Feasting and Social Complexity in Later Iron Age East Anglia 9781407301631, 9781407321103

Citation preview

BAR  451  2007   RALPH   FEASTING AND SOCIAL COMPLEXITY IN LATER IRON AGE EAST ANGLIA

Feasting and Social Complexity in Later Iron Age East Anglia

Sarah Ralph

BAR British Series 451 9 781407 301631

B A R

2007

Feasting and Social Complexity in Later Iron Age East Anglia Sarah Ralph

BAR British Series 451 2007

ISBN 9781407301631 paperback ISBN 9781407321103 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407301631 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................. i

East Anglia.................................................................................19

List of Figures................................................................. iv

Geology and Geography......................................................19

List of Tables.................................................................. vii

Iron Age Landscape.............................................................22

Acknowledgements........................................................ ix

Settlement Evidence in Iron Age East Anglia............................23

Chapter One: Introduction.............................................1

Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Transition (c. 800-600/500 BC).......................................................................................23

Key Questions of the Iron Age.....................................................1 Early Iron Age (c. 600 – 400/300 BC).................................24

Chapter Two: Theoretical Perspectives.........................3

Summary.......................................................................24

Introduction..................................................................................3 Later Iron Age 400/300 BC to AD 50..................................24 Anthropological Perspective on Feasting and Consumption.......3 Hillforts.........................................................................25 Sociological Perspective on Feasting and Consumption.............4 Linear Monuments........................................................25 Classical Feasting and Dining......................................................5 Summary.......................................................................25 Eating and Drinking in the Greek World...............................6 Material Culture.........................................................................26 Etruscan Dining.....................................................................7 The Art of Eating and Drinking in the Roman World...........8

Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Transition and Early Iron Age Pottery (800-400/300 BC)............................................26

Discussion..............................................................................9

Later Iron Age Pottery (400/300 BC-AD 50)......................27

Classical sources........................................................................10

Summary.......................................................................27

An Integrated Approach - Anthropological Archaeology.............. ...................................................................................................12

Coinage and metalwork.......................................................29 Burial and Ritual..................................................................29

Michael Dietler....................................................................13 Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age...............................29 Brian Hayden.......................................................................14 Later Iron Age...............................................................29 Conclusion.................................................................................14 Identity in Iron Age East Anglia................................................30

Chapter Three: Background to Area of Research......17

Tribal groups in East Anglia................................................31

Introduction................................................................................17 Chronology................................................................................17

Catuvellauni (Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire)............ . .....................................................................................31

The Development of Iron Age Britain.......................................17

Trinovantes (Essex and southern Suffolk)....................31

Iron Age Britain 900 to 450 BC...........................................17

Iceni (Norfolk and north Suffolk).................................31

Iron Age Britain 450 BC to AD 100....................................18



Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Approaches to the Iron Age and Early Roman period in Western and Central Europe and Britain.................................................33

Identification and Implementation of Feasting Criteria in Iron Age East Anglia.........................................................................47

Western and Central Europe................................................33

Food.....................................................................................47

Britain..................................................................................36

Preparation and Serving Vessels..........................................48

Conclusion.................................................................................39

Food Storage and Preparation Facilities..............................48

Chapter Four: Methodology.........................................41

Special Food-disposal Features...........................................48

Introduction................................................................................41

Feasting Facilities................................................................48

Feasting Criteria and Archaeological Indicators........................41

Special Locations.................................................................48

Ritual, ‘Structured’ and Sacrifical Deposits...............................42

Associated Prestige Items/Ritualised Items of Etiquette.....49

Hayden’s Feasting Criteria.........................................................43

Existence of Aggrandisers...................................................49

Food.....................................................................................43

The Grouping of Criteria.....................................................49

Preparation and Serving Vessels..........................................44

Scale of Research.......................................................................49

Food-preparation Facilities..................................................45

Rate and Date of Discovery ......................................................50

Special Food-disposal Features...........................................45

Data Collection..........................................................................51

Feasting Facilities................................................................45

Problems and Biases in the Data................................................51

Special Locations.................................................................45

Chapter Five: From Raw to Cooked............................53

Associated Prestige Items....................................................45

Introduction................................................................................53

Ritualised Items of Etiquette...............................................45

Food: Preparation, Storage and Disposal...................................53

Existence of Aggrandisers...................................................45

Vessels: Preparation and Serving...............................................54

Pictorial and Written Records of Feasts..............................46

Feasting facilities and special locations.....................................54

Food-storage Facilities........................................................46

Existence of Aggrandisers..........................................................55

Resource Characteristics......................................................46

Prestige Good and Items of Etiquette........................................55

Building upon Hayden’s Criteria...............................................46

Date and Rate of Discovery.......................................................56

1. Food.................................................................................46

Pottery and Feasting...................................................................56

2. Vessels.............................................................................47

Pigs and Feasting.......................................................................58

3. Special Locations.............................................................47

Feasting and the construction of dykes and defence systems....59

4. Ritualised Items of Etiquette...........................................47

Consuming the other – metal and coin hoards...........................62

5. Pictorial and Written Records of Feasts..........................47

General Summary......................................................................65

6. Monuments......................................................................47

Coastal Distribution...................................................................66

ii

Chalkland Distribution...............................................................70

Table of Contents

Riverine Distribution – Ouse.....................................................73

Appendix B: Selected Figures.....................................131

Riverine Distribution – Nene.....................................................76

Bibliography.................................................................155

Riverine Distribution – Little Ouse/Lark...................................76 Riverine Distribution - Gipping.................................................77 Riverine Distribution – Bure/Yare.............................................78 Summary....................................................................................79 Conclusion.................................................................................80

Chapter Six: Detailed Case Studies..............................83 Introduction................................................................................83 Case Studies...............................................................................84 Work-Party Feasts................................................................85 Fison Way, Thetford, Norfolk........................................85 Discussion............................................................................88 Alliance Building Feasts......................................................89 Ardleigh, Essex.............................................................90 Woodham Walter, Essex................................................91 Discussion............................................................................92 Funerary Feasts....................................................................93 Stansted DFS and DCS cremations...............................93 North Shoebury, Essex..................................................96 Discussion............................................................................97 Diacritical Feasting..............................................................98 Baldock..........................................................................99 Verulamium, St Albans................................................100 Camulodunum, Colchester..........................................102 Discussion..........................................................................102 Conclusion ..............................................................................104

Chapter Seven: Discussion and Conclusion..............105

iii

Appendix A: Feasting Sites in East Anglia................113

List of Figures Figure 18. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and Conquest settlement (in Appendix B).................159

Contents

Figure 1. Red-figure vase with a symposion scene............7 Figure 2. Etruscan frieze from Chiusi................................8

Figure 19. Line graph illustrating rates of discovery for the five feasting categories...................................57

Figure 3. Tomb of the Leopards, Tarquinia........................9

Figure 20. Ditch Systems around Camulodunum............60

Figure 4. Spatial patterning of feasting practices in Europe and the process of re-interpretation of feasting....10

Figure 21. Distribution of defensive ditch systems in East Anglia...................................................................61

Figure 5. Location of East Anglia....................................20

Figure 22. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and coin and metal hoards (in Appendix B)..............160

Figure 6. Physiography of East Anglia............................21

Figure 23. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and coin and metal hoards (in Appendix B)......................161

Figure 7. Development of the Cambridgeshire fenlands showing the later Bronze Age salt marsh (a) and the post-Bronze Age upper peat development (b).... ..............................................................................23

Figure 24. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and bronze coin finds (in Appendix B)......................162

Figure 8. Flow-Diagram indicating the processes of transformation of a feast.......................................42

Figure 25. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and silver coin finds (in Appendix B)........................163

Figure 9. Distribution of Early Iron Age feasting sites (in Appendix B).......................................................150

Figure 26. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and gold coin finds (in Appendix B).........................164

Figure 10. Distribution of Middle Iron Age feasting sites (in Appendix B)..................................................151

Figure 27. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and bronze coin finds (in Appendix B)......................165

Figure 11. Distribution of Middle/Late Iron Age feasting sites (in Appendix B)..........................................152

Figure 28. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and silver coin finds (in Appendix B)........................166

Figure 12. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites (in Appendix B).......................................................153

Figure 29. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and gold coin finds (in Appendix B).................................167

Figure 13. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites (in Appendix B).......................................................154

Figure 30. Early Iron Age feasting sites and distribution zones (in Appendix B.........................................168

Figure 14. Distribution of Early Iron Age feasting sites and Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age settlement (in Appendix B).......................................................155

Figure 31. Middle Iron Age feasting sites and distribution zones (in Appendix B)........................................169 Figure 32. Middle/Late Iron Age feasting sites and distribution zones (in Appendix B).....................170

Figure 15. Distribution of Middle Iron Age feasting sites and Early/Middle Iron Age and Middle Iron Age settlement (in Appendix B).................................156

Figure 33. Late Iron Age feasting sites and distribution zones (in Appendix B)........................................171

Figure 16. Distribution of Middle/Late Iron Age feasting sites and Middle/Late Iron Age settlement (in Appendix B).......................................................157

Figure 34. Conquest feasting sites and distribution zones (in Appendix B)..................................................172

Figure 17. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and Late Iron Age settlement (in Appendix B)..........158

Figure 35. Plan showing excavated areas at Stansted......94



Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Figure 36. The Late Iron Age/Roman cemetery..............95 Figure 37. A map to highlight the differences between Late Iron Age feasting sites in areas of high and low population density.......................................109 Figure 38. A map to highlight the differences between Conquest feasting sites in areas of high and low population density..............................................110

vi

List of Tables Table 1. Similarities and differences of dining in the Classical world.......................................................6

Table 22. Site type of feasting examples in the chalkland distribution zone...................................................71

Table 2. Differences in approaches to the ‘consumption’ archaeological record............................................39

Table 23. Feasting sites in the River Ouse distribution zone.......................................................................74

Table 3. Archaeological indicators of feasting.................43

Table 24. Site type of feasting sites in Ouse distribution zone.......................................................................74

