This essay will look at the different ideas Historians have put forward to explain the origins of the people of the Iron Age, and will compare these ideas with the archaeological evidence we have available to try to determine if there was a mass migration or invasion of people of continental tribes or if the majority of people were native to the British Isles. I will focus on the evidence showing striking similarities to artefacts found in Hallstatt as well as the La Téne period, combines with finds of the Arras culture to see how much influence these periods had Iron Age Britain and shall try to look at how these continental ideas were spread to Britain.
Firstly, it is important to mention briefly the river systems. The Humber would have or may have acted as a passageway into Britain from the continent ad vice versa. Other routes such as the Derwent and the Ouse may have also been utilised and it is highly likely that they were. [1] Some historians have suggested that the rivers and sea routes of and around Britain would have been used throughout the Iron Age as a means of bringing trade into the country as well as people; however, the extent of this has proved quite difficult to determine.[2] It is also documented in the evidence found at Scarborough and Staple Howe, with particular attention on the latter, that defence was a priority for the people of the Bronze Age, as seen from the siting of their community on a knoll and a stockade. Other areas such as Grimthorpe and Thwing opted for ramparts for their defence. This would suggest they felt this was much needed against unwelcome visitors. It is difficult to determine who these visitors may have been and if they were invaders from the continent.[3]
Secondly, it is also important to discuss the evidence written down at the time of the Iron Age and into the Roman period to show the problems we as historians face with regards to discovering the origins of the Iron Age people. The name ‘Celtic’ has been used by many Roman and Greek writers basically as a label, perhaps derogatory, to describe their continental neighbours. Some Roman and Greek writers, some more famous than others, were convinced that there were Celtic invasions into Britain and even specify the particular tribes they thought were invading. Julius Caesar had documented that the continental tribes of Gaul had settled in Britain to form the tribes we know as the Parisi and the Atrebates. [4]
However, Caesar also writes of groups of the Belgae recognising themselves as indigenous, as Cunliffe translates, ‘The interior...is inhabited by people who claim, on the strength of their own traditions, to be indigenous. The coastal areas are inhabited by invaders who crossed from Belgium for the sake of plunder and then, when the fighting was over, settled there and began to work the land’ (Caesar, De Bello Gallico V,12).’[5] Tacitus also wrote of the Celtic tribes of Britain and it is their documentation which originally provided the basis on which nineteenth and twentieth century archaeologists and historians developed their works around as it once seemed likely that on the evidence of Greek and Roman writers, Britain had been subject to continental invasions. One historian, Christopher Hawkes, developed his ABC scheme theory to describe the British Iron Age as being subjected to three successive waves of continental invasions.[6]
However, there is no solid evidence that Britain’s Iron Age population consisted largely of continental invaders looking at the archaeology discovered. What we have found does show striking resemblance but the burial rites such as the flat cemeteries described by Simon James, as well as farming and social practices is not identical to what is found on the continent, and surely if the population had largely been invaders, these aspects would have been identical.[7] It therefore seems highly unlikely that a mass migration had occurred.
Burial is often used to give archaeologists a good insight to possible origins of people as well as fashion, eating habits and religious habits. The Iron Age burials found in Britain are no exception. Some burials can be described as having clear continental influences, particularly the chariot burials discovered in the East Yorkshire area. These types of burial do appear to be localised rather than a consistent practice across Iron Age Britain. Some regions of Britain show no evidence of burial at all, suggesting that some people of the Iron Age were disposing of their dead in ways we are not able to find now, in effect, they were leaving no trace of themselves at all. The burials we have found in East Yorkshire do show similarities to burials discovered in parts of Gaul, but they do have small differences too. The burials found in Gaul show an outstretched body whereas the burials found in East Yorkshire show a body which has been placed into a foetal position. The burial goods found in East Yorkshire also show local traditions rather than continental ones.[8]
One notable style of burial is that of the Arras culture. These can also be compared with examples discovered on the continent, more so of the ones of eastern Gaul. The burials discovered at Garton Slack have been connected with the Arras culture. It is here that we have also found a number of figurines stylised with shields and swords made out of chalk. [9] As has already been mentioned, a contracted burial was a common feature of East Yorkshire, but other examples have been found in Anglian cemeteries too. This would suggest the people of the Iron Age were adopting new continental ideas but were not completely surrounding themselves with it. They still had their own local identities.[10] Some contracted burials have been found with joints of meat placed in them from the Bronze Age right through to the Iron Age. It has therefore been suggested from examples like these that even though cremation occurred in the Bronze Age, inhumation was still a practice that continued into the Iron Age, leading us to believe that the population were merely carrying on with tradition rather than adopting continental ideas on a large scale.[11]
The chariot burials noted above may initially suggest that this was definitely a continental tradition, as so many similar finds have been discovered outside of Britain. However, it would seem more likely that members of the elite sections of society would have wanted to have this type of burial instead or that their families would have wanted and been able to provide this type of burial for them as a way of distinguishing them as respected members of society placed at the top of the local hierarchy. The chariot burials were also once thought of as belonging to elite warriors, mainly members of a continental tribe, who may have entered East Yorkshire via the Humber estuary.[12]
