The Iron Age
(c. 800 BC – 43 AD)
Around the year 320 BC, an explorer named Pytheas left his home in Massalia (modern day Marseilles) to travel to the northern extremities of the known world. Massalia, a Greek colony in southern Gaul, was an appropriate starting place for such a venture. The city, with a population of between 30,000 – 40,000 individuals, was a leading centre of the wine trade and probably controlled much of the maritime commerce along the northern shores of the western Mediterranean. The personal history of Pytheas remains obscure. Although a later source described him as poor, he was certainly well educated with an enquiring scientific mind. Pytheas published an account of his journey in a text entitled On the Ocean, scraps of which are preserved in the works of later Classical authors.
On leaving Massalia, Pytheas probably crossed southern Gaul to reach the northern coast of Brittany. A day’s sailing took him northwards to Britain, where he possibly landed in Devon or Cornwall. Pytheas was attracted to Britain by the tin reserves of the south-west, which lured merchants and traders from mainland Europe. According to Pytheas, the main island of Britain was known as Albion and was inhabited by the Pretani (or painted ones). Pytheas’ account of the tin trade, preserved in the later work of Diodorus Siculus, refers to a small island called Ictis which acted as a trading zone for the exchange of tin with European merchants. Such an island would have served as a safe location for both local traders and Gallic merchants. Tin purchased on Ictis was transported across the Channel and through Gaul to the mouth of the Rhône, where some of it would eventually have been conveyed to Massalia. It is likely that Pytheas may have first heard of the existence of Britain from conversations with tin traders in his home city.
Pytheas’ journey continued along the western coast of Britain, probably through a series of short voyages. Fortunately for us, Pytheas attempted to calculate the distance he had travelled from Massalia through a series of measurements of the sun’s height undertaken at separate points on his journey north. These measurements allow us to track his progress. The first measurement in Britain was probably conducted on the Isle of Man, the second on Lewis in the Outer Hebrides and the third near the northern tip of the Orkney Islands. Whilst we cannot be sure how much time Pytheas spent at these locations, his descriptions of the Pretani were incorporated into later accounts of Britain by Classical authors. He describes Britain as thickly populated with a people who generally lived a modest lifestyle. They stored grain in purpose built granaries and deployed chariots in combat. British society was controlled by an elite composed of kings and aristocrats who were mostly at peace with each other. It is difficult to know how accurate Pytheas’ account was, or whether it was conceived from his personal observations or discussions with people he met during his journey. The northern extremity of his journey was a location he calls Ultima Thule, which has been identified as Iceland, although it is unclear whether he personally visited it or merely noted its existence. Pytheas’ return journey took him along the eastern coast of Britain, with a possible excursion to Jutland, before passing through the English Channel and returning to Massalia via Brittany.1
BRITAIN & THE CLASSICAL WORLD
The significance of the Pytheas’ journey lies in the fact that it marks the entry of Britain into history through the writers of the Classical period. Before Pytheas, the very existence of Britain was subject to rumour and supposition. The publication of his On the Ocean brought Britain and its inhabitants firmly into the known world. To a certain extent, this mirrors the shift of the wider importance of Britain during the Iron Age. For the first time, British archaeology can be supported with references to historical and literary sources. By 43 AD, many of the Pretani, particularly those from the southern tribes, were firmly connected to the rising superpower of imperial Rome.
It is important to note that Iron Age Britain was not a homogeneous entity, but rather was subject to significant regional variations. A leading scholar of Iron Age archaeology has identified five key regional zones across Britain during this period, namely the north-western (Scottish highlands), northeastern (Scottish lowlands and northern England), eastern, central southern and south-western zones.2 These regional zones are reflected in distinct changes in economic productivity and settlement patterns. Across Britain, therefore, the nature of Iron Age society and culture varied considerably. The historical sources which shed light on the period were written by Classical authors who were most interested in the tribal territories of south eastern Britain, which had the most contact with Rome. Their accounts provide a glimpse of life in the Iron Age from a narrow geographic perspective and do not necessarily reflect reality across the rest of Britain.
Across Europe, there is considerable evidence for economic decline at the end of the Bronze Age. Bronze seems to have played a decreasing role in contemporary societies as an object of value for exchange mechanisms. The dwindling supply of bronze may be linked to the end of major copper mining projects across Europe. Iron had numerous advantages over bronze as a material. The process of smelting iron ore was discovered in the Middle East by about 1500 BC. Its spread across the western world was slow, with iron smelting technology in use in Britain around 800 BC. Iron ores are commonly found across Britain, in contrast to the more restricted distribution of tin and copper. The accessibility of iron ores would have promoted the use of the material. Whilst iron can be smelted at a much lower temperature than copper, it tends to be worked at an equivalent temperature. It seems likely that smiths who formerly produced bronze switched to working with iron, utilising their existing knowledge of metalworking. In practical terms, iron formed weapons and tools which were considerably stronger, harder and sharper than their bronze counterparts.3
Classical sources provide us with insight into life in Britain at the end of the Iron Age. However, caution is essential when dealing with such accounts. The Roman and Greek authors who mention Britain were writing from a Mediterranean perspective. They were part of the rapidly expanding Roman Empire and therefore many of their texts are infused with an imperialist theme. Britain stood at the edge of the known world and was seen as a mysterious and strange place. Like many societies, Rome used negative stereotypes of those living beyond her borders to assert her own cultural superiority. The evidence provided by Classical authors needs to be treated carefully, particularly in terms of their source of information. In some cases, information on British geography and society was taken from earlier authors, such as Pytheas, or from discussions with traders or soldiers who may have visited Britain. Only rarely does such information come directly from personal experience.