Table 4. Examples of Food: preparation, storage and disposal.................................................................53

Table 25. Feasting sites in River Nene distribution zone 76

Table 5. Site type on which food examples are found.....53

Table 26. Site types of feasting sites in the River Nene distribution area....................................................76

Table 6. Examples of Preparation and Serving Vessels....... ..............................................................................54

Table 27. Feasting sites in the Rivers Little Ouse and Lark distribution zone...................................................77

Table 7. Site type on which vessel examples are found....... ..............................................................................54

Table 28. Site types of feasting sites in the Little Ouse/ Lark distribution zone...........................................77

Table 8. Examples of special locations and feasting facilities................................................................54

Table 29. Feasting sites in the River Gipping distribution zone.......................................................................78

Table 9. Site type on which special locations and feasting facilities occur.......................................................55

Table 30. Site types for feasting sites in the River Gipping distribution zone...................................................78

Table 11. Site type for the existence of aggrandisers.......55 Table 12. Location of these burials..................................55

Table 31. Feasting sites in the Rivers Bure and Yare distribution zone...................................................79

Table 13. Examples of prestige items and items of etiquette................................................................55

Table 32. Site types for feasting sites in the Bure and Yare distribution zone...................................................79

Table 14. Site type and context in which prestige items and items of etiquette are found...........................55

Table 33. Points of a life cycle which can be marked by a feast.......................................................................84

Table 15. Date of discovery for the five feasting categories in East Anglia.......................................................56

Table 34. Distribution of work-party feasts and the associated feasting indicator.................................85

Table 16. Coins finds by county.......................................64

Table 35. Examples of work-party feasts in East Anglia..... ..............................................................................85

Table 17. Coins finds according to metal type.................64 Table 18. Number of coins per county.............................64

Table 36. Work-party feasts and points of a cycle they may mark......................................................................88

Table 19. Feasting sites in the coastal distribution zone...... ..............................................................................67

Table 37. Distribution of alliance feasts and the associated feasting indicator..................................................89

Table 20. Site type for feasting data found in coastal distribution zone...................................................67

Table 37. Examples of alliance feasts in East Anglia......90 Table 39. Alliance feasts and points of a cycle they may mark......................................................................92

Table 21. Feasting sites in the chalkland distribution zone ..............................................................................71 vii

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Table 40. Examples of funerary feasts in East Anglia.....93 Table 41. Sequence of cremation groups.........................96 Table 42. Funerary feasts and points of a cycle they may mark......................................................................98 Table 43. Examples of diacritical feasts in East Anglia....... ..............................................................................98 Table 44. Distribution of diacritical feasts and the associated feasting indicator.................................99 Table 45. Approximate carcass yields from domestic stock in deposit A12.....................................................100 Table 46. Approximate carcass yields from domestic stock in deposit B189 . ......................................................... 100 Table 47. Diacritical feasts and points of a cycle they may mark....................................................................103 Table 48. Points of a life cycle which can be marked by a feast.....................................................................106 Table 49. Distribution of feasting in East Anglia and points of cycles that they may mark..............................107

viii

Acknowledgements This work is based on my doctoral research, which was carried out between 2002 and 2006 at the Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge. I am most grateful to my PhD supervisor, Dr Simon Stoddart, for his help and advice both during and after my doctoral research. In addition, I would like to thank Professor Martin Jones and Dr John Robb for their support and advice. Thanks are also given to Prefessors Graeme Barker and Colin Haselgrove for providing comments and advice on the text. I am also grateful for the help offered by a number of county SMR officers from Essex and Norfolk, with special thanks given to Alison Tinniswood (Hertfordshire), Sarah Poppy (Cambridgeshire) and Colin Pendleton (Suffolk). Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support whilst carrying out this research.

ix

Chapter One Introduction Key Questions of the Iron Age

because of the daily need for these elements, they can be a powerful means of social control: manipulating access to food and drink or to its production can be translated into control over people. Second, food and drink are variable and subject to elaboration – not only what is eaten and drunk, but how it is prepared, served and consumed. The ubiquity and necessity of eating and drinking, along with the multitude of foods and beverages one can consume and ways one can consume them, contribute to rendering food and drink a peculiarly powerful semiotic device capable of working at all scales from the family meal to celebrations among whole political units.

Throughout my research there has always been the underlying question of why, towards the later Iron Age, there was a dramatic increase and marked change in settlement, material culture and social and political organisation. The majority of research within the Iron Age has primarily been concerned with explaining changes in the social and political organisation in Iron Age Britain. This has involved the proposal of ‘core-periphery’ theory (Champion 1989; Champion and Champion 1986; Cunliffe 1984, 1988; Rowlands et al. 1987; Wells 1980) along with the idea of hillforts as centres of power. Much of the hillfort work is being targeted towards the evidence from Wessex (Cunliffe 1984; Hill 1995c, 1996a; Sharples 1991). Moreover, southeast England has always received a lot of attention in order to explain the arrival of coinage and Roman products (Creighton 1995; Fitzpatrick 1989; Haselgrove 1982, 1987; Willis 1994, 1997; Woolf 1993). My work addresses some of these issues and uses the activity of feasting as an analytical tool for understanding social, economic and political change (see Chapters Seven and Eight for discussion of my conclusions regarding the East Anglian archaeological record).

It is not just food or drink themselves that are important, but also their consumption as a social event. Commensality – the social context of sharing the consumption of food and drink – is one of the most profound ways of establishing social connections. Contexts of food serving and consumption can be used to foster solidarity or to promote competition as well as to support highly stratified social systems. The mundane, communicative aspects of presentation and consumption of food and drink (informal commensality) contribute to social reproduction by reinforcing ‘appropriate’ relations between people (Pollock 2003: 19). The pervasive and communicative features of commensality also make it politically malleable. Formal commensality (Pollock 2003: 19) involves the manipulation of meanings associated with food and beverages through their presentation and consumption in the service of political, religious and other social goals. Feasts are one of these formal occasions.

Arguments are always being put forward to explain this supposed rise in complexity towards the end of the Iron Age in Britain (e.g. Cunliffe 1988). In many cases it does not take into account the role of the individual and the changes that one person or a small group can make. It has been more concerned with the larger picture and little attention has been paid to the micro level where possibly social relations were changing within families, kin-groups and communities, which would then eventually affect society at large. There is an increased emphasis on exploring the specificity of social structures, the meaningful basis of human action, and the active nature of material culture (e.g. Gero and Conkey 1991; Hodder1982a, 1982b, 1987; Shanks and Tilley 1987). Rather than emphasising universal tendencies and pursuing prehistory at the level of macro-evolutionary processes, there is a growing interest in the ‘micro-politics’ of prehistoric societies as negotiated in the arena of everyday life.

Feasting constitutes part of a central domain of social action that has largely been absent from archaeological analysis. Discussions of the transformations of political systems fail to consider the kinds of social practices by which people negotiate relationships, pursue economic and political goals, compete for power and reproduce and contest ideological representations of social order and authority. Dietler (1989, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2001) has considered the intricate relationship between culture and power and the ‘commensal politics’ of feasting, whilst Arnold (1999, 2001) has studied the role of alcohol and legitimation of power, both drawing on examples from Iron Age Europe. I have taken these ideas and tested them on part of Iron Age Britain; a region that is well researched but was yet to be studied from this perspective. I wanted to discover whether or not the relationships between food and drink and the legitimation of power evident in Iron Age Europe could be used to explain changes within Iron Age societies in Britain.

My current research has looked into the changes that were taking place within society and the rise of complexity on both a macro and micro scale. To do this I have focused on feasting and consumption and the role it played in changing the face of society during the Iron Age. There are a number of reasons why food and drink play crucial symbolic and ideological roles in all manner of social contexts. First, they are essential elements of life and 

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

In order to answer these questions I have chosen to look at the region of East Anglia. This area includes the counties of Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. This is a region which has received very little attention when compared with the body of work that has been carried out in the traditional Iron Age study area of Wessex. Although Hertfordshire and Essex, and to some extent Cambridgeshire, have traditionally been considered to be part of the ‘core’, both Norfolk and Suffolk have very different archaeological records, consisting of a apparent ‘sparsely settled’ landscape, but full of coin and metal hoards. By approaching data in this new manner, I believe my work has been innovative and new and furthered our understanding of later prehistoric societies.

events are reflected or articulated in feasting practices. I have highlighted new ways in which to identify feasts and the different modes of consumption through a reanalysis of old sites and the study of new ones (see Chapters Five and Six). My research has sought to fill some gaps in our knowledge of Iron Age Britain and brought research into East Anglia up to the same standard achieved in Wessex. I believe my work has provided a new and important perspective to the study of Iron Age Britain and will aid the understanding of Iron Age society as a whole. Therefore, the leading question of the Iron Age in Britain is, why in the later period there were marked increases in material, social and political changes? In many cases, archaeologists have focused on the interaction between the indigenous population and the encroaching Roman Empire (Blagg and Millett 1990; Haverfield 1912; Cunliffe 1988; Millett 1990a). The effects of the Roman conquest of Britain and the ensuing processes of Romanisation have been studied for many years (Haverfield 1906; Hingley 1996; Millett 1990a; Woolf 2003). A revised theoretical framework put forward by Millett (1990b) has facilitated a radical reappraisal of the development of Roman Britain (Millett 1990a). The dynamics of this model emphasise continuity and acculturation rather than discontinuity and forced cultural change. The nature of the major changes in the social, economic and ethnic fabric of Britain is viewed in the light of the pre-existing late pre-Roman Iron Age structures, thus stressing continuity and regional diversity. Webster (2001) proposed that creolisation may be a more appropriate model, but the focus on the lower orders rather than the entire spectrum of society may limit its explanatory power. However, material culture from Late Iron Age (LIA) and Early Roman sites has mostly been studied from a Romano-centric viewpoint, i.e. assuming that people eating Roman foodstuffs were Roman or desired to be more like the Romans. Feasting provides the opportunity to move beyond this one-sided approach to the data of this period and consider the more active roles played by individuals or groups in altering or maintaining their standing within society and how the potentially competitive nature of feasting could have affected the structure of society as a whole and how this in turns resulted in marked changes in material culture and the socio-political and economic make-up of later Iron Age Britain, especially the region of East Anglia.

