Researching
the Iron Age, edited by Jodie Humphrey
Leicester Archaeology Monograph No 11, School
of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester. 2003. 97
pages. ISBN 0-9538914-5-3. (£12)
This stimulating and useful collection of ten papers
is drawn from the first three of the ongoing series of Iron Age Research
Seminars (Newport, Southampton and Leicester). Meetings have since been
held in Durham and Glasgow and future seminars are planned. The first
IARS was held in Newport during 1998 and, as Justin Claxton emphasises
in this volume (page ix), it formed an indirect consequence of the meetings
of another body, the Iron Age Research Group (IARG), held in Cardiff
in 1997. IARG itself had met a number of times since the late 1980s
and continues to meet occasionally today (for a relevant collection
of papers derived from IARG, see Haselgrove and Gwilt eds. (1997). Many
of those attending IARG during the middle years of the 1990s considered
that the meetings had come to be dominated by certain particular individuals
and topics (cosmology, structured deposition, etc) and also that new
approaches and views were not being encouraged (see Claxton’s
reference on page ix to ‘adversarial and confrontational nature
of conference’). IARS was set up specifically to provide a less
hierarchical forum in which research students could communicate their
ideas and receive feedback, free from the fear of the established discourses
of domination.
The papers published in this first volume show the
success of the initiative. Jodie Humphrey writes in the introduction
(page xi) of a ‘selection of papers’, but we are not told
how individual contributions were accepted or rejected. The fact that
only ten papers, out of a far greater number presented at the original
seminars, have been published demonstrates the degree of the selection
and this makes a suspicious reviewer wonder whether the publication
may represent part of an attempt to construct a new discourse of domination.
It is also significant, however, that the selection process has resulted
in a volume of consistently strong papers.
Before I turn to the specific papers, there is one
fascinating issue that emerges from the comparison of this publication
with those emerging from the research-student led Theoretical Roman
Archaeology Conferences (TRAC). TRAC has a longer history that IARS,
having met fourteen times and this has resulted in a substantial body
of published material. From a survey of the IARS volume and the TRAC
publications, a gender issue is immediately apparent. The Humphrey volume
contains ten papers (eleven, if we include the introduction), seven
of which are by female authors (eight, counting the introduction). This
forms a very direct contrast with both the papers presented at TRAC
and those in the published volumes. From its origin, TRAC has had more
than its share of male contributors, reflecting a tendency inherent
in Roman studies more generally (Scott 1998). The IARS volume could
be taken to suggest a far stronger presence of women in Iron Age postgraduate
research. Whether this is a true reflection of the proportions of men
and women undertaking research in Iron Age topics is unclear to me.
It does, however, cause me further concern about gender issues within
Roman studies.
Following a similar logic, it is interesting to make
some more detailed observations about the Humphrey volume. It is split
into two halves:
· Material culture
· Settlement and landscape.
Each section has five papers. 100% of the ‘material
culture’ papers are by women, while three out of the five settlement
and landscape contributions are by men. One of the papers in the latter
half examines both material culture and landscape and is written by
a woman. According to Gero (1988, 35, quoted by Swift forthcoming),
women tend to do finds research and scientific analysis, as opposed
to men who carry out broader and more prestigious theory and fieldwork
studies. While this is a characterisation, it also has a degree of validity,
and it represents an unhealthy balance, as the masculine dominance of
the agenda downplays the vital importance of finds within archaeology
(Swift forthcoming). The sample of papers in the Humphrey volume is
small, but perhaps suggests that gender issues continue to have significance
for the research topic chosen by students who studying the Iron Age.
Does the contrast between Iron Age and Roman postgraduate
research reflect the difference between two bodies of theory? Perhaps
the ‘post-IARG’ perspective in Iron Age archaeology, which
appears mainly to focus in particular, upon local context and complexity,
provides a greater inspiration for both men and women. If so, what does
this say about the ‘TRAC generation’ in Roman archaeology?
TRAC has always contained a number of female contributors and the increasing
number of papers written by women in the most recent TRAC volumes indicates
that we are not doomed to a theoretical Roman archaeology dominated
by men. Nevertheless, the gender balance in Iron Age research appears
to be rather healthier.