Strabo was a Roman geographer who published a sweeping study of his subject at the end of the first century BC and beginning of the first century AD. Strabo was born in Asia Minor and certainly never visited Britain. Instead, he relied on the works of earlier authors. He claims that the lifestyles of the British were similar to those of the Gauls, if only more barbarous. However, Iron Age Britons were significantly taller than their counterparts across the Channel. Strabo supports this assertion by citing the cases of British slaves that he saw in slave markets in Rome, who stood over half a foot above the rest of the population, despite being otherwise physically unimpressive. The presence of British captives in Rome is explained through the inclusion of slaves on Strabo’s list of prized British exports, alongside hunting dogs, hides, corn, cattle, gold, silver and iron. This evidence for the British slave trade is a poignant reminder of the realities of life in Iron Age Britain. Strabo states four major crossing points are used to connect the European mainland to Britain. All were centred on the mouths of major river systems, namely the Rhine, Seine, Loire and Garonne. The geography of Britain, according to Strabo, was mainly low lying and heavily wooded. He claimed the British population resided within the forests, where they built large circular stockades to serve as settlements.4
Some of Strabo’s account is clearly fictitious. He claimed, for example, that the British ‘know nothing of planting crops or of farming in general’. This is clearly nonsense, as the archaeological record demonstrates the longevity of agriculture in Britain. Yet, even despite this, Britain does emerge in better shape in Strabo’s account than the inhabitants of Ireland. The Irish, he claimed, were cannibals who consumed their own fathers after death. Moreover, they frequently indulged in incestuous relationships. Needless to say, Strabo’s scandalous claims concerning Ireland demonstrate the difficulties in dealing with Classical accounts of lands at the edge of their comprehension.
A more useful account of Iron Age Britain can be found in Julius Caesar’s account of his Gallic Wars. Caesar was eager to present the Roman people with his version of his campaigns in order to cement his popularity and further his political career. In the course of his campaigns in Gaul, Caesar twice raided Britain in 55 and 54 BC. It is critical to note that Caesar was not a dispassionate observer of events but an author eager to emphasize his leading role and, in this case, the innovative nature of his attack on Britain, which was the first to have been carried out by Roman troops. He was keen to portray himself as a general who had expanded the boundaries of Roman power. Nevertheless, Caesar does include a brief overview of the customs of the British, which may at least have been informed by his time amongst them.
Caesar claimed that Britain possessed a large population, most of whom were native to the island. Their settlements were similar to those he had visited in Gaul. Caesar claimed that the inhabitants of Kent were the most civilized of the British. Cattle were reared in large numbers. The British were forbidden from eating hares or waterfowl, though they still reared them as pets. Tin and iron were naturally occurring, although most copper was imported. Bronze and gold coins, along with iron ingots, served as currency. Caesar claimed that the Britons daubed themselves in blue dye named woad and shaved their bodies. He showed particular interest in British sexual habits, claiming that wives were shared amongst groups of males, particularly those related by blood. Like Strabo, Caesar’s interest in sexual habits of societies beyond the empire indicates a desire to depict such groups as wholly alien and uncivilized compared to the inhabitants of Rome.
POPULATION MOVEMENTS DURING THE IRON AGE
Caesar, intriguingly, stated that immigrants from Belgic Gaul had settled near the coast. Originally visiting Britain to wage war, they decided instead to remain as farmers. Caesar gave no indication of when this population movement took place and archaeologists are divided as to whether these Belgic settlers even existed. The movement of individuals and groups between Britain and the Continent during the Iron Age was not unknown. Indeed, Caesar’s self-proclaimed motive for invading was that British tribes had provided reinforcements for the Gauls during his campaigns. High profile Gallic nobles frequently sought refuge in Britain during times of political and military strife. During the Roman period, the British tribe of the Belgae were located in Hampshire with a tribal capital at Winchester. The location of this tribe does correspond with Caesar’s description. It is therefore possible that the British Belgae were descendants of settlers from Belgic Gaul who arrived at some point during the Iron Age.6
Evidence for the arrival of Continental migrants during this period can also be found on the Yorkshire Wolds. Inhumation burials are relatively rare during the Iron Age. Most of the dead seem to have been disposed of in ways which leave little trace in the archaeological record, such as through excarnation. From around 400 BC, cemeteries begin to appear in the southwest and Yorkshire. Those in Yorkshire are particularly interesting for the links they potentially demonstrate between the local population and contemporary societies in the Ardennes, Moselle region and Seine Valley. These burials on the Yorkshire Wolds have been identified as belonging to an Arras Culture (named after one of the original sites near the town of Market Weighton), common to inhabitants of both geographic areas. The most significant feature of the Arras Culture burials in Yorkshire consists of the deposition of two-wheeled vehicles (described either as chariots or carts) within graves of elite individuals. So-called chariot burials have been found elsewhere in Britain, even as far north as Edinburgh, but never in as great a frequency as they are on the Yorkshire Wolds. Another potentially anomalous feature to be found in the same region consists of square barrow mounds which often contained grave goods of European origin. These square barrows are delineated by shallow ditches which preserve their outline shape.