My research focuses on a number of issues: 1. Recognising the feast in the archaeological record; 2. Separating the feast from daily cuisine and the relationship between them. Using my dataset (its collection and the methodology behind this will be discussed in Chapter Four) the following were considered over time (and space): 1. The structure and symbolism of the feast; 2. The specific events that are marked by archaeologically visible feasts and whether this changes over time and space; 3. How feasts were organised, which is in turn linked to; 4. Agency – who is holding the feasts and for whom? Who is doing the consuming and who is acquiring the items for feasting? How many people attended these events – can this be distinguished in the archaeological record? 5. Cycles of life – how are feasts involved in lifecycles, both temporally and spatially? In considering all of the above questions, I discuss how feasts articulated political and social power and organisation during the later Iron Age and Early Roman period in Britain. Were these acts of feasting used only to maintain patron-client relations in the political economy or were they a means of maintaining other types of relations, e.g. family, kin? I demonstrate how a feast is a key analytical tool in studying social change and that potentially feasting had a role to play in the changes which took place in society during this period of time. My research enhances current knowledge of Iron Age society through an investigation of feasts and their social effects. In identifying known major social changes in Iron Age Britain, I have been able to demonstrate how these 

Chapter Two Theoretical Perspectives Introduction

of social alliance; food as a political tool in the deliberate construction of social solidarity (Meigs 1997: 103). Food sharing, or commensality, is a great signifier of community and anthropologists have emphasised its role in kinship and reciprocity ties. Food is one way in which boundaries get drawn, and insiders and outsiders distinguished. Food consumption has in itself the power to create ‘communities’ beyond the local, beyond the effects of commensality. Shared food habits also bond people together in ‘communities of affiliation’ (Bell and Valentine 1997: 109). If food symbolises social relationships, then food-sharing attitudes and practices are indicative of social structure.

The theoretical background to feasting has been provided by a number of well-defined subject areas. These are anthropology, sociology and finally there is the fusion of these approaches within the field of archaeology. In addition to these three theoretical perspectives, there are plentiful classical resources on eating and drinking, which are deeply embedded in traditional classical discourse. This chapter provides a background to the variety of research that has been carried out within both the domain of feasting and consumption (especially food and drink). As highlighted, there are many threads of research in this field – anthropological, sociological, archaeological and classical – each of which will be discussed in turn.

Mary Douglas has written extensively on the subject of consumption (1972, 1984, 1987). Douglas views food as one of many symbolic systems of communication. She is struck by the extent to which everyday life is highly ordered (or structured) and this order permeated all social activities. Douglas suggests that food is the medium through which a system of relationships within the family is expressed (Douglas 1972, 1984). Food is both a social matter and part of the provision for care of the body. Instead of isolating the food system, it is instructive to consider it frankly as one of a number of family body systems (Douglas 1972, 1984). In Douglas’ terms then, food is an expressive, communicative system which reflects relationships within social groups, such as families, as well as people’s attitudes to their bodies in terms of what is or is not regarded as acceptable/ unacceptable and dangerous/not dangerous. For Douglas, food categories encode and therefore structure social events. Food categories constitute a social boundary system; the predictable structure of each meal creates order out of potential disorder. The meal is thus a microcosm of wider social structures and boundary definitions. If food is treated as a code, the messages that it encodes will be found in the pattern of social relations being expressed. The message is about different degrees of hierarchy, inclusion and exclusion, boundaries and transactions across the boundaries. The taking of food has a social component, as well as a biological one. Food categories therefore encode social events (Douglas 1972: 61). The meaning of a meal is found in a system of repeated analogies. Each meal carries something of the meaning of the other meals; each meal is a structured social event which structures others in its own image. The upper limit of its meaning is set by the range incorporated in the most important member of its series. The recognition, which allows each member to be classed and graded with the others, depends upon the structure common to them all (Douglas 1972: 69).

Anthropological Perspective on Feasting and Consumption Anthropological theory is particularly relevant to Iron Age research because of the amount of work concerned with the study and understanding of feasts and their role in society, an activity which is prevalent during the Iron Age. For an anthropologist, food and drink are highly charged symbolic media because they are a basic and continual human physiological need and, in the act of consumption, they are incorporated directly into the body and become a part of the person. They are also a form of highly condensed social fact embodying relations of production and exchange and linking the domestic and political economies (Appadurai 1981: 494). For Appadurai, meals could be viewed as ‘tournaments of value’ (1986). These serve both to define élite status membership and to channel social competition within clearly defined boundaries. Appadurai states that ‘food is both a highly condensed social fact and a marvellously plastic kind of collective representation with the capacity to mobilise strong emotions’ (1981: 484). The full politico-symbolic potential of food and drink is realised in the drama of these commensal consumption events that constitute a prime arena for the reciprocal conversion of what Bourdieu (1980) calls ‘economic and symbolic capital.’ Much anthropological work has been invested in showing how food exchanges develop and express bonds of solidarity and alliance, how exchanges of food are parallel to exchanges of sociality, and how commensality corresponds to social communality. Authors in this tradition generally focus on food as an instrument in the creation

Jack Goody’s anthropological research was concerned 

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

with discovering why, in some societies, a high (élite) and low (peasant) cuisine emerges, whereas in other societies it does not. Social and political complexity cannot be the cause as, Goody asserts, many African societies exhibit such complexity without ever having developed a differentiated cuisine (Goody 1982).

participants. Social prestige or ‘merit’ as well as expanded political patronage were accrued by feast sponsors through the creation of social debt among feast participants. These events were essential signifiers and mediators of life-crisis events, occasional events (such as the construction of a chief’s house or chiefly succession) and critical points in the annual agricultural cycle (Junker 1999: 314). All of the feast participants, including chiefs and nobles as well as commoners and slaves attached to the sponsor, were obliged to make contributions to the feast or offerings to be used in the accompanying sacrificial ritual and in payment to the specialist performing it (Junker 1999: 317). Contributions from subordinates were exacted as a form of tribute or enforced labour, while the prestations from members of the nobility took place in the context of alliance – building reciprocal gift exchanges. Both the quality and quantities of sacrificial offerings reflected the social rank, wealth and political power base of the sponsoring chief. As in other complex societies of South East Asia, the maintenance of the social status quo as well as social mobility depended on successful performance over a lifetime in ritual feasting events (as well as abilities in warfare, trading and wealth acquisitions) (Junker 1999: 317-20). Social rank generally correlated with a household’s role in the feasting system, that is, the most elaborate feasts were almost invariably sponsored by high-ranking chiefs. In Chapter Six I highlight examples of these life-crises and occasional events and how they are archaeologically marked in Iron Age Britain.

Mauss (1990 [1950]) was fascinated by gift-exchanges featuring rivalry, competition and antagonism. The potlatches of the Kwakiutl Indians and their neighbours on the northwest coast of North America seemed to him an extreme case; however, following work published by Malinowski (1922) on the kula in New Guinea and other authors, Mauss concluded that this was a human phenomenon widely distributed in space and over time. Thus, potlatch became a broad category referring to agonistic gift-exchanges. In potlatch, one gives in order to ‘flatten’ the other. One gives more than (one thinks) the other can repay or one repays much more than the other has given. The potlatch gift creates a debt and an obligation for the receiver, but the goal is explicitly to make it difficult or impossible to give back the equivalent: it is to put the other lastingly in debt, thus affirming for as long as possible one’s own superiority. Mauss stresses that the potlatch is above all a struggle between nobles to establish a hierarchy amongst themselves from which their clan will benefit at a later date. Of course it can also act as a levelling mechanism too, maintaining the status quo through continuous conspicuous consumption and limiting the possibility of one individual or household from rising above the rest.

Sociological Perspective on Feasting and Consumption

A vast array of research has been carried out on potlatches in North America, specifically on the northwest coast, e.g. Codere (1966), Kan (1989) and Rosman (1971). The potlatch is a competitive feast, a nearly universal mechanism for assuring the production and distribution of wealth among peoples who have not yet fully acquired a ruling class (Harris 1975: 116). Competitive feasting thought about, narrated and imagined by the participants is very different from competitive feasting viewed as an adaptation to material constraints and opportunities. In the social dreamwork – the lifestyle consciousness of the participants – competitive feasting is a manifestation of the big man’s or potlatch chief’s insatiable craving for prestige or the insatiable craving for prestige is a manifestation of competitive feasting. Every society makes use of the need for approval, but not every society links prestige to success in competitive feasting (Harris 1975: 120-1). These approaches and studies of the potlatch are relevant to my research and are drawn upon later in Chapters Five and Six.

