to excavate but rather it is a question of scale. To understand such complex earthworks it would be preferable to excavate them completely but, generally speaking, large scale sampling should be sufficient. With hillforts, of course, the question is how large is large? This is a matter that can only be defined on a case by case basis, but certainly it is likely to be greater than 25% of the whole. Unfortunately, only two hillforts in England and Wales have achieved such attention: Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire (Dixon 1996) and Danebury in Hampshire (Cunliffe 1984), each with more than 50% of their interiors excavated. The most closely and extensively studied of the Dorset hillforts is Maiden Castle, which has been the subject of two major excavation campaigns, Tessa and Mortimer Wheeler in the 1930s (Wheeler 1943) and Niall Shaples in the mid-1980s (Sharples 1991). Neither of these excavations sampled more than a fraction of the enclosed area, in both cases no more than 1%, but the recovered evidence presents a detailed picture of life within the hillfort spanning almost the whole of the Iron Age.
    [Show full text]
  • A Genetic Signal of Central European Celtic Ancestry: Preliminary Research Concerning Y-Chromosomal Marker S28 (Part 2)
    A Genetic Signal of Central European Celtic Ancestry: Preliminary Research Concerning Y-Chromosomal Marker S28 (Part 2) Hallstatt Culture: 720 to 600 BC and 600 BC to 480 BC (Ha C and D) This interval represents a time of major changes in Europe, in the regions once characterized by the Pfyn and related cultures with roots extending back to the Neolithic, and the Urnfield groups which would morph into the peoples of the Hallstatt tradition with their characteristic elite burials. Artist rendition of typical rich Hallstatt inhumation burials Kristiansen (1998) proposes that the movement of Hallstatt C warrior elite spread across Central and Western Europe, at a time when trade routes to the north diminished. However those in the eastern tier maintained links to the Lusatian culture and the Baltic regions, with a continued emphasis on trade in amber and mining of salt in the immediate surrounds of Hallstatt in Austria. Hallstatt is actually at the southeastern tip of what was a very large oval shaped territory with the center of gravity northwest of the Alps. In Reinecke’s system of dating, this period is known as Hallstatt C and D. Hallstatt C (earliest phase) is characterized by rich horse and wagon burials (containing ornate horse tack) and includes the region from western Hungary to the Upper Danube. Hallstatt D is represented by a chiefdom zone and elite burials further to the west, with settlements concentrated near the headwaters of every major river from the Loire, to the Seine, Rhone, Rhine and Danube. The geographical re-alignment was likely a function of the establishment of a Greek (Phoecian) trading center in Massilia (Marseilles), circa 600 BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Iron Age Hillforts Survey (Northamptonshire): Second Stage Investigations: Iss
    Iron Age Hillforts Survey (Northamptonshire): Second Stage Investigations: Iss. 2, Mar-2016 Iron Age Hillforts Survey (Northamptonshire): Analysis of the Individual Hillfort Reports Synopsis: In the autumn of 2013, CLASP undertook to assist national teams working to compile an “Atlas of British Iron Age Hillforts” (jointly led by focus groups of senior archaeologists at the universities of Oxford and Edinburgh), by carrying out surveys of all known prehistoric hillforts in Northamptonshire. The results of these Northamptonshire surveys naturally feed forward into the national hillforts survey – but in addition, the CLASP team has recognised that the results for Northamptonshire are themselves capable of interpretation and analysis on a local basis. Resulting from this detailed research on each of the individual sites, it gradually became clear that it would be instructive to carry out further analytical investigations. This paper therefore aims to explore, analyse and summarise such of these investigations as could be carried out by desktop analysis and study of the individual survey reports. Five ‘metrics’ are first identified, by which the hillforts can be assessed; and case-study analysis is then applied to selected groups of the hilforts, incorporating a great deal of further data drawn from the wider landscape area around the hillforts, in order to study the ways in which the five metrics apply to each of the selected groups of forts. As a result, it has been possible to form certain conclusions, and to advance some theories about the site groupings and their functions and possible interactions. The CLASP team involved in this study is as follows: G.W.
    [Show full text]