The most important site for understanding Arras Culture is the Iron Age cemetery at Wetwang Slack in Yorkshire. One of the burials, for example, belongs to a mature female. She was buried with an iron mirror, pork joint, dress pin and bronze box. These grave goods are indicative of her status. A dismantled cart complete with harness fittings was added to the grave. The cemetery was in use between the fourth and first centuries BC, and was carefully laid out next to a linear earthwork, close to an existing settlement. The structure of the site was carefully managed so that the distribution of barrows reflects social stratification and possibly wider cosmological beliefs. Some of the graves contain weapons deposited with the deceased. The local tribe was named the Parisi. Interestingly a similarly named tribe, the Parisii, are known to have lived in the Seine Valley. Does this suggest the Continental origins of the inhabitants of Wetwang Slack and the Yorkshire Wolds?
There are some anomalies which must be considered in understanding the meaning of Arras Culture. The fact that the vehicles which were interred in the Yorkshire burials were dismantled contrasts with similar burials on the Continent where they are usually buried in full working order. The settlement at Wetwang Slack is indistinguishable from contemporary sites across northern England. Neither the material culture nor the architecture of the site indicates that the community was in any sense distinct from any other. The roundhouses are in keeping with those from across British during the same period. There is little evidence for individuals of high status within the settlement, in contrast to some of the burials. The presence of weapons as grave goods is not reflected in the structure of the settlement, which is not overtly militarised. In other words, though the burials at Wetwang Slack are distinctive, the settlement is not. Perhaps the best explanation is that the Yorkshire Wolds was settled at some point in the Iron Age by migrants from the Seine Valley region. These individuals, probably from a very small group, assimilated into the local population. Their Continental origins were reflected not in their daily lifestyle, but through the identities they displayed in death.7
HILLFORTS
The landscape of the Iron Age was dictated by agricultural intensification. The roundhouse was the predominant form of housing structure. By the beginning of the Iron Age, roundhouses were increasing in size to between 10 and 15 m in diameter. This increasing size indicates that larger social groups were co-habiting. Up to twenty individuals, potentially, could live within roundhouses of this size. In some cases, roundhouses may even have possessed two storeys. There is increasing evidence that livestock were stabled within the roundhouses, requiring distinct zones of activity to be observed within the structures. Roundhouses were constructed with increasing frequency from the fourth century BC with increasing concentrations in river valleys. This suggests a burgeoning population across Britain.8
A symptom of the intensification of agriculture may be found in the appearance of hilltop enclosures across central Britain. These sites are identified through their large size and relative absence of interior features, in contrast to most hillforts. Whilst hilltop enclosures may be surrounded by perimeter ditches, they often utilize features of the surrounding landscape to act as a boundary. The hilltop enclosure at Walbury in Wessex consists of a trapezoidal parcel of land enclosing eighty-two acres. Archaeological investigation of the interior has revealed a scarcity of interior structures.9 It seems likely that hilltop enclosures were used primarily for gathering livestock, essentially acting as cattle ranches. This may have taken place at certain times of year, for example to count the herd or select individual animals for slaughter. Alternatively, it could be have been used as a secure location for corralling livestock during times of war. The existence of such large enclosures, and the number of livestock which they housed, demonstrate the effectiveness of contemporary livestock rearing techniques and reveal something of the complexity of Iron Age societies.
The most famous type of sites from this period are undoubtedly hillforts. These sites are generally characterized by their physical location, which tends to dominate the surrounding landscape, and the ditch and rampart which defines the area under enclosure. Hillforts were constructed from the sixth century BC across a broad swathe of England (from the south-east through to north Wales) and Scotland (generally around the east coast). Hillforts can be found in a variety of shapes and sizes. Some, like Danebury, demonstrate a considerable amount of internal planning including roads, storage pits and dwellings. Others were far smaller and less impressive.
The purpose of hillforts has been the topic of great debate among archaeologists. It cannot be denied that many hillforts do have a violent history. Fin Cop, an imposing hillfort in Derbyshire, was constructed between 440 and 390 BC. Recent excavations uncovered an 11 m section of the surrounding ditch.10 Nine human bodies were discovered in the ditch, buried among the remains of the surrounding wall which appears to have been deliberately collapsed into the ditch around the same time as their burial. All of the Fin Cop bodies were female. Two of the skeletons represent adults, alongside four babies and a single teenager, toddler and individual of indeterminate age. There is no evidence for trauma on their bones, indicating that they were killed through a method which would leave no skeletal trace. Strangulation or throat cutting remain distinct possibilities as potential causes of their deaths. Skeletal analysis indicates that this group had experienced considerable dietary stress and anaemia, perhaps as a result of starvation. The rampart wall had not been standing for long prior to its destruction, suggesting that it was constructed as a response to a specific threat and was destroyed during a single violent episode. The hillfort may have been established as a secure place of refuge for the local community. Unfortunately, it failed to provide them with adequate security. Given the relatively small section of ditch excavated, Fin Cop may potentially hold hundreds of bodies. The lack of male burials may be significant. It is possible that the male population was executed elsewhere on the site or disposed of in another manner. In many ancient societies, women would be enslaved by the victors.11 The fate of the female inhabitants of Fin Cop suggests that the attack which destroyed their hillfort was motivated by a desire to commit genocide against the inhabitants. It is a salutary reminder of how dangerous life in Iron Age Britain could be.