There are three theoretical approaches to the sociology of food and eating. The first is functionalism, which is concerned with how foodways expressed or symbolised a pattern of social relations. The preparation and reception of food played their part in the maintenance of social structures. The second is structuralism, which perceives ‘taste’ to be culturally shaped and socially controlled. Its weakness is that in avoiding any suspicion of ethnocentrism it overlooks any possibility of explaining differing food habits in terms of purpose, function and utility. Structuralism focus more on the aesthetic aspects of food and eating. Finally, there is developmentalism, which considers the relationship of cooking between nature and culture. It considers the symbolic meanings of food in shaping and controlling social behaviour. Lévi-Strauss is generally regarded as the principal author of contemporary academic interest in food and eating (1966, 1969, 1978). Lévi-Strauss is concerned with the universal characteristics of the human species and in particular that feature unique to humans, the fact that they are products of both ‘nature’ and ‘culture’. Although principally an anthropologist, it is due to his universalistic

Junker’s work (1999, 2001) in the Philippines is particularly informative given the feast’s significance in the life cycles of individuals and groups in the Philippines. Her work considered how the feasting systems functioned to reaffirm and renegotiate social relations through ritualised exchanges of meat and valuables between the hosts and 

Chapter Two - Theoretical Perspectives

conception of the world that I am more inclined to define him as a sociologist with regards to his views on food. Lévi-Strauss produced a culinary triangle, which is based on the proposition that most societies cook, and cooking is a process that transforms raw ingredients into cooked ones. Cooking is a cultural transformation of nature. The binary opposition between the cooked and the raw is only one such relationship involved in the culinary triangle, for raw food can itself be transformed by nature if it is allowed to go off, to rot. This basic culinary triangle maps the essential techniques of cooking – roasting, smoking and boiling. Thus, when food is roasted, it (a) requires minimal equipment (cultural objects); and (b) is brought into more or less direct contact with the agent of conversion, fire. In terms of process and product, roasting belongs to nature. Smoking is a natural process too, but smoked food ‘belongs’ to culture. This is because smoking preserves food. Boiling is a process that reduces food to a state similar to rotted food in nature, so boiled food belongs to nature, but the process of boiling, requiring a receptacle (a cultural object), belongs to culture (Beardsworth and Keil 1997: 9-10).

whim; (3) they are the functional symbolic or behavioural correlates or expressions of given systems of values and beliefs (Harris 1987: 57). According to Harris, none of these varieties of propositions invokes selection principles that can account for specific observed variations in food customs (as well as uniformities) or for the occurrence of the constraining values and beliefs (1987: 57). Harris characterises his own approach to the sociological study of food and eating as one of ‘cultural materialism’. Two assumptions are embodied in this approach. The first is that biological, psychological, environmental, technological, political and economic factors all influence the foods that can be consumed in a given context. The second is that whatever symbolic or social meanings are attached to food, all humans must satisfy basic nutritional needs, and psychological and chemical limits of ‘taste and toxic tolerances’ must be observed (Harris 1987: 58). Harris accepts that foods convey aesthetic and symbolic meanings and messages and that sometimes these meanings and messages are arbitrary in nature (Harris 1986: 15; 1987: 61). He believes that for the most part, whether foods are ‘good or bad to think’ depends on whether they are good or bad to eat. He argues that food must nourish the collective stomach before it can feed the collective mind (1986: 15).

For Roland Barthes, food is a system of communication (1979, 1983, 1988). To discover the constituents of the system, it is necessary to create an inventory of food products, techniques and habits, and from this observe patterns of signification. Food signifies cultural meanings to those who consume it. Not all varieties of a foodstuff are necessarily significant at a collective social level: some are significant only as a reflection of personal taste. This distinction, allowing for the accommodation of individual food preferences and tastes (and their associated personal meanings) within a system of related general meanings attached to certain foods, permits construction of a ‘grammar’ of the most important foods in a given social setting (Beardsworth and Keil 1997: 14-15). He notes that food preferences vary according to social classes. Furthermore, in seeking to elaborate a grammar of foods, Barthes concerns himself with the wider role of signification, of what purposes are served at the societal level by the shared meanings attendant on the selection, preparation and consumption of food. For Bourdieu, taste is socially shaped and social class is the main differentiator of taste. Moreover, the hierarchy of taste is itself a reflection of the class hierarchy.

Classical Feasting and Dining The Iron Age is often perceived as a pale reflection of the Classical World (e.g. Boardman 1980). During this period, peoples of Northern Europe began to come into contact with the Mediterranean World either directly through the expansion of the Roman Empire, or indirectly through the presence of imports. This section will highlight the cultural variability even within classical feasting and dining. Three examples are highlighted and discussed: Greek symposia, Etruscan dining and Roman dining (Table 1). It is important to highlight the similarities and differences in Classical feasting for this highlights where the activity of feasting drew on spatially. Through an understanding of the spatial relationships of feasting between regions, one can comprehend how this activity can be used and manipulated by particular individuals, groups and communities.

The work of Marvin Harris is of particular note for an archaeologist, for both are essentially materialistic in their approaches. Harris, an anti-structuralist writer on food, describes writers such as Lévi-Strauss and Douglas as cultural idealists. He suggested that cultural idealists explain variations in food preferences and aversions as a consequence of ‘culture’ (by which they mean the learned emic and mental components of social life). This strategy has resulted in three kinds of explanatory propositions: (1) food customs are said to be the consequence of idiographichistorical continuities that regress to an unknown beginning; (2) they are the consequence of arbitrary ‘taste’, chance or

Modern interest in the dining customs of Greek and Roman antiquity began with the antiquarians of the Renaissance. Several scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth century left learned works with titles such as Antiquitates convivales or De Triclinio, in which the literary sources were exhaustively combed for information about ancient, predominantly Roman, dining practices (Chacon 1588; Stucky 1597; Mercuriale 1601). The nineteenth and early twentieth century writers of handbooks about Roman private life also compiled detailed studies of Roman behaviour on these occasions, on the basis, 

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Eating and Drinking in the Greek World

almost exclusively, of information in the literary texts, supplemented only occasionally by that of inscriptions, and in a largely synchronic form that took little account of variations over time, or of practices outside the circles which produced the texts (Marquardt 1886: 297-340; Blümner 1911: 386-412; Friedländer 1923: 285-315). Much twentieth century classical scholarship, however, relegated these matters to the marginal position of studies of ‘daily life’ and the like, or left them to the sensationalist re-creations of the cinema or television. Not until the 1980s did the influence of anthropologists and modern social and cultural historians awaken a new realisation among classicists of the potential contribution of the study of dining customs, of commensality, and of the consumption of food in general, to the understanding of ancient society and culture. The result was an awakening of interest, concentrating in particular on the Greek symposion, which elevated sympotic studies to the status of a fashionable subject (Dunbabin 2003: 4-5).

Much research has been carried out on the Minoan and Mycenaean archaeological record (Hamilakis 1996, 1998, 1999; Steel 2002, 2004; Wright 2004; Halstead and Barrett 2004a). Wright (1995) considered the social role of wine in Minoan and Mycenaean societies. The tradition of ritual drinking during these two periods in Greece has been argued to have been associated originally with ceremonies of initiation and to have been a sign of the genteel, courtly behaviour of the aristocrat (Wright 1995: 307). Although it is difficult to demonstrate the linkage between this activity and wine consumption, wine remains the best candidate as the alcoholic beverage of choice of these groups. Wright argues that its production involves an investment in labour and time that only the wealthy could afford, and the Mycenaean texts document clearly how wine production was linked to the palatial system of agricultural production (1995: 307).

Ceremonial eating and drinking are a conspicuous feature of ancient society. They brought together families and their guests, patrons and their dependents, politicians and their friends, aristocratic youth, members of occupational groups, social clubs, religious brotherhoods, the soldiery, the citizenry, the population of a large town. Large or small, these displays of commensality or collective consumption carried significance well beyond the nutritional function of the meal that was consumed. In the domestic setting, they might demonstrate the moral integrity of the simple peasant household; or they might celebrate rites of passage, a funeral, or the acceptance of a neonate into the family, in classical Athens, the Amphidromia (Garnsey 1999: 128).

In the ancient world, to lie down to eat and drink while others stood to serve you was a sign of power, of privilege, of prestige. The custom appeared in Greece by at least the seventh century BC, almost certainly adopted from the Near East, where it was a mark of luxury and the prerogative of kings and mighty rulers. In Greece, it became the distinctive behaviour of the aristocratic society of the archaic period; it is closely linked with the appearance of the symposion as a central social phenomenon. It was an important crucible for the forging of friendships, alliances and community in ancient Greece, an example of a commensal model of drinking in which socialising is paramount (Davidson 1997: 43). This was a gathering of upper-class males, focusing upon communal and ritualised drinking, and accompanied by music and poetry in which the symposiasts themselves participated; our earliest written testimony from the Greek world for the practice of reclining comes in the works of poets such as Alkman in the late seventh century and Alkaios in the sixth, which, at least in part, were composed to be sung at the symposion. By the end of the archaic period, the practice had been adopted by groups outside the traditional aristocracy, and became the characteristic mark of a wider social class, all those with wealth to spare and leisure to

Outside the home, commensality demonstrated and confirmed the membership and solidarity of the group, paraded the status of the group vis-à-vis outsiders, and set out the hierarchies that existed both in the society at large and within the group itself. The settings were diverse – from a grandiloquent display of opulence by an emperor posing as a god to a showy feast staged by a freedmen arriviste to the common meal of a religious group or a Celtic version of potlatch in the account of Poseidonius (Garnsey 1999: 128-9). Attendees Gender

Drink/Food

Utensils

Permanent structure

Types of evidence

Greek

Male only

Drink, reclining (symposium followed the banquet)

Klinai (couches), drinking cups such as kantharoi, kotylai or kylikes; tableware such as oinochoai (jugs), ladles, kraters (elaborate, deep, footed bowls), drinking horns, flutes and amphorae

Andron (rectangular/ square entertaining room). Tholos (round room in a sanctuary)

Pottery motifs, textual evidence, fresco (Paestum)

Etruscan

Male and female

Food and drink, reclining

Kinai, cauldrons, spit-roasting equipment, drinking cups, amphorae

Etruscan banquet could range from festival celebration and funerals to everyday social gatherings

Tomb reliefs, burial sculptures

Roman

Male and female

Food and drink, reclining

Accubatio (daybeds for reclining during meal). The usual number of persons occupying each bed was three. Three daybeds formed three sides of a small square, so that the triclinium afforded accommodation for a party of nine

Dining rooms (triclinium)

Frescoes, textual evidence

Table 1. Similarities and differences of dining in the Classical world



Chapter Two - Theoretical Perspectives

enjoy. By this time, reclining, both at the drinking party and at the meal, which, by Greek custom, normally preceded it, was the normal position for males belonging to the upper levels of society. It formed part of an elaborate pattern of cultivated behaviour, and of manners that needed to be taught (Dunbabin 2003: 11).

