URBANlSATlON IN ATLANTlC EUROPE IN THE lRON AGE by John COLLlS Professor, Departament of Archaeology and Prehistory. University, Sheff ield, England In this paper I shall primarily be considering central and northern France and Britain in the two centuries before the Roman conquest. In France this is essentially the second and beginning of the first century BC, ending with Caesar's conquest of Gaul in 58-51 BC; in Britain it will concern the first century BC and the first half of the first century AD -the south of England was invaded in 42-43 AD, but the north was only conquered about a generation later. I shall also use the term <.urbanisation)>in a loose way. Though many would accept that some of the oppida mentioned by Caesar had many characteristics we associate with urban sities, -centres of trade, industry and administration- in the late lron Age there are many other sites and settlement systerns which were almost as complex as urbanised societies, and perhaps on the threshold of urbanisation. Though terms like <<urban)>or :(states>are useful terms to categorise societies and allow cross-comparison with other complex societies in time and space, and aiso give us clues about the key features which we should be investigating, our aim should not be to provide labels or typologies but to understand how societies fuctioned and changed. To argue whether a certaín site is urban or not is a pointless exerciese in itself, especially as for archaeologists many key areas of information, such as legal status of a site, are not recorded in the archaeological record. But it is important to ask the right questions of the data, especialiy if that information is to be looked for and collected. Too often specialists are simply asked for reports without any proper interplay with the archaeologist (for instance in the questions to be asked, sampling strategies, etc.), or in the execution of an overall strategy and the pubiication of the results. As an example one can mention the study of carbonised seeds and plant remains. Usually reports consist of a list of species present and their relative comrnonness. Sites can be divided into producers and consumers, and this can show up in the evidence for the different stages of crop processing that are present on a site, the range of habitats represented by the weed seeds, as well as the presence of exotic species. In this context one can quote the work of Martin Jones at Danebury (Jones 1984) and Hengistbury Head (Jones 1989), or of Marijke van der Veen in the north of England (1991), but such work is generally lacking on the continent where reports tend to be written by pure botanists rather than botanists with an archaeological training. At present the Late Age forrn Czechoslovakia to central France gives an impression of great hornogeneity, with the appearance in the second century BC of the defended oppida (Collis 1984), but this similarity is perhaps more apparent than real. In some areas the defended sites became densely occupied, in others they were quickly abandoned; there are many gaps in the distribution with areas where there are no oppida, and where we have no idea what was happening. Perhaps the Late lron Age was not typified by the large oppida because many areas did not have thern. Also we have big oppida and small oppida. Could this be a hierarchy of sites with one big main oppidum and several subsidiary sites; or are there areas which were dominated by just one large oppidurn, while other areas has several small oppida competing with one another? We have only just begun to touch on the complexity of this seemingly uniform period. Certain areas of western France seem to be very different, perhaps more comparable with Britain where are can identify a confusing range of different types os fites and settlement systems. CENTRAL AND NORTHERN FRANCE These are areas which ostensibly follow the major trends of central Europe, culminating in the appearance of the oppida during La Tene DI. However, generally we know little about settlement patterns in the preceding periods, And much of this area is devoid of the cernetery evidence we have for some areas of central Europe, e.g. the La Tene A burials of the Hunsrück Eifel or the La Tene B-C flat inhumation cemeteries of Hungary and Czecholovakia. Champagne and the Aisne valley are the exceptions, as here there is an almost continuous tradition for burial. However, archeological obsession with these cemeteries has elevated the Champagne to an importance wich it probably did not possess in the lron Age, and only now is settlement evidence emerging from sites such as Bourges which will provide a more balanced view. Settlement archaeology in France is still in its infancy, so I shall concentrate on three regional studies which have been under way since the 1970s- 1980s, in the Auvergne, in