It may be too simplistic to view all hillforts as solely defensive structures. It used to be widely assumed that hillforts represented the residence of an elite, who perhaps ruled over the farmers of the surrounding territory. Yet not all hillforts contained internal structures suggesting that they were dwellings of any great significance. Some may have been inhabited seasonally or infrequently on particularly important occasions. The dramatic location of many hillforts emphasizes their visibility. This could be because the inhabitants wished to maintain surveillance over the landscape. Yet it can also be argued that they were meant to be seen as status symbols for the groups who built them. The act of digging the perimeter ditches and constructing the surrounding rampart would have required the involvement of the wider community. These were large scale construction projects. Similar to the great monuments of the Neolithic, the act of bringing the community together with a common purpose and objective may have been as significant as what they constructed. The hillfort may have continued to play a key role in the life of the community, not only as a refuge in times of trouble but as a venue for festivals and ceremonies. Perhaps the value of hillforts lay in their function as a geographical centre for a tribal group dispersed over a large area.12
DANEBURY
From around 300 BC, there is considerable evidence for a shift in the usage and meaning of hillforts. A large number of smaller hillforts seem to have been gradually abandoned. In most areas, only a single hillfort remained. This may indicate the increasing dominance of elite groups over their local areas. Danebury in Hampshire is one of the best understood hillforts due to a longstanding research project which analysed the site within its landscape setting.13 Almost 20% of the site has been fully explored by archaeologists, giving an unparalleled insight into the growth, development and decline of an important hillfort. The site was established around the middle of the sixth century BC, remodelled significantly during the fourth century BC and thrived until the end of the main phase of its existence around 100 BC. The hillfort lies 143 m above sea level, making it visible from a considerable distance over the surrounding landscape. Thirteen acres of land are enclosed within three major earthworks. Danebury’s ramparts were clearly designed for a defensive purpose. The rampart was originally topped with a timber fence up to 4 m in height. Later, the timber wall was replaced and the rampart rebuilt to form a descending slope up to 16 m in height crested by a flint wall. Pits within the hillfort, clustered close to the rampart, held stores of slingshots to be used when the site was under attack. One such pit held 11,000 separate stones.14
Danebury was clearly an important location during the Iron Age. Investigations have demonstrated that a large number of contemporary hillforts from the local region were abandoned by 300 BC, leaving Danebury as one of the few remaining. Excavations have revealed that Danebury’s interior contained a large number of storage pits and structures. Over 18,000 separate post holes have been identified across the site. Post holes mark the original locations of timber posts which have long since rotted away. Roundhouses were the most prominent structures, usually around 6 – 9 m wide. Granaries were also present. These were raised up to 1 m above ground level to prevent the grain within from being spoiled by pests or damp. Most of the granaries appear to be a relatively late addition to the site. Given that Danebury was occupied for over 500 years, it is unsurprisingly difficult to estimate the population at any one time. In all likelihood, the population was between 200 – 300 individuals for most of its existence.
Danebury was peppered with around 5000 storage pits which were dug into the earth to store grain over the winter months. Storage pits provided an efficient method of storing grain in the absence of granaries, provided that they were adequately sealed. The act of digging into the earth and trusting that the sealed grain would not be ruined was surrounded in ritual. Around a third of excavated storage pits contained some form of offering, including human and animal remains. Sheep, cattle, horses, pigs, dogs and a single cat and goat were discovered, either as whole skeletons or individual body parts. Pots, iron tools and burnt grain were also deposited. It is possible that the inhabitants of Danebury viewed the storage pits as liminal locations, perhaps between the human world and the realm of the gods below. These offerings would therefore be perceived as a method for ensuring divine protection for the interred grain. Similar offerings may have been involved during the construction of the ramparts. A quarry pit close by contained the bodies of three male individuals. Not all of the human remains buried in storage pits consisted of whole skeletons. Individual body parts were also commonly found. This suggests that excarnation was practised by the local population. The emphasis on the storage of grain at the site is intriguing. It has been calculated that Danebury held at least twenty times the amount of grain stored by local farming communities. Perhaps Danebury functioned as the residence of a local elite who monopolised local grain production and whose stores would provide them with considerable influence and power.