The symposium is the post-eating stage of a banquet during which drinking for pleasure took place, accompanied by entertainment, in the form of recitation, music, dancing, conversation and sex (Figure 1). The symposium of the archaic period was a private club, in that its membership was restricted and met in private premises, in the household. It belonged to the public, or better, political, sphere in the sense that the people who came together in this way were precisely the citizens of the polis and the men who formed its political and, in the Homeric period at least, its military leadership.

Greek commensality was essentially an all-male activity: it normally took place in the andron, the ‘Men’s Room’; ‘it is not the custom of the Greeks to allow their women to recline at a convivium of men’, as a Greek of the first century BC explained to a deliberately uncomprehending Roman official who wished to seduce his daughter; the behaviour of the Etruscans and Romans in allowing their wives and daughters to be present was fundamental proof of their lack of culture and immorality (Murray 1990: 6).

Both the reclining banquet and the symposium itself rapidly spread far and wide to peoples with whom the Greeks came into contact through trade and settlement. Their influence is seen very early in Italy, especially in Etruria, where the practice is attested almost as early as in Greece itself.

The Greeks early established a more or less clear distinction between two aspects of commensality, eating and drinking, and seem to have privileged the second, the consumption of alcohol, above the first. The symposion became in many respects a place apart from the normal rules of society, with its own strict code of honour in the pistis there created, and its own willingness to establish conventions fundamentally opposed to those within the as a whole. It developed its own metasympotic discourse on the laws of sympotic behaviour, and its own sense of occasion: it became a ‘spettacolo a se stesso’ (Murray 1990). The distinctive manipulation of Greek sexuality in the homosexual bonding of young males through symposion and gymnasion is one aspect of this selfconscious separation (Murray 1990: 7).

Etruscan Dining The banquet unquestionably played a prominent role in Etruscan culture from an early date. Our first evidence for it comes almost entirely from the funerary sphere: finds of drinking services and banqueting equipment in graves from the late eighth century BC onwards. In the seventh century, seated figures are portrayed as banqueters on funerary monuments, for instance, on the lid of a ceramic funerary urn from Montescudaio near Volterra. The reclining banquet appears in Etruscan art only a few decades after its first appearance in the Greek world, on a frieze of terracotta revetment plaques from a palace-like building at Murlo (Poggio Civitate, near Siena) dated probably to the first quarter of the sixth century BC: pairs of figures recline on couches, holding drinking cups, one playing the lyre; tables with food stand before them; servants bearing wine and a flute player attend them. Although the exact function of the building is not known, it is thought to have been in some sense public, and the banquet scenes are believed to refer to events that may have taken place in the courtyard of the building itself. They reflect the role of luxurious banquets in the ceremonial life of an aristocratic society, as do the slightly later friezes of similar type from several other Etruscan sites (Figure 2). The more frequent scenes from funerary contexts in turn show the central part played by the banquet in Etruscan mortuary ritual. There is no doubt about the influence of Greek iconography upon the banqueting scenes. The most significant of these are the painted tombs of Tarquinia and the relief friezes, funerary urns, cippi, bases and a few sarcophagi from Chiusi. In some cases, exact parallels for figures or motifs can be drawn with the decoration of Attic redfigure pottery, which was imported into Etruria in vast quantities at this time, and itself attests to the popularity and importance of the drinking customs for which it was designed. The banquet in Etruria combined both eating and drinking; and food can be recognised on the tables in

Figure 1. Red-figure vase with a symposion scene



Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

several of the representations, including the Murlo plaques. It is, however, also evident that Greek drinking customs, such as the practice of mixing wine with water in a special bowl, had been adopted from an early date; mixing bowls are not only conspicuous among the assemblages of banqueting equipment from the seventh century, but are also represented prominently between the couches on the Murlo plaques. The Tarquinia paintings lack any indication of food, and seem to show a Greek-style symposion with pure drinking; a feature which is contradictory to research carried out by Riva (2000, see below). In some tombs of the late archaic period, special emphasis is placed on the krater, for instance in the Tomb of the Lionesses; here a huge krater appears in the centre of the end wall, garlanded and flanked by musicians and dancers; four male banqueters recline along the side walls. The prominence of the krater suggests that the wine has a ritual or symbolic significance; not only, as in Greece, emblematic of unity among the banqueters who partake of it, but also perhaps as offering and sustenance for the dead (Dunbabin 2003: 27). Despite the prominence of drinking in the pictorial evidence, the archaeological evidence indicates that eating played an equally as important role in Etruscan banqueting.

ideology: (a) objects related to the preparation of meat for consumption and meat-roasting equipment, (b) banqueting and sympotic equipment (Riva 2000: 118). The practice of meat-roasting, in connection with drinking, constitutes the banquet, which in turn is connected with sacrifice. The connection is well represented in the Near East where the banquet was characterised by sacrificial practices and by the close and fixed association of meat and wine. At the same time the roasting spit indicated Homeric heroic meat-eating habits, whilst the presence of the firedog linked this association with indigenous Villanovan customs. Thus there was the creation of an Etruscan hybrid orientalising banqueting tradition, as witnessed in the funerary context (Riva 2000: 122).

The Art of Eating and Drinking in the Roman World Convivial eating and drinking formed one of the most significant social rituals in the Roman world, inextricably interwoven into the fabric of public and domestic life. Communal banqueting played an essential role in the relationships of members of the élite with their dependents, with their potential supporters, or even with their entire community, as well as in their interaction among themselves; it marked the humbler gatherings of the non-élite, of freedmen, and even sometimes slaves, in their guilds and religious associations (Dunbabin 2003: 2). The banquet recurred in several different guises in funerary rituals and the commemoration of the dead; and it characterised religious festivals, large and small. The Roman convivium is different to the symposium in that it was sexually mixed, it covered a wide social range and equality was not always the order of the day.

The most striking difference lies in the presence and position of women. Although many scenes show all-male participants in the banquet, on others women appear, reclining alongside the men on the same couch. In some late sixth century tombs, such as the Tomb of Hunting and Fishing at Tarquinia, a single couple is shown in this way. Later, in some fifth century tombs such as the Tomb of the Leopards (Figure 3), the Tomb of the Triclinium, or the Tomb of the Ship, pairs of male and female guests are shown reclining together, all participating alike in the banquet.

The images of dining and drinking in Roman art appear in a wide variety of media. They show groups of banqueters or single participants, or present cognate subjects or extracts from larger scenes: the servants, ready to attend on the guests; food and drink that might be set before them; and the entertainment that they might be offered. The great majority of examples come from two types of context: funerary or domestic.

Figure 2. Etruscan frieze from Chiusi

The grave goods of Etruscan aristocratic status groups presented both male and female individuals as warriors, but in distinctive ways. Unlike male burials, female grave goods did not consist of weapons, but instead consisted of two material sets related to the warrior lifestyle and 

Chapter Two - Theoretical Perspectives

as glassware and pottery and vessels, but also indicates the desire to illustrate investment in less perishable and high quality goods (Danaher 2005: 62). Despite their culinary associations, xenia were more likely to be encountered in the reception rooms of the house than the triclinium, where they were likely to accompany mythological panels. In conjunction with literary evidence, xenia can be interpreted as an expression of the Roman and particularly Campanian desire to articulate a tendency towards rus in urbe. This correlates with the idea of hospitality and friendship traditionally associated with xenia (Danaher 2005: 66).

Figure 3. Tomb of the Leopards, Tarquinia

Numerous Roman and Late Antique written sources attest to the ubiquitous practice of eating and drinking at many stages of the funerary sequence as well as the use of food and drink in rites of purification and sacrifice (Alcock 1981; Effros 2002; Toynbee 1971). Funerary rituals connected to food and drink could serve to denote the status of the participants and those organising the funeral through conspicuous consumption (for example see the Altar of Publius Vitellius Sucessus, Kleiner 1987, Pl. 26). They also served to orchestrate social relations among the living and with the dead, ancestors and the gods (Garnsey 1999; Lindsay 1998).

Discussion

Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus and Pliny the younger, among others, show that daily dining with friends was an established social and cultural institution at Rome, part of the normal routine of life. This was a formal meal at a set time, dividing the Roman day between ‘business’ and ‘leisure’. In a letter to Paetus, Cicero talks of the convivium as the ideal setting in which Romans can ‘live together’. It was the obvious place for interaction, conversation and relaxation, the place and the occasion where friendship was strengthened and cultural attainment displayed. This picture is confirmed by the importance of the dining-room(s), triclinium, in the aristocratic house (Garnsey 1999: 136).

For each particular form of feasting, be it Greek, Etruscan or Roman, each draws on different sources in order to create an individual form of feasting as well as building upon local Bronze Age traditions (Figure 4). Through the combination of imported with indigenous, entirely new, yet in some aspects similar, consumption practices were created. It is interesting to note the various inspirations for each form of feasting and how each mélange of ideas, in turn, influences, inspires and creates another interpretation of the activity of feasting. Greek banqueting, with its initial Near Eastern character, influenced Etruscan forms of dining, who combined its own style of feasting with aspects from both the Near East and Greece. Later, the Romans became inspired by the Greek dining customs. Feasting in southern Gaul was influenced through trading contacts with Etruria, Greece and later Rome. The southern Gauls used items purchased through trade and combined them with indigenous consumption practices. Northern Gaul was influenced in turn through activities carried out in the south and by contact with the Roman world. In Britain, there is the potential influence of Gaulish and Roman forms of consumption, through the importation of

Xenia provide a fascinating insight into Roman attitudes to food, hospitality and art. Xenia refer to forms of Campanian still lifes, which depict images of food and drink. Many examples of xenia appear to have decorated a variety of reception rooms, in particular the tablinum, in which the paterfamilias would receive his clients. These still lifes included depictions of meat, fish and fruits. It is notable that the vast majority of still lifes feature containers in which food and, in particular, fruit is displayed. This not only provides insight into dining paraphernalia, such 

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

both material goods and ideas. However, as I have argued elsewhere (Ralph 2005a, 2006) and highlight in Chapters Five and Six, the appearance of new artefacts associated with eating and drinking should not be interpreted as a consequence of Romanisation, but should instead be viewed as tools for communication and manipulation, particularly within the context of feasting.

oneness. The people could relive the glories of the past, display their hierarchies and loyalties, and communally enjoy the largesse redistributed by their chieftains. The classical writers are quite specific about Celtic feasts. It was the responsibility of kings to provide lavishly for their people. Poseidonius (quoted by Athenaeus) tell us of the Gaulish King Louernius, who built a vast square enclosure within which ‘he filled vats with expensive

Figure 4. Spatial patterning of feasting practices in Europe and the process of re-interpretation of feasting

liquor and prepared so great a quantity of food that for many days all who wished could enter and enjoy the feast prepared, being served without break by the attendants.’ How common such a display was in the Celtic world it is difficult to say, but for the most part feasts appear to have been more intimate and held indoors.

