Le premier âge du Fer en France centrale by Pierre-Yves Milcent
Société Préhistorique Française; Mémoire XXXIV, 2004. Two vols, 718 pages, 125 figures, 34 tables, 132 plates. ISBN 2-913745-18-0. (€ 55)
Over the years, archaeologists have tended to overlook the Earlier Iron Age in
central France in favour of the regions further to the east with their rich
late Hallstatt burials and settlements and Mediterranean imports. As
Pierre-Yves Milcent stresses, this neglect is not obviously due either to a low
level of previous work or to any absence of relevant archaeology. Instead, it
reflects an ingrained academic prejudice which ever since the late nineteenth
century has dismissed the region as peripheral to the main west European
Hallstatt complex and thus of little consequence at this period, even though it
emerges a few centuries later as home to two of the richest and most powerful
group in Gaul, the Arverni and the Bituriges, both of whom also figure in Roman
sources written long after the event as being amongst the peoples involved in
the Gaulish settlement of northern Italy in the early 4th century BC.
The ‘La Ronce’ tumulus at Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois (Loiret), with which
Milcent begins his book, is emblematic of this paradox. This monumental
edifice, 60 m in diameter and 9 m high, with a stone core, was excavated in
1953, yielding two cremation burials dating to the Hallstatt–La Tène transition
housed in imported Etruscan bronze vessels as well as gold filigree jewellery
and delicate, dyed tissues. As it happens, the rich late Hallstatt burial at
Vix (Côte d’Or) in Burgundy – actually only 130 km to the east – was also
unearthed in 1953, but whilst the ‘princess’ of Vix instantly captured academic
and public opinion, and has since become world famous, Sainte-Geneviève – with
an admittedly more modest inventory of finds – remains virtually unknown
outside the region and specialist circles, despite providing prima facie
evidence that individuals and/or groups with the capacity to mobilize labour on
a massive scale and to enter into spheres of interaction reaching to the
Mediterranean existed in central France in the fifth century BC.
Times change, and – at least as far as our understanding of the Earlier Iron
Age in this part of France is concerned – will never be the same again
following the publication of Pierre-Yves Milcent’s impressive two-volume
synthesis. This is based on his 1998 doctoral thesis submitted at Paris-I
University, but subsequently updated, reflecting the dynamic nature of research
now in progress in his study area. This took the form of a transect 350 km long
and 130 km wide, broadening in the south to 200 km wide – from the Orleans area
in the north to the Cantal department in the Massif Central, and from
Brive-La-Gaillarde in the west to Le Puy in the east – thus covering most of
the middle and upper basin of the river Loire. Whilst at one level, this
assured the study area of a degree of geographical unity, it also guaranteed it
a very considerable diversity in other respects by bringing together the
contrasting geologies of the southern Paris Basin in the north and the northern
half of the Massif Central.
Volume 1 comprises the main text, whilst Volume 2 brings together and
illustrates much of the supporting data in a systematic department by
department inventory of Early Iron Age settlements, burials, hoards, and
isolated metal finds in the study area. There are also ten useful annexes
providing accessible listings of specific categories of material, ranging from
sites where certain diagnostic Early Iron Age pottery types have been found,
through a Europe-wide listing of Hallstatt C swords and chapes, to the various
Classical sources mentioning the Gaulish settlers of Italy and/or their
origins. Milcent’s analysis set out to be comprehensive for finds made up until
the 1980s, but treats more recent discoveries, and especially the results of
modern ‘preventative’ archaeology ahead of development, more selectively.
An unfortunate, but perhaps inevitable, consequence of this emphasis is that
although as many as one-third of the inventory entries are for settlements – up
substantially on 20 years ago – they (and their ceramic assemblages) play only
a fairly minor part in this study. Given the potential of settlement data to
provide a different perspective on the same question as the burial and hoard
evidence, especially with regard to social organisation and ritual practice,
this means that aspects of Milcent’s analysis will probably need to be
revisited sooner rather than later. In fairness to him, developer-led
archaeology has been anything but evenly distributed in the study area. As the
overall site distribution (pl.3) shows, this has been concentrated in the plain
of the river Allier around Clermont-Ferrand, leading to some important Early
Iron Age open settlement excavations such as Gerzat, ‘Champmorand’ and
‘Pâtural’, but leaving one to wonder whether the trends that Milcent infers
from this evidence, such as the apparent movement to open lowland sites in
Hallstatt C (pp. 47-49), will after all prove to be region-wide phenomena.