The main phase of the occupation of Danebury came to a sudden and dramatic end around 100 BC. The main gate of the hillfort was destroyed by fire. Most of the interior was abandoned at around the same time, although limited occupation seems to have continued into the Roman period on a very basic scale. Did Danebury fall as a result of a hostile assault by enemy forces? The inhabitants of the site were not immune from violence. A number of bodies recovered from the site show evidence of combat. One male was killed through a spear smashed through his forehead and another had a cranial wound caused by a sword. One male skull displays a prominent smashed eye socket caused by a blow from a blunt object. Around 100 BC, the remains of twenty-one individuals were hurriedly buried in two pits close to the main gate. The group included men, women and children. Most of the remains show signs of mutilation. Is this evidence for a massacre at the site, with the dead hurriedly disposed of into mass graves? It is possible these burials could also represent the disposal of the dead from a local excarnation site as Danebury was being abandoned. Although the firing of the main gate can be viewed as a hostile act of aggression, it can also be seen as a symbolic act to mark the end of occupation at the site, possibly carried out by the inhabitants themselves. It is, however, worth noting that another hillfort at Bury Hill, only 6 km away, seems to have been reoccupied and its defences reinforced around the same time that Danebury was in decline.15 Archaeological excavation at Bury Hill indicates that the occupants had a distinct profile from those at Danebury. In particular, large numbers of horses seem to have been kept at the site. Chariot fittings have also been recovered. Could the inhabitants of Bury Hill have been an emerging horse riding elite who inflicted a devastating defeat on Danebury’s defenders?16
In Scotland, the Iron Age witnessed the creation of two new forms of settlement structures, namely brochs and crannogs. The earliest broch seems to have been constructed around 600 BC, although most date from between 200 BC – 200 AD. Brochs consist of a tall tower-like structure up to above 9 m in height, often with surrounding buildings.17 The wall of the broch contains the staircase leading to the upper floors. In many instances, broch entrances are flanked by a guardroom. Whilst some brochs were clearly the residence of a single family unit, others show evidence for larger social groupings. The Broch of Gurness on Orkney, for example, is surrounded by a double walled enclosure which contains fourteen separate buildings. Analysis of space and movement within the site indicates that it was constructed to reflect and reinforce an existing social hierarchy.18 Movement through the broch and surrounding buildings seems to have been tightly controlled. The broch tower offered the possibility for surveillance over the enclosure. It seems likely that the broch housed an elite family, surrounded by the homes of their retainers who were offered the protection of the enclosure from external attack. Brochs offered an opportunity for their owners to demonstrate their status over the surrounding landscape.
Crannogs are waterside settlements, often in the form of artificially constructed islands, found across Scotland. Timber posts would be driven into the bed of the lake or loch, enclosing a foundation of rubble and brushwood. Oak logs would then form a platform on which a large hut could be safely constructed. Crannogs were usually joined to the shore by a timber walkway. Crannogs continued in use into the Roman period. Their isolated location meant that they could be easily defended. Moreover, the effort which went into their construction probably reflects the status and power of their inhabitants. The connection between crannogs and water may also indicate a religious significance in their location.19
By the late first century AD, hillforts were gradually superseded by a new type of settlement named an oppidum (plural oppida). Oppida are rather mysterious archaeological sites. In contrast to hillforts, they were established on low lying ground. The reason for the establishment of oppida is unclear. It has been suggested that their construction may have been prompted by increasing trade links with mainland Europe, which prompted local elites to attempt to control trade routes through their territory. Lofty hillforts would have been completely unsuitable for such a purpose. Oppida are difficult to trace archaeologically, although a number have been identified including Colchester, Silchester and St Albans. It is no coincidence that each of these sites became important Roman settlements. Most oppida appear to have been clearly defined by earthworks. Those at Colchester enclosed an area of around 32 km2. Earthworks of the oppidum at Chichester run for over 10 km. It has been estimated that constructing the ramparts would have required the movement of over 340,000 tonnes of soil.20
RELIGION
Religion and ritual permeated all areas of life in Iron Age Britain to the extent that it cannot be separated easily from other aspects of the archaeological record.21 Iron Age religion is famously linked to the Druids. Our best surviving source for their organisation, power and belief system is Julius Caesar who described Gallic Druids in his account of the conquest of Gaul. Whilst Caesar was not describing Druids in a British context, he emphasizes that they originated in Britain and young Gauls still travelled to Britain to become learned in their lore. Caesar believed that Gauls held incredible influence within Gallic society. He claims that the Druids oversaw acts of worship, sacrifices and ruled on religious matters. Outside of the religious sphere, Druids acted as judges pronouncing sentences on individuals and tribal groups. Anyone who failed to follow the rulings of the Druids was prohibited from attending sacrifices, leading to them being shunned from wider society.