Classical sources Although no written sources talk specifically of feasting in Britain, a number of Classical authors have commented on the activity in ‘barbarian’ Europe. However, the inherent biases associated with any written sources must be taken into account. These sources can only inform the archaeologist about the phenomenon of eating and drinking in Europe through the eyes of the Classical world. It must also be noted that many of these sources refer to the term ‘Celtic’ or the peoples as ‘Celts’. These are particularly loaded terms, which have received a lot of attention from archaeologists (Collis 1997; Fitzpatrick 1996; James 1998, 1999; Jones 1997). These words will be used in this section due to their utilisation in Classical and historical texts, but the inherent dangers should be borne in mind.

In the Celtic round or long houses, diners sat crosslegged on the floor round the fire eating from plates or wooden platters passed round the guests. Diodorus Siculus (History) had noted that ‘when dining the Celts sit not upon the ground but on the earth, stewing beneath them the skins of wild animals’. This is confirmed by Poseidonius; ‘they also scatter hay on the ground when they serve their meals, which they take on wooden tables raised only slightly above the ground’ (Histories). Classical references to the eating habits of the Celts are few and limited. Strabo (Geography) speaks of their banquets and the way in which strangers were welcomed: they were questioned only after the meal about their identity and needs. Strabo comments on the large quantities of food eaten along with milk and all kinds

The feast was central to Celtic life. It was above all a time when the community could come together to reaffirm its 10

Chapter Two - Theoretical Perspectives

of meat. Various foods would have been served. Strabo, writing of the Belgae, says, ‘they have large quantities of food together with all kinds of meat especially fresh and salt pork’ (Geography IV.4.3). The importance of pork to the diet is amply demonstrated by the evidence from graves, in many of which the dead person was provided with a joint of pork or even a whole pig for their first feast in the afterworld (Cunliffe 1979: 42). Poseidonius says of the Celts that ‘their food consists of a small number of loaves of bread, together with a large amount of meat, either boiled or roasted on charcoal or on spits..those who live beside rivers or near the Mediterranean or the Atlantic eat fish in addition, baked fish, that is, with the addition of salt, vinegar and cumin’ (Histories).

and confirmed (Cunliffe 1979: 42). The early historic Irish annals and literary works have been suggested to provide a ‘window on the Iron Age’ (Jackson 1964), preserving details of both the chronology of élite Ireland’s political manoeuvrings and of the specifics of social structure and even of the construction of individual artefact types. While the general consensus is that the ‘window’ idea is inappropriate (Chapman 1992; Collis 1997), to some extent some useful comparisons can at least be made from what is known of early historic Irish life and the later Iron Age period. The body of heroic narratives that Jackson (1964) refers to is the Ulster Cycle, so called because it centres round the King of Ulster and his warriors. In the story of Bricriu’s Feast the chief character Cú Chulainn has to contend with two other warriors for the ‘hero’s portion.’ It was the right of the best hero present to carve the chief carcass for the diners. This was a practical as well as a symbolic privilege, since the carver was expected to give himself or herself the best joint of the meat, the curadmír or ‘Champion’s Portion’ (Jackson 1964: 21). Naturally several warriors might demand the privilege as witnessed in Bricriu’s Feast. The same theme is reiterated in The Story of Mac Dathó’s Pig. Here amid showers of abuse and boasting one warrior after another claimed his right to carve the pig until Conall, having speared his rival in the chest ‘so that blood flowed from his mouth,’ took up his position with the carving knife. By keeping the best part for himself and giving only the forelegs to the Connacht men present, he insulted them sufficiently to provoke a fight. These descriptions in the Irish literature almost read exactly like the observations noted by Poseidonius.

An important social event like a feast was circumscribed by formality. Athenaeus (quoting Poseidonius) provides the details: ‘When a large number dine together they sit around in a circle with the most influential man in the centre, like the leader of the chorus, whether he surpasses the others in warlike skill, or lineage, or wealth. Beside him sits the host and next on either side the others in order of distinction. Their shieldsmen stand behind them while their spearmen are seated in a circle on the opposite side and feast in common like their lords.’ Clearly the seating plan was of great import if delicate susceptibilities were not to be upset (Cunliffe 1979: 43). The scene inside the house is set by Diodorus Siculus. Describing the participants, he goes on to say that ‘beside them are hearths blazing with fire, with cauldrons and spits containing large pieces of meat. Brave warriors they honour with the finest portions of meat’ (History). This last point is amplified by Athenaeus, who says,

Classical sources and texts from Ireland and Wales would suggest that the ability to give feasts awash with alcohol was a key part of a leader’s claim to rule.

‘The Celts sometimes engage in single combat at dinner. For they gather in arms and engage in mock battles, and fight hand-to-hand, but sometimes wounds are inflicted, and the irritation caused by this may even lead to killing unless the bystanders restrain them. And in former times, when the hindquarters were served up the bravest hero took the thigh piece, and if another man claimed it they stood up and fought in single combat to death’ (Histories 4.36).

Poseidonius writes: ‘The drink of the wealthy classes is wine imported from Italy or from the territory of Marseille. This is unadulterated but sometimes a little water is added. The lower classes drink wheaten beer prepared with honey, though most people drink it plain. They use a common cup, drinking a little at a time; not more than a mouthful, but they do it rather frequently’ (Histories).

Behind these comments it is possible to see something of the mechanisms of social order at work. First of all the person who considered himself the bravest hero took, or expected to be given, a particular cut of meat which demonstrated his assumed status to the assembled company. If the action passed without comment, his status was thus confirmed in the eyes of all, but if another man aspired to this position he could dispute the apportionment. Simulated combat might decide the issue, but the dispute could easily escalate and bloodshed ensue. In this simple ritual, we can recognise one of the procedures by which social status was acquired

11

Some scholars have noticed a wine versus beer rivalry amid certain British ‘tribes’ in the late first century BC and early first century AD. The Trinovantes used a vine leaf on their coins whilst their rivals the Catuvellauni used an ear of barley as their motif (Nelson 2005: 64). The first literary reference to British Celtic beer comes at a time after the Roman conquest. Some thirty years later, the Greek medical writer Dioscorides, speaking of a type of barley beer known as kourmi, says: ‘Such drinks [that

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

is, beers] are also prepared from wheat, as in Iberia in the west [as opposed to eastern Iberia] and Britain’ (De Materia Medica II-87-88) The introduction of wine in the early first century BC and the appearance of amphorae and bronze vessels associated with wine drinking in burials and on settlement sites, led Tacitus to claim of the Britons, just as Caesar had of the Belgians, that, under the guise of being civilised, they were gradually being corrupted by Roman customs, including sumptuous dinner parties; ‘even the barbarians now learned to condone pleasant vices’ (Agricola III.55).

Greeks and Romans associated beer with Celts: Pliny (Natural History XIV. 29) recorded that the natives of western Europe (principally Gaul and Spain) intoxicated themselves with a drink made from corn and water, while Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities XIII. 10) snobbishly noted that ‘the Gauls at that time had no knowledge of wine… but used a foul-smelling liquor made from barley rotted in water’. Wine drinking was considered a symbol of Greek cultural identity. It was a mark of their barbarism that the barbarians drank beer. If they did know of wine, and the Greeks acknowledged that other cultures were not totally ignorant of it, they misused it (Davidson 1997: 40).

Roman writers commented on the quantity drunk by the Celts and of the violence which could occur because the Celts preferred to drink their wine without water. Welwynstyle tombs (Hertfordshire) contain amphorae indicating quite clearly that the Celtic aristocracy intended to drink wine in the next world. The Lexden tumulus (Essex) (Laver 1927) contained 17 amphorae, with some once containing wine imported from Pompeii. One amphora held 22 litres (4.8 gallons). The Mount Bures (Smith 1852), Snailwell (Cambs.) (Lethbridge 1954) and Stanfordbury (Dryden 1845) graves contain Spanish amphorae. These not only indicate the liking for wine but also the importance of the emerging Spanish wine trade in pre-Roman Britain. Amphorae fragments from different countries found at the pre-Conquest Roman fort site at Sheepen, Colchester, (Niblett 1985) indicate that large quantities of wine were entering Britain by AD 5 and that after the Conquest the site was supplied from at least 19 different sources. Seventy of the Sheepen amphorae are wine vessels (51.85% by vessel count) and they represent wine imports of 1619.12 litres (Sealey 1985: 100). These included Italy (Latium and the fine Falerian wine of Campania), the Iberian province, Rhodes and southern Gaul. Wines from Pompeii were imported before the supply was abruptly terminated by the volcanic eruption in AD 79 (Alcock 2001: 83-4). As early as the fourth century BC, the Celts were well known for their love of wine. The Greek philosopher Plato has a brief comment on this aspect of the Celtic character in his Laws, where he includes the Celts among a list of barbarians who revel in drunkenness (I.637). Diodorus describes the appearance of the Gauls, noting that ‘the upper classes shave their cheeks but grow a long moustache which hangs over their mouth. When they drink, the liquid must run through the moustache so that it acts as a sort of strainer’ (Library V.28).