To set the adoption of iron and other changes in a suitably long-term
perspective, Milcent begins his narrative at the start of Hallstatt B2/3 in the
late 10th century BC – equivalent to the Ewart Part/Carp’s Tongue sword horizon
of the British Later Bronze Age, but often viewed in France as the start of the
Iron Age owing to the upsurge in iron objects found at this time (e.g. Brun
1986, 70, 76). Hallstatt B2/3 hoards are not listed in Milcent’s inventory,
owing to his having considered these in a separate, as yet unpublished, piece
of research covering the whole Bronze Age, but the relevant data are invoked
with great effect to illustrate the massive change in the pattern of metalwork
deposition in the 8th and early 7th centuries BC (figs. 28-31). Milcent closes
his account with the end of La Tène A (around the start of the 4th century BC),
although as he himself argues, in central France at least, the transition
between the Earlier and Later Iron Age effectively occurs a generation or so
earlier, with an end to the deposition of rich burials and the reappearance of
burials with swords and general standardisation of material culture at the
start of La Tène A récente.
Milcent’s analysis has the three main objectives, starting with (1) the
establishment of a new relative and absolute chronology for the Earlier Iron
Age in central France; the result is then used as the primary framework within
which the other two objectives are taken forward, which were (2) to isolate and
define distinct cultural facies within the region; and (3) to investigate how
the inhabitants of central France participated in wider spheres of exchange and
cultural interaction over the period in question. Milcent argues convincingly
for a division of the central French material into three main blocks: Étape 1,
broadly equating to Hallstatt B2/3–C in the central European chronology, Étape
2 to Hallstatt D1–D2, and Étape 3 to Hallstatt D3–La Tène A. Each block is
further broken down into two or three phases, but these sub-divisions are of
regional validity first and foremost, and cannot (always) be equated with the
entities recognised elsewhere. Consideration of each block is preceded by a
useful review of previous chronological models for the period and discussion
throughout is informed by an awareness of the latest thinking about the period
in other regions, whilst his own reassessment of the origins and
inter-connections of different Hallstatt C sword types takes our understanding
significantly beyond previous studies on the subject.
Milcent’s Étape 1 encompasses the transition from bronze- to iron-use and is
otherwise characterised by the appearance of male burials with swords after 800
BC and the major changes in depositional practice that accompanied this. In
central France, at least, iron had clearly established itself as the principal
working metal by the earlier 7th century BC (Hallstatt C recent).
Étape 2 sees major changes in the character of the archaeological record, with
women becoming far more visible at the expense of men, manifested by a
proliferation in feminine ornaments and exotica in burials and in ritual
hoards, an inversion that Milcent suggests may indicate that women had achieved
a more advantageous position in the social structure at this time. In turn,
Étape 3 is characterised by a further growth in the importance of long-distance
exchange, through which it is suggested that certain leading members of society
adopted burial rites from other regions.
The geographical position of central France placed it at the juncture of a
number of distinct cultural zones so that at one level, so that the inhabitants
of different parts of the region tended to look outwards in different
directions throughout the period in question, whilst at a more general level we
see marked shifts in the predominant direction of long-distance contacts over
time. What has not however been appreciated until recently is that for about a
century (c. 520-420 BC) at the end of the Earlier Iron Age, the
peoples of central France were evidently integrated into a network of
long-distance contacts stretching all the way to north Italy, which was
responsible for the arrival of a variety of Mediterranean pottery, amphorae and
metalwork imports in the region, and contributed to the growth of Bourges into
a major settlement complex.
As Milcent shows, it is now clear that the 5th century BC agglomeration at
Bourges not only shared many attributes with major late Hallstatt complexes
such as Bragny-sur-Saône (Saône-et-Loire), the Britzgyberg (Haut-Rhin), Lyon
and Mont Lassois-Vix, but apparently exceeded both them, and all but the
largest north Italian centres like Bologna and Como, in extent – if not
necessarily, in the case of the latter, population levels. As a result of
recent research, the overall layout of the various elements of the early
complex at Bourges is becoming much clearer – it included inhabited sectors,
cemeteries, ritual foci and workshop areas – as is the changing character of
the settlement and cemetery evidence as one goes further out into the
surrounding region. The complex spread over two promontories at the confluence
of the rivers Auron and Yèvre; Milcent suggests that it may have been a
changeover point between land and river transport, but it is just as possible
that the extensive marshy zone at the river confluence – which was used for
votive offerings – was the real raison d’être for the site by providing a focus
of the various ritual and mortuary activities, under the aegis of which a range
of craft activities could take place. Either way, it is easy to feel why period
specialists now feel that there may have been some substance after all to
Livy’s claim that the Bituriges had once been the paramount people of Celtic
Gaul (Histories V, 34).
In all, this is an important and stimulating study, and Milcent is to be
congratulated for placing the rich and diverse archaeology of this region back
at the centre of French Iron Age archaeology where it belongs. Overall the text
is well produced and amply illustrated. My only substantial quibble is that
many of the tables are too small to read easily, and in some of them the
numbers do not add up as they should. Short abstracts in French, English, and
German are provided, although the English one does not appear to have been
checked.
Colin Haselgrove
University of Leicester
Reference
Brun, P. 1986. La civilisation des Champs d’ Urnes. Étude critique dans le
Bassin parisien. Paris: Documents d’Archéologie Française 4.
Review Submitted: January 2006
The views expressed in
this review are not necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews
Editor.
|