Caesar states that the Druids were led by a single leader. Becoming leader usually involved an election, although sometimes single combat was preferred. The Druids assembled each year near modern Chartres. Many young men were eager to join the Druids. Training involved memorising a large number of verses and lasted for up to twenty years. To protect their rites, the Druids refrained from committing any of their beliefs to writing. This poses considerable problems for modern scholars. Caesar suggests that their main belief was in the immortality of the soul through reincarnation. Perhaps as a result of his military interests, Caesar argued that this made the Gauls better fighters as they were less terrified at the prospect of death. The Gauls also maintained an interest in the cosmos and the gods.22
Another Roman writer, Pliny the Elder, portrays a particular aspect of the Druidic belief system. Pliny was an experienced Roman statesman with a passion for science. Unfortunately, this was to be his downfall as he died whilst venturing to investigate the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79. Pliny describes Druidic rituals associated with mistletoe, which he probably came into contact with during military service on the Rhine. The Druids believed that there was a direct connection between mistletoe and the type of tree on which it grew. They particularly venerated the growth of mistletoe on hard-oaks, which they believed had been sent directly by the gods. When such a plant was found, the Druids would gather around the tree. Often this event was arranged to coincide with a date of particular religious significance. A ritual banquet would be prepared beneath the tree and two white bulls would be brought for sacrifice. The chief Druid, clad in white robes, would ascend the tree and cut the mistletoe with a gold sickle. The mistletoe was caught on a white cloak and used to make a drink which acted as a fertility aid and antidote to poisons.23
Druids have frequently been associated with the practice of human sacrifice. In the absence of Druidic texts, it is extremely difficult to prove whether this connection is justified. Caesar claims that the Druids officiated at human sacrifices, which were used to appease the gods or save the life of another. He describes how some Gallic tribes constructed huge wicker frames which they filled with unfortunate victims and then burnt. This description clearly influenced British horror film ‘The Wicker Man’. It must be remembered, however, that Caesar was writing from a specific sociocultural perspective. Emphasising the Gallic propensity for human sacrifice depicted them as less human and therefore inferior to Romans. Finding archaeological evidence for human sacrifice is problematic. Yet one British site may provide an insight into this murky aspect of Iron Age religion. (Druids have attracted a number of scholarly treatments, of varying quality. Two recent studies are Hutton, 2009 and Aldhouse-Green, 2010)
LINDOW MAN
In 1984, the well preserved body of an Iron Age man were recovered from a peat bog on Lindow Moss in Cheshire. Nicknamed Lindow Man, this was the most complete of at least four bodies to have been interred at the site during this period. Radiocarbon dating demonstrates that he died at the very end of the Iron Age or beginning of the Roman period, between 2 BC and 119 AD. The body displays a remarkable level of preservation due to the chemical environment of the bog. Lindow Man was around 25 years old when he died and stood approximately 1.7 m tall. There is no evidence that he was malnourished and his beard and nails were well trimmed. His lifestyle was not one of arduous daily labour. On the contrary, his physique and personal grooming may indicate that he was a man of status.24
Lindow Man died a violent death with a number of serious wounds displayed on his body. He was struck on the head at least twice by a blunt object. One of his ribs was broken and he was probably strangled. Lindow Man’s throat was also slit at the time of his death. The excessive level of violence poses interesting questions about his final moments. There are a number of competing theories to explain why Lindow Man was killed in this way. Given Lindow Man’s status, it is possible that he was the victim of a robbery. His body entered the bog naked save for a fox fur armband. Yet this doesn’t explain the various acts of violence perpetrated on his body. Lindow Man was dumped face down in the bog. This suggests contempt for his corpse and possibly even an attempt at post-mortem punishment. Execution could explain this punitive aspect of his death. The choice of a watery location for his grave may indicate a religious context for his violent end. As noted in an earlier chapter, water was associated with the realm of the gods in ancient Britain. Was Lindow Man ritually sacrificed? It is interesting his stomach contained a small amount of mistletoe pollen. Mistletoe was regarded as possessing ritual significance and acts as a muscle relaxant, which would potentially have been useful in preparing someone for sacrifice. The period of his death, marked by the wider involvement of Rome in British affairs, would have been a time of considerable stress in contemporary societies. Human sacrifices usually occur at times of societal stress, as the ultimate act of seeking the support of the gods. Bodies have been found in bogs across northern Europe dating from around this period, many of which show evidence of violence. Whilst we may never know the circumstances of Lindow Man’s murder, it seems highly likely that it had a ritual significance.
BRITAIN AND ROME
The wider involvement of Rome in British affairs was facilitated by the raids of Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 BC. Whilst Caesar’s landings are often referred to as ‘invasions’, as we shall see, they were really no such thing. Julius Caesar was an ambitious Roman general and statesman. In 58 BC, he initiated the conquest of Gaul which was a natural step in the strategic expansion of Rome, although it also suited Caesar’s political ambitions to establish a reputation as a proven commander. By 55 BC, he had accomplished enough in Gaul for him to begin to look for new avenues to glory and renown. On the edge of the known world, Britain offered a particularly attractive opportunity. Caesar claimed that the support offered by Britons to the Gauls was sufficient to warrant a Roman attack. Caesar began his campaign by sending Commius, the king of the Atrebates of Gaul, to seek the submission of the British tribes prior to his arrival. Caesar crossed the Channel in late summer with two of his legions. His campaign appears to have resulted in an embarrassing lack of success. The British tribes had seized and detained his envoy Commius. The crossing proved particularly difficult. His geographical sphere of activity seems to have been limited to Kent. Although the unfortunate Commius was released, the British tribes proved difficult to deal with. Caesar hastily negotiated treaties with the some of the tribes and returned to the Continent. Only two of the tribes provided hostages to demonstrate their loyalty to Rome.25