The items which have been attributed to the Hallstatt period of the Iron Age shows they can be mainly part of personal trinkets and belongings, or those that would have belonged to warriors which would have served as vital equipment. Cunliffe states ‘The warrior equipment consists of the long slashing sword and its sheath and the horse decked out with an array of bronze ornamented tack. The personal items include razors, toilet sets, brooches, pins and bracelets. The warrior equipment would have been suitable as gifts between men of a high rank, while the other items are the sorts of things that would have been passed down the social hierarchy.’ We can see that some items would have been adapted by different people and often slightly changed to give a local identity to the item.[13] Much of the metalwork and pottery is also very much widespread across the area once dominated by the Parisi tribe.[14] The area of the Parisi, described in the writings of Ptolemy, is now thought to have been one which the Arras and La Tène cultures had a huge influence over.[15]
Evidence of the pottery and weapons as well as the hill forts found in the South of Britain was largely thought of as down to a continental invasion of the people belonging to an area known as Marne. However, there is not enough evidence to fully determine the truth of this, much of it is speculation. Still, the evidence that is available would suggest a certain amount of continental contact, however large or small, showing that ideas were appearing to spread throughout Britain from abroad.[16]
Most of the evidence found in Iron Age Britain does show close parallels with continental examples, and based on this would suggest some sort of contact, most of which are military items as well as items displaying wealth and social status. It is known that swords developed by continental craftsmen had entered Britain in the Late Bronze Age. This also seems to be occurring throughout the Iron Age too, showing that over the period there was a substantial amount of contact and imports into Britain, so it would be impossible for items discovered in Iron Age Britain not to have some sort of continental influence. The style of swords and daggers altered from the Hallstatt period and into the La Tène period, some of which had been associated to Celts that had migrated over from the continent. The La Tène period shows development of art styles onto items such as swords, shields and even pottery, most notably the curvy lines we more modernly associate as being a Celtic design.[17] The curved lines and swirling features on artefacts have been suggested by archaeologists to be abstract depictions of animals, faces and flowers or vegetation.[18] The artistic styles known as the La Tène culture developed after the Hallstatt culture. These cultures described can be mainly distinguished by their burial practices and many similarities can be seen in France and Germany.[19]
In conclusion, based on the archaeological evidence discussed, it would seem there were people travelling across the channel from Gaul in very small communities rather than larger migration groups. It is also apparent that the people of Britain had regular contact with Irish groups too. Although there is no denying some of the evidence shows striking resemblances to artefacts found of Hallstatt and La Tène standard, much of the Iron Age archaeology is in fact a continuance of the traditions which have originated from the people of the Bronze Age. Simon James states ‘The major characteristics of British Iron Age archaeology- for example, circular or ovoid houses, domestic pottery traditions, farming regimes, and the ‘disappearing dead’- are patterns which were laid down during the local Late Bronze Age, long before the supposed Iron Age Celtic invasions. The peoples of Iron Age Britain were not newcomers, but generally seem to have been descendants of earlier local populations, and similar patterns are observed in Ireland.’[20] It is also noted in James’ work that sometimes communities will develop of their own accord rather than needing to attribute large change to invasion, as he states ‘More generally, as we shall see, we now also have a more sophisticated understanding of how such ‘pre-modern’ societies work, largely from anthropological research on living peoples which shows that they can and do change, often radically and quickly, for interval reasons as well as due to external contacts. We do not need to infer invasions to explain the appearance of similarities between the peoples of Ireland and Britain and the continental Celtic Gauls.’[21]There was still no doubt that continental contact was occurring, it is the degree to which it was which is important. I can therefore conclude that the large majority of Iron Age people in Britain were indigenous to the British Isles, with a small trickle of people from continental tribes making their way across the channel to settle amongst the original inhabitants.
Bibliography
James, Simon, The Atlantic Celts: Ancient people or Modern invention?, (London: British Museum Press, 1999) pp. 9-59
Cunliffe, Barry, Iron Age Britain, (London: B.T Batsford, 2004) pp. 4-53
Rivet, A.L.F, The Iron Age in Northern Britain, (Edinburgh: University Press, 1966)
Cunliffe, Barry, Iron Age Communities in Britain, (London: Routledge, 1991) pp. 1-21
Ramm, Herman, The Parisi, (London: Duckworth, 1978)
[1] Herman Ramm, The Parisi, (London: Duckworth, 1978) p. 5
[2] Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Britain, (London: B.T Batsford, 2004) p. 18
[3] Herman Ramm, The Parisi, (London: Duckworth, 1978) p. 11
[4] Simon James, The Atlantic Celts: Ancient people or Modern invention?, (London: British Museum Press, 1999) p. 17
[5]Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Britain, (London: B.T Batsford, 2004) pp. 12-13
[6] Simon James, The Atlantic Celts: Ancient people or Modern invention?, (London: British Museum Press, 1999) p. 36
[7] Ibid. Pp. 37-40
[8] Ibid. Pp. 37-40
[9] Herman Ramm, The Parisi, (London: Duckworth, 1978) p. 17
[10]Ibid. p. 17
[11] Ibid. p. 17
[12] Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Britain, (London: B.T Batsford, 2004) pp. 17-18
[13] Ibid. p. 17
[14] Herman Ramm, The Parisi, (London: Duckworth, 1978)p.11
[15] Ibid. p. 21
[16] Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Britain, (London: B.T Batsford, 2004) p. 15
[17]Ibid. p. 16
[18] Simon James, The Atlantic Celts: Ancient people or Modern invention?, (London: British Museum Press, 1999) pp. 28-29
[19] Ibid. p. 27
[20] Simon James, The Atlantic Celts: Ancient people or Modern invention?, (London: British Museum Press, 1999) p. 40
[21]Ibid. p. 40
No comments:
Post a Comment