Recent research by Burillo and Alzola (2005) has questioned the validity of these claims put forward by Classical writers, particularly in the context of Celtiberia. The site of Segeda in Celtiberia, a region perceived by Classical authors as barbaric when compared to the coastal areas, produced evidence to suggest that both beer and wine co-existed in various areas of the site with no apparent contradiction or conflict (Burillo and Alzola 2005: 80). A relatively small proportion of the site has been systematically excavated, but initial contextual comparative analyses suggest that there was no significant pattern of status or wealth in the areas where wine and beer appear to have been present. There is also no evidence that any of these two beverages had predominance over the other within the city (Burillo and Alzola 2005: 80).

An Integrated Approach – Anthropological Archaeology In my opinion, there are two ‘traditional’ approaches to the study of feasting or more broadly consumption. The first is anthropological, focused perhaps more on the concept of potlatch anthropology, and the second is classical. Both of these approaches are based on some form of ethnography in order to aid in our understanding of feasting/consumption in the archaeological record. Anthropology draws on examples that are discontinuous in time and place to what an archaeologist may be looking at, in this case Iron Age Britain. Their ethnographies are based on non-Western societies, whom may or may not differ from the modern society in the area of archaeological interest. These nonWestern societies, although they differ in time and space to my archaeological data, may be societies of a socio-political nature that may have parallels with Iron Age societies.

Tacitus, referring to the Germans specifically – whose lifestyle, however, was no doubt similar to that of the Celts on the other side of the Rhine – talks of their drinking a fermented liquor made from barley and wheat grains which bears a resemblance to, presumably, Roman wine (Tacitus Germania). The food he describes as plain; it includes wild fruit, fresh game and curdled milk. Tacitus refers to their uncontrolled drinking habits, suggesting that alcohol would be as effective a conqueror as the force of arms (Wilkins et al. 1995: 314-5).

12

The second is classical ethnohistory. This could be classed as a form of social anthropology, but there are overtones of classical hegemony associated with these resources. There is the tendency to discuss non-Classical (‘non-civilised’) people and their activities and practices as a pale reflection of the Mediterranean world.

Chapter Two - Theoretical Perspectives

Classical resources are informative in the study of Iron Age Britain. They are close in terms of causality and geographical space and some of the cultigens and animals are the same as those found in the British archaeological record. However, the inherent biases involved in these sources hinder their potential as a useful resource for understanding Iron Age societies. One should therefore turn to the anthropological studies of societies, which although dissimilar in time and space, are potentially more informative for they do not suffer from classical preconceptions.

‘empowering’ as a way to indicate an effective political role of feasting events of various kinds rather than necessarily an overt intention of the hosts. Although this role is sometimes fully, or at least partially, recognised by the participants, much of the effectiveness of this political mechanism derives from the fact that it often entails a kind of collective misrecognition of the self-interested nature of the practice. The second major mode of commensal politics is the patron-role feast. This involves the formalised use of commensal hospitality to reiterate symbolically and legitimise symbolically institutionalised relations of asymmetrical social power. The outcome of this form of commensal politics is the same as the former feast, i.e. the relationship of reciprocal obligation provided through hospitality. However, in this case the expectation of equal reciprocity is no longer maintained. So, on the one hand those who are always the guests accept their subordinated status to the continual host. Whereas on the other hand, the role of the continual and generous host for the community is viewed as a duty for the person who occupies a particular elevated status position or formal political role.

It is clear that an integration of both these sources of information is to be more fruitful than if they were used alone. I have shown that there are various threads of research into feasting/consumption, but I believe that the key to a successful research strategy involves the integration of these approaches: anthropology, sociology, classics and archaeology. This section will discuss the work of two anthropologists who have successfully drawn together these three areas of research in order to enhance the investigation of feasting.

Michael Dietler

The third type is the diacritical feast. This feast involves the use of differentiated cuisine and styles of consumption as a means to establish and maintain concepts of ranked differences in social status. The basis of symbolic force shifts from quantity to matters of style and taste. This feast could also be referred to as a ‘tournament of value’. Diacritical stylistic distinctions may be based upon the use of rare or expensive foods or food service vessels and implements. Or they may be based upon differences in the complexity of the pattern of preparation and consumption of food and the specialised knowledge this entails. You have to be careful not to confuse diacritical feasting practices with the kinds of practices that may be used to differentiate feasts in general, as public ritual events, from everyday informal consumption. This distinction is marked simply by differences in the sheer quantity of food and drink offered and consumed or by a change in the location and timing of consumption. I discuss this form of feast and its manifestation in the archaeological record in Chapter Six.

Dietler views feasts as public ritual events and therefore they provide an arena for the highly condensed symbolic representation of social relations. Like all rituals they express idealised concepts, such as the way people believe relations exist or should exist rather than how they are in reality. They also offer the potential for manipulation by individuals or groups attempting to alter or make statements about their relative position within that social order as it is perceived and presented. As a result, feasts are subject to manipulation for both ideological and personal goals (Dietler 1996: 89). Dietler identified three different modes of commensal politics, or general patterns in the ways that feasts operate symbolically in serving as sites and instruments of politics. These types of feasting involve commensal hospitality. This is a specialised form of gift exchange that establishes the same relations of reciprocal obligation between host and guest as between donor and receiver in the exchange of other more durable types of objects. The three feasts Dietler describes are: empowering, patron-role and diacritical. The first of these three modes of commensal politics is directed toward the acquisition or creation of social (and economic) power and the latter two are directed toward the maintenance of existing inequalities in power relations. The first two operate primarily through an emphasis on quantity, and the last operates through an emphasis on style.

For Dietler, an understanding of the relationship between food, power and status is essential to understanding the process of colonial interaction that had a major influence on the development of the indigenous societies of Iron Age Western Europe. Much of his work has been directed towards understanding the nature of this colonial encounter between the indigenous populations of southern Europe (France and Germany) and the Mediterranean World (Greeks, Etruscans and Romans) (1989, 1990, 1995). He believes that this colonial encounter was largely articulated through the institution of feasting. Dietler looked at two areas in Europe: southern France and the Hallstatt zone. Both of these areas are notable for the influx in foreign imports associated primarily with drinking.

13

The first of these feasts is the ‘empowering feast’ and involves the manipulation of commensal hospitality toward the acquisition and maintenance of certain forms of symbolic and sometimes economic capital, such as through a work-party feast. Dietler uses this more passive term

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Brian Hayden

Social bonds vs. limited goals: Many limited-goal feasts leave minimally distinctive material remains. Solicitation, punishment, crisis and other similar feasts, are unlikely to involve particularly special foods or vessels. Therefore it would be difficult to distinguish these from normal eating, except perhaps by their size or location.

Hayden has of course had an equal contribution in the discussion of feasting, although he has approached it from a different perspective to Dietler. However, many of their ideas overlap. Hayden approaches feasting from a culturalecological orientation (1995, 1996, 2001). He believes that a practice as ubiquitous and ‘expensive’ as feasting must have some practical benefits (Dietler and Hayden 2001b: 12). He acknowledges that idiosyncratic values motivate some people to use their resources and power in nonrational, non-self-interested, non-predictable fashions. However, he argues that on the whole, people do tend to make decisions based on their own self interests and the information or choices that are available. In this respect, they act in ecologically (and economically) rational terms (Dietler and Hayden 2001b: 12).

Social Units: Social units range from individual families, to lineages, to clans, to communities, and extend to regions. Each level of social unit tends to be associated with a specific size range of feasting, i.e. number of participants. Material-based (archaeological) classifications: Hayden created a list of indicators that could be used to identify feasting events in the archaeological record. This is not an exhaustive list and I would hope that my research could add to it.

A list of criteria for identifying feasts in the archaeological record was drawn up by Hayden (2001). These factors will be discussed later on. Hayden has attempted to classify feasts and produced a list of those which he believed are the most common, and have the most potential for use by prehistorians. The first is emic and refers to feasts that would take place within the constraints of a single community or society. Emic feast types are almost limitless since the pretexts for holding feasts are only constrained by human creativity. Examples include marriages, funerals, harvests and seasonal events. The second is the functional feast. In terms of practical purposes or social functions, there is a narrow range of important benefits likely to be derived from hosting feasts. These benefits can be grouped into main divisions: creating cooperation, alliance, or social distinctions on the one hand versus economic benefits on the other hand.

With all this information, Hayden suggests that it may be possible to classify archaeological feasting events into a number of broad categories. His four suggestions are: Minimally Distinctive Feasts, Promotional/Alliance Feasts, Competitive Feasts and Tribute Feasts. Hayden suggests that feasts involved in acquiring power should not be predicted on need but on surplus. Feasting only occurs in good times and is elaborated as a function of the food available (Hayden 1995: 22). A competitive feasting model consisted of: (1) the generation and use of surpluses as a central feature (2) a new evolutionary phenomenon (economically based competition over surpluses and labour) rather than the ubiquitous stresses and circumscriptions that must have always characterised human populations (3) an appeal to the immediate material self-interest of all participants. Competitive feasts occur in several forms and they probably occur only under a fairly limited range of circumstances, representing brief periods in the evolution of socio-economic inequalities in many regions (Hayden 1995: 24-5). Competitive feasts only seem to emerge under unusually abundant resource conditions preceding the development of true chiefdoms. It is now apparent that there is a prior type of feasting that appears under conditions where resources are more limited, but not so limited as to make strictly egalitarian communities essential for survival (Hayden 1995: 25-6).

Feasts in the first division include those meant to create cooperative in-group relationships or distinctiveness between groups (Dietler’s diacritical feasts). Feasts held for economic benefit include feasts to accomplish some task and competitive feasts. It is important to distinguish between different functional types of feasts because the consequences for the material culture expressions should be quite different and because the consequences for community dynamics and impacts on technological changes should be very different. For instance, solidarity feasts, no matter what their size, should entail minimal departures from standard daily foods or material items, whereas competitive and promotional feasts should represent major departures with consequent pressures to develop and change both food and material technologies.