The following year, Caesar launched a larger attack on Britain with an assault force consisting of five legions and over 2000 cavalry, giving him an army of 30,000 troops hardened by campaigns in Gaul. The British had not been idle in the intervening period. A new military leader had emerged named Cassivellaunus and had organized a coalition of resistance against the Roman attack. It is not clear to which tribe Cassivellaunus belonged, although later Roman forces refer to him as a king. His tribal heartland appears to have been located north of the Thames. Caesar’s landing was unopposed by native resistance, although a storm ruined part of his fleet. Caesar forced his way northwards towards Cassivellaunus’ stronghold. Caesar’s campaign was assisted by a political asset under his protection, in the form of Mandubracius, a young tribal prince. Mandubracius belonged to the Trinovantes, one of the larger tribes of the south-east region. The Trinovantes had been increasingly pressurised by Cassivellaunus’ expansionist policies, ultimately resulting in the assassination of the king. Fearing for his life, Mandubracius had fled to Gaul where he sought refuge with Caesar. Now, Caesar used him to win the support of the Trinovantes who offered their surrender and cooperation in return for the installation of Mandubracius as their king. The defection of the Trinovantes was a significant coup for Caesar. Five other tribes came to terms with him as a result, namely the Cenimagni, Segontiaci, Ancalites, Bibroci and Cassi. In desperation, Cassivellaunus convinced four kings from Kent to attack Caesar’s landing zone. This final attempt at resistance failed, forcing Cassivellaunos to negotiate surrender through Caesar’s envoy Commius. In return for the promise of annual tribute, a guarantee of safety for the Trinovantes and the provision of hostages, Caesar embarked his forces for the return to Gaul to deal with a growing rebellion.26
Caesar had successfully taken Roman soldiers across the ocean to the edge of the known world. He had received the surrender of a number of British kings, obtained hostages and the promise of annual tribute. The installation of a friendly king in the form of Mandubracius was also potentially valuable in political terms. Yet his campaign was geographically limited and any influenced he had won was localized to the south-east. A Roman perspective on the British campaigns can be found in the letters of Cicero, a famous orator whose brother Quintus accompanied Caesar on the campaign of 54 BC. Cicero wrote as both an anxious relative and a politician with an eye on Caesar’s political ambitions. Alongside expressing concern for Quintus’ safety, Cicero noted that no silver could be found in Britain and any slaves captured would inevitably be depressingly uncultured. On completion of the campaign, Cicero recorded that, whilst hostages had been taken from the British tribes, the tribute was levied as no booty was available for the troops.27 After Caesar’s raids, Roman troops would not return to Britain for almost a century. The main reason for this lack of further military activity is that Britain was too peripheral to the empire to require invasion. The emperor Augustus did indicate a willingness to conquer Britain, but focussed instead on consolidating the German frontier. The emperor Caligula gathered an army on the Channel coast in preparation for an invasion attempt, but changed his mind and returned to Rome. Yet despite the absence of a military presence, Rome continued to play a role in British affairs.
Caesar’s envoy Commius, king of the Atrebates, returned to Gaul with the Roman expeditionary force. Yet he appears to have switched sides during the Gallic revolt led by Vercingetorix and became one of the leading Gallic rebels. After the collapse of the revolt, Commius narrowly surivived an assassination attempt by a Roman officer and eventually came to terms with Rome. Commius’ history as both a Roman ally and a Gallic rebel made him both useful and dangerous. Numismatic evidence suggests that Commius was settled in Britain as a king who would owe his loyalty to Rome.28 This practice was widely used by Roman generals to assert their influence over territories beyond the frontier of the empire. Commius took up residence south of the Thames, exerting his power over Hampshire and Sussex. Coins reveal that Commius was succeeded by a number of other rulers who claimed to be his heirs, namely Tincomarus, Eppilus and Verica. It is impossible to prove whether these later rulers were related to Commius or merely sought the political advantage of claiming membership of his dynasty. To the north of the Thames, a second dynasty became established under a ruler named Tasciovanus. He was succeeded by his sons Cunobelin and Epaticcus. Roman sources indicate that Cunobelin produced two sons, Amminus and Caratacus, who later ruled in his stead.
Dissecting the murky politics and dynastic histories of the late Iron Age is a murky task. Some insight is provided by coins minted by emerging rulers. The first coins arrived in Britain from Gaul during the second century BC. The arrival of coinage was accompanied by the appearance of spectacular gold torcs, probably also a result of Gallic influences. Coins and torcs share a common purpose in displaying status, particularly through their display and distribution by rulers. Early coins minted in Britain tended to display abstract designs which were possibly influenced by shamanic rituals. After Caesar’s raids, the imagery on coins becomes increasingly sophisticated and closely mirrors that displayed on Roman coins.
Roman imagery first appears on British coins during the reign of Tincomarus (c. 20 BC – AD 10), one of the self-styled ‘sons’ of Commius. One of the first Roman images used consisted of a mounted horseman thrusting his spear downwards. This image may have had particular resonance with British rulers due to their increasing reliance on horses, as evidenced by the horse bones and fittings from Bury Hill. The emperor Augustus left an account of his reign, the Res Gestae, which records the presence of two British nobles, Dumnobellaunus and Tincomarus, at his court.29 The latter is almost certainly the son of Commius and this may explain his eagerness to use the imagery of imperial propaganda for his own purposes. The practice of taking hostages or obsides from tribes on the edges of the empire was frequently used by Roman authorities. These hostages were meant to ensure the compliance of their tribes. However, their exposure to Roman culture and society made them particularly valuable as future client kings. The Boscoreale Treasure, a pair of cups recovered close to Pompeii, depicts a group of barbarians presenting their children to the emperor Augustus. In all likelihood, this scene represents submission to the emperor and the presentation of hostages. Tincomarus’ presence in Rome as a hostage would explain his understanding of imperial imagery which, in some instances, materialised as playful manipulation. One particular image, a boy riding a dolphin, is probably a witty play on his name which meant ‘big fish’. As the use of coins became more common across the south-east, the range of Augustan propaganda utilised also increased. Visual representations of imperial concepts such as the Sphinx, Victory, the return of a Golden Age through fertility symbols and the healing of the state through sacrifices were mimicked on British coins.30 The depictions of kings such as Cunobelin, Tasciovanus and Verica also mirror those of emperors. British kings were consciously emulating the symbols and imagery of imperial power to reflect their own status.