Turning in greater detail to the individual papers
in the IARS volume, those on material culture address a number of different
issues, forming part of a general reaction against earlier perspectives
by stressing the complexity of the material evidence for the past, in
a search for deeper meaning. For example, Lucy Harrad proposes that
the significance of gabbro rock in Cornwall, inherited from the use
of the clay in the distant past, dictated the power of the pots made
from this material. This is an approach that moves analysis away from
the various forms of broadly economic explanations that have dominated
discussions of pottery production, distribution and consumption. Rachel
Pope explores the use of ceramic containers in the later Iron Age by
examining the potential for a functional analysis of various types of
pots. She identifies functions on the basis of ethnographic analysis
and then applies the resulting understanding to nine assemblages from
Dorset. Jodie Humphrey studies the continued production of flint tools
during the Iron Age and considers the social reasons for this. Past
studies have tended to ignore or play down the significance of flint
implements because of a stress within Iron Age studies upon iron and
metal, one that reflects the intellectual inheritance of the Three Age
System. Stephanie Knight uses large bone assemblages to consider social
factors behind the butchery of animals at the hillfort of Danebury,
and argues that the evidence is useful in the inference of social structure,
while Imogen Wellington’s analysis of the context of deposition
of lightweight silver coins in central southern Britain suggests a function
for these objects within ritual practice.
Within ‘Settlement and Landscapes’ we
have papers by Tom Moore on rectangular houses, Leo Webley on the aisled
longhouses of northern Europe, Cécilia Courbot-Dewerdt on the
context of Gallo-Roman villas, John Thomas on pit alignments and Natasha
Hutcheson on the Snettisham hoard and the landscape context of Iron
Age hoarding. These papers, again, seek to achieve a more nuanced understanding
of the Iron Age than many past accounts. Webley, for example, attacks
the cosmological model for Iron Age roundhouses, using information provided
by the complex evidence for the internal organisation of the longhouse.
Moore also shows that the nature of domestic architecture in the southern
British Iron Age was rather more complex than the cosmological model
would suggest. He draws attention to the fairly frequent discoveries
of rectangular houses, evidence that has been played down in the past
focus upon the indigenous tradition of circularity. It is ironic that
the cosmology model appears to have become highly popular among field
archaeologists over the past few years, since the current generation
of researchers appear to wish to dismiss it. Hutcheson approaches her
study of northern East Anglia as an area ‘highly conceptualised
… with different places acting as foci for particular activities
within a landscape imbued with many meanings’ (p 95). This is
an increasingly powerful way of exploring the meaning of landscape and
settlement during the Iron Age. Courbot-Dewerdt explores changes that
occur on rural settlements in north-western France during the Iron Age/Roman
transition, stressing that indigenous societies within the area gradually
developed from pre-Roman roots. Thomas explores a class of site –
the pit alignment – which has not often been afforded serious
consideration in past accounts of the Iron Age. He argues that the symbolic
significance of these monuments lies in their deliberately different
form from the rather more common continuous boundaries which typify
much of prehistory.
Overall, the focus upon variability and complexity
that emerges from the individual papers is the result of the reaction
against the over-simplistic approaches adopted by many members of previous
generations (including, perhaps, some of the works of those who dominated
IARG). This new focus on detailed contextual analysis has much to recommend
it, and the editors and authors have produced a collection of papers
that make a significant contribution to the changing subject of Iron
Age studies.
Richard Hingley
Durham University
References
Gero, J. 1988. Gender bias in archaeology: here, then and now. In Rosser,
S. (ed.), Feminism within the Science and Health Care Professions:
overcoming resistance. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 33–43
Gwilt, A. and C. Haselgrove (eds.) 1997. Reconstructing Iron Age
Societies. Oxford: Oxbow
Scott, E. 1998. Tales from a Romanist: a personal view of archaeology
and “equal opportunities”. In Forcey, C., Hawthorne, J.
& Witcher, R. (eds.) TRAC97 Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Theoretical Archaeology Conference Nottingham 1997. Oxford: Oxbow,
138-47
Swift, E. forthcoming. Small objects, small questions? Perceptions of
finds research in the academic community. In Hingley, R. and Willis,
S. (eds.), Roman Finds in Context and Theory. Oxford: Oxbow
Review Submitted: March 2004
The views expressed in this review are not
necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|