the Berry, and in the Aisne valley. THE AUVERGNE Great importance was accorded to the Arverni, with their kings Luernios (((the richest man in al1 Gaub), his son Bituitos, or the first French national hero, Vercingetorix, by classical sources such as Posidonius, Caesar and Livy. This has neves been matched by the archaeology. Until recently burials were virtually unknown, and none fall into the rich class (Loison et al. 1992). Details of the chronology too are only just being clarified. However, we perhaps now know more about the settlement pattern and its development in the late lron Age than anywhere else in France. Two major settlement excavations have taken place, Aulnat and Gerzat, wiht many other chance finds or small scale excavations, and a continuing tradition for intensive field walking and survey. The systematic surveys by Mills (1986), while producing important evidence form most periods, revealed little La Tene material. In part this may be due to sampling problems -the sites rnany not be evenly distributed across the landscape- but also because many of the sites lie in the plains, the <<Lirnagnes», and are covered by later alluvium. Systematic studies during drain digging or motorway construction are beginning to rectify this. Work has concentrated immediately around the areaof Clermont Ferrand, but survey is now being extended to the adjacent areas around Lezoux (Alain Ferdiere), the valley of the Morge north of Riom (Christine Jouannet), and the lssoire Basin (Claire Watson), as well as more intensive work around Clermont Ferrand (Vicent Guichard). Generally this work is confirming the previous results. Settlements belonging to La Tene A (fifth century BC) are at present poorly represented, but are generally in low-lying situations. From La Tene B a period of intensive occupation begins on the clays and gravels of the river terraces, and especially on the terre noire of the limagnes. The settlement pattern gradually intensifies with more and more settlements appearing in the plain up to La Tene DI at the end of the second century BC. Generally the sites seem to be small in size, around 300 m in diameter. The sites are especially dense in the area to the east of Clermont Ferrand around the modern villages of Aulnat and Gerzat, and are often only a few hundred metres apart. Many of these settlements have produced evidence for industrial activity. The excavation of Aulnat-La Grande Borne has produced traces of a wide range of industries from the end of La Tene B until La Tene DI, in fact virtually al1 the industries later found on the oppida though not al1 were present at one time (Collis 1980). Bone buttons and bone dice were manufactured especially in the later phases, glas was probably worked, and some bone tools and haematite crayons may be from pottery manufacture. lron slag is especially common in the earlier phases, and is mainly from smithing. lron was imported in the form of paddle shaped currency bars, and the site has produced a wide range of iron objects -spears, scabbard fragments, a cauldron hook- but the only items certainly manufactured were brooches. Several hundred fragments of crucibles were found, mainly containing traces of copper and tin, and in a later phases some contained gold and silver (Smith and Collins i982), but in none of these cases is it clear what was being made except for one pit which produced moulds for making flans for gold and silver coins (Tournaire et al. 1982). Textiles were also produced, and awide range of bone points are perhaps for net making or a sort of one needle knitting. The settlement at Gerzat presents a considerable contrast, though the evidence relates mainly La Tene DI. Glass was worked -there is a fragment of a cake of raw purple glass, and one or two bone points are present, but are rare in comparison to Aulnat. The only other industry present is blacksmithing, in the form of bun-shaped lumps os slag, and is much more common than in thecontemporary phase at Aulnat. Several other sites have produced evidence for bone working or iron working, and at three sites, Lezux (Mennesier-Jouannet1991 ), Chamalieresand Randan (Miallier 1984), pottery kilns have been excavated. The range and variety of local pottery developed enormously during La Tene C, such as the highly original painted wares. The development of contacts with the Mediterranean world can also be documented at Aulnat. In the earliest phase, La Tene 82, only coral was definitely being imported. In La Tene C fine black slipped table wares form ltaly appeared along with painted white wares form the Marseilles region and mortaria of unknown origin. In thefinal phases in addition to these imports large quantities of Campanian amphorae (Dressel la) are found on al1 sites, while Aulanat produced a carnelian intaglio (Henig and Collins 1987).