The display of status by the late Iron Age was not limited to coins. A timber structure established at Hayling Island in Hampshire may have been dedicated to a ruler cult linked to Commius.31 This would have significantly strengthened the influence of his successors by reinforcing their dynastic links to a deity. It may be significant that Julius Caesar and Augustus claimed descent from a deity in the form of the goddess Venus, and both would be deified themselves after death. Around 10 BC, the cremated remains of an adult male were interred in a barrow mound close to the entrance of the oppidum at Colchester. The Lexden tumulus would have been a conspicuous local monument over 20 m in diameter. The deceased was buried with a significant assemblage of grave-goods. The burial included locally produced pottery alongside imported amphorae from the Continent. A Roman medallion depicting the emperor Augustus, produced within the last decade, accompanied the corpse. Chainmail armour, which had been ritually destroyed prior to deposition, was scattered across the 8 m burial pit. A folding stool, bronze cupid and silver studs also filled the grave. The individual buried within the Lexden tumulus was clearly of considerable status. The influence of Rome is clear from their burial assemblage, not only from the Augustan medallion but also the luxury goods imported from the empire.32
The Iron Age was a period of substantial transition. British societies changed considerably to more hierarchic structures, where individual rulers become recognisable in the archaeological record and historical sources.33 It would be wrong to claim that Britain has ever been isolated from the Continent for any significant period of time since the last Ice Age. Movement of individuals and groups to and from the European mainland is a frequent feature of the British archaeological record. But from the late Iron Age, European involvement in British politics became more pronounced through the expanding superpower of Rome and the campaigns of Julius Caesar. This facilitated high level contacts between the elites of south-eastern Britain and the imperial court in Rome. Yet the geographic impact of these links should not be over exaggerated. Caesar’s raids did not take him beyond the southeast of Britain. It is debatable to what extent Rome’s influence was able to penetrate the northern and western regions beyond the territories of its client kings. The heterogeneous nature of Iron Age Britain belies easy generalisations. Only actual invasion would bring Britain firmly within the orbit of Rome.
Fig 1: Stonehenge is perhaps the most iconic archaeological site in Britain, with a religious significance which has persisted from prehistory to the present day. (Credit: English Heritage Photo Library)
Fig 2: Despite the astonishing levels of preservation at the site, the meaning and function of Seahenge remains elusive. (Credit: English Heritage Photo Library)
Fig 3: The reconstructed gateway of the fort at Arbeia (South Shields) monumentalises the strength of the Roman army in northern Britain. (Photo by author)
Fig 4: Feeding the legions and auxilia was a monumental task requiring the construction of specialist granaries to store grain. (Photo by author)
Fig 5: The temple of Antenociticus at Benwell was used by officers and soldiers stationed at the local fort. (Photo by author)
Fig 6: The settlement at Chysauster provides an insight into rural communities who were relatively unchanged by the Roman conquest. (Credit: English Heritage Photo Library)
Fig 7: The royal site of Yeavering utilised the existing sacred and political landscape to emphasise the power, status and legitimacy of its residents. (Credit: Peter Dunn, English Heritage Graphics Team)
Fig 8: Hereford Cathedral is home to the Mappa Mundi which depicts the medieval worldview through a rich mixture of mythology, geography and theology. (Photo by author)
Fig 9: The motte at Cambridge represents the only visible remains of the Norman castle.(Photo by author)
Fig 10: Clifford’s Tower preserves part of the medieval castle which ensured that the city played a leading role in northern England. (Photo by author)
Fig 11: The original gatehouse at Ludlow Castle mimicked elite Anglo-Saxon architecture and was consequently ill suited for defence. (Photo by author)
Fig 12: From one approach route, Stokesay mimics the appearance of a fortified defensive site rather than an elite residence. (Photo by author)
Fig 13: The great hall at Stokesay Castle would have impressed visitors with the wealth and sophistication of the owner. (Photo by author)
Fig 14: Knowlton is a startling example of continuity in the use of sacred landscapes over centuries, in this case a church constructed within a Neolithic henge. (Credit: English Heritage Photo Library)
Fig 15: Ely Cathedral rises majestically over the surrounding low lying land, therefore exploiting the landscape to focus attention on the building. (Photo by author)
Fig 16: Durham Cathedral served as a pilgrimage site associated with Bede and Saint Cuthbert. (Photo by author)
Fig 17: Ludlow Castle dominates surrounding transport routes, including the river Teme. (Photo by author)
Fig 18: The impressive Iron Age earthworks of Caynham Camp in Shropshire may have been reused during the Civil War period. (Photo by author)
Fig 19: Pillboxes are a common reminder of how close Britain came to invasion during the twentieth century. (Photo by author)
Fig 20: The ROC nuclear bunker at York was designed to monitor the aftermath of a nuclear attack. (Photo by author)
Fig 21: The Sage at Gateshead is a spectacular example of urban regeneration as a result of the decline in heavy industry. (Photo by author)