Conclusion Both of these researchers highlight how an integrated approach to feasting can produce invaluable information regarding the make-up and structure of social organisation. Dietler’s work, and to a lesser extent Hayden, has been particularly informative in Southern France and Germany. However, this research cannot be translated directly to Britain due to the differing archaeological record. Little work of this nature, i.e. anthropological archaeology, has been carried out on the archaeological record of Iron

14

Size: Of course feasts will vary in scale and clearly the smaller types will be difficult to identify archaeologically. However, one might expect some differences to occur with increasing sizes of feasts. The more people involved, the more specialised and numerous food items, preparation facilities, vessels (both preparation and serving) there will be.

Chapter Two - Theoretical Perspectives

Age Britain. A notable exception is the work of Parker Pearson (1999, 2003). This approach has the potential to reveal new insights into the rise of complexity during this period and the social, economic and political structure. In particular, Dietler and Hayden do not consider the link between feasting and cycles of life in detail. My research investigates this relationship between feasts and cycles of life and highlights particular points of cycles which are more predominantly marked by feasts (see Chapters Six and Seven for a detailed discussion).

integrating the life cycle of the wider social community (Gilchrist 2000: 326). Birth may mark a crucial beginning for the individual, but that same event may mark validation of a marriage, expansion of a family, and new roles for every kin person. Marriage may unite a couple, but it also is likely to unite extended families. Death may mark an end for the individual, but the family, household, and larger community will continue, although obviously altered in some roles. Feasts are opportunities and occasions which can mark particular points of the life cycle and it is interesting to note if feasting activities are used only at specific points within an individual’s or group’s life cycle. Alternatively, feasts could be used to mark other cycles, which are experienced throughout a person’s or group’s life cycle, e.g. agricultural cycles. Hayden has argued that the intensification of agriculture was in response to increasingly competitive feasting strategies, but it should also be noted that harvest is also an opportunity to reap the rewards, and feast on one’s labour. It is difficult from an archaeological point of view, to be able to recognise all stages of a life cycle. For example, certain transitional stages such as birth or marriage can only be inferred. Biographies of people are in part masked archaeologically or paradoxically only ‘start’ from a position of death. Archaeologists have to study the degree to which death is a recapitulation of life.

It is important to consider the relationship between feasting and life cycles because much of the variation in occurrence of feasts is related to the degree to which feasting is regulated by the structure of ritual. Feasting is often associated with calendrical rituals that occur at prescribed times of the year. Ad hoc feasts are often geared more toward the enhancement of prestige than are feasts that are highly structured by a ritual cycle. Moreover, the feasibility of ad hoc feasts as aggrandising vehicles may be restricted by the potential of the subsistence economy to generate a surplus. Societies with seasonally structured subsistence abundances may be restricted to feasting in the contexts of seasonally structured ritual feasts. The scheduling of feasts associated with rite-of-passage rituals, such as weddings and initiation rituals, and with life-crisis events, such as mourning rituals, may not be regulated to the same degree as feasts connected with a ritual cycle. Mourning rituals, for instance, can take place months or years after a death, allowing a family to collect the necessary food and goods.

I am primarily interested in the political changes that were taking place during the later Iron Age and Early Roman period. These political changes in turn affected settlement, material culture, economy and social organisation both on the micro and macro level of society. I have investigated the link between feasting and politics and how this activity of consumption was a catalyst for political change, which in turn brought about major changes in society, which are now represented in the expanding archaeological record of this period. My research investigates the role of feasting in social, economic and political contexts and considers how each of these contexts are intimately linked with both individual and group life cycles. I think that the approach advocated by Dietler and Hayden allows the most information to be realised from the archaeological record. However, I believe my modified approach, vested in the life cycle, needs to be tested on the archaeological record of Iron Age Britain in order to understand its potential as a useful analytical tool.

The repetitive and cyclical nature of feasting often appears to be structured in relation to an ordered sociotemporal framework, such as a religious calendar or the human lifecycle. The impetus behind much of its cyclicity is the reciprocal nature of the social relations created and reinforced through these events – one cannot be just a guest, but you must also be host at some later time. Important events in the lives of people at all levels of society, such as birth, marriage, pregnancy, death and other life stages, also required feasts to mark the occasion. Alongside the chronology that is shared by all members of a society, one must consider the rhythms in the lives of individuals and in the lives of domestic units, households or families. The life cycle of the individual is almost always embedded in a longer life cycle, that of the family or domestic group, which similarly has its beginning, maturation, ageing and eventual demise.

15

The life cycle can simply relate to chronology, or developmental stages as an individual progresses from birth to death. Many of the stages are irreducibly linked to patterns of relationships and one should not separate the life cycle of the individual from the life cycle of the domestic group (Heath 2000: 22-3). The passage of an individual life may be linked with daily, seasonal or annual cycles, with natural and personal time scales fully

Chapter Three Background to Area of Research Introduction

Time Period

This section provides an overview of the general changes taking place in Iron Age Britain as a whole in order to provide a context in which to place East Anglia. The developments in settlement distribution and morphology and the changes in material culture that took place in East Anglia are described in greater detail and executed with reference to the geology and geography of the region, the putative ‘tribal’ boundaries and zones and recorded events associated with these ‘tribes’. It is important to provide a context in which feasting takes place. It is necessary to understand the social and political contexts in which feasting may (or may not) take place in and to situate its presence or absence within the human landscape of this period. By being aware of the social, political, economic and physiographic contexts of the Iron Age, and how these changed throughout the period, one can fully comprehend the role of feasting and recognise relationships between consumption activities and the contexts in which they are found.

Date

Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Transition

800 – 600/500 BC

Early Iron Age

600 – 400/300 BC

Middle Iron Age

300 – 100 BC

Late Iron Age

100 BC – AD 43

Early Roman

AD 43 – AD 100

The Development of Iron Age Britain It is extremely difficult to provide an overview of the nature of change in Iron Age Britain. The concept of regionality is particularly relevant here. Change did not occur simultaneously, but instead it manifested itself in a variety of forms throughout the country and at different times. Therefore, it is difficult to provide a precise overview of Iron Age Britain and what follows is a description of the major changes taking place during this period and it must be taken into account that not all changes occurred at the same time or everywhere.

Chronology

Iron Age Britain 900 to 450 BC

Only rudimentary outlines can be provided for this period. There are few absolute dates and closely datable artefacts from occupation sites in this area and thus pottery typology has become the traditional means of dating sites. However, due to the indistinguishable and unchanging nature of coarse pottery during the first part of the Iron Age, dating of sites has become problematic. This is especially true with sites that only have small pottery assemblages containing few fine wares. It is therefore difficult in many instances to make even the most basic assumptions about the date, size and duration of occupation for sites (Bryant 1995: 17).

As in Europe, the major change in the archaeological record during the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition is the cessation of the deposition of bronze objects and scrap in hoards. At the same time iron copies of prestige bronze objects appeared for the first time. After this date, swords, axes, knives and sickles were no longer made in bronze and the deposition of metal objects reduced to a trickle in Britain and Ireland. It is the end of those social practices which centred on bronze objects and sustained the dominant social discourse of the Later Bronze Age that marks the beginning of the Iron Age rather than a break in settlement evidence or ceramics. Where there is settlement evidence before the transition, this continues. Where there is no settlement evidence, as in Ireland, that pattern also continues (Hill 1995a: 76).

There are few assemblages of Late Bronze Age to Middle Iron Age pottery in Hertfordshire when compared to the number of first century BC/AD sites or the numbers of Late Bronze Age to Middle Iron Age sites in neighbouring counties (Hill 1999: 2). However, comparison is dangerous for pottery in one area did not necessarily follow the trends set in neighbouring areas.

Hillforts were built across Britain from as early as 1000 BC. Although geographically a widespread phenomenon, hillforts are found in dense concentrations in a narrow regional band in Britain, referred to by Cunliffe (1991) as the ‘hillfort dominated zone’. A major flourish in Wessex and the Cotswolds took place between c. 650 and 500 BC. Some hillforts continued in occupation in these areas in the middle pre-Roman Iron Age, often with increasingly elaborate defences and changing social role. These ‘developed’ hillforts appear to be particularly common

Chronology on the region is therefore based on pottery assemblages and metalwork finds. For the purposes of my work the following chronological distinctions are made:

17

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

in parts of Wessex where excavations at Maiden Castle (Dorset) and Danebury (Hampshire) have done much to illustrate their nature (Cunliffe 1984; Sharples 1991). In other areas of the country episodes of hillfort construction or reoccupation occurred throughout the pre-Roman Iron Age (PRIA), e.g. Welsh border and Severn Valley c. 300 to 100 BC (Hill 1995a: 78).

political history of southern Britain, especially with the development of inscribed series from c. 20 BC, which bears rulers’ names. The coinage and few literary sources might suggest a situation of fluid ‘tribal’ groups, with the emergence of two major political entities based in West Sussex and Essex, Hertfordshire and Kent. The links between France and southern Europe have been used to explain the emergence of similar burial rites at this time. Cremation burial, also known as the AylesfordSwarling rite (Aylesford (Evans 1890: 317-88; Birchall 1965: 243-9) and Swarling (Bushe-Fox 1925; Birchall 1965) being type sites in Kent), was adopted by some of the population. Although burials were usually poorly furnished and in small cemeteries (e.g. Aylesford, Kent), a few were lavishly equipped and could be marked by small mounds or set within square ditched enclosures. A few of these have been suggested to belong to what the literary sources call ‘kings’ and their relations, e.g. Lexden, Essex; St Albans and Welwyn, Hertfordshire. These rich ‘Welwyn-type burials were furnished with imported French or Roman luxuries, but in all burials an emphasis seems to have been placed on drinking. Shrines or temples also appear, often acting as locations for a range of votive offerings. Meanwhile, similar ritual practices, which formerly took place exclusively on settlements, decreased in importance.

Iron Age Britain 450 BC to AD 100 The early pre-Roman Iron Age (EPRIA) and middle preRoman Iron Age (MPRIA) show considerable continuity in settlement and ritual, but possible changes may be apparent that roughly coincide with the Hallstatt-La Tène transition across Europe c. 500 to 450 BC. On the continent these changes are marked in mortuary traditions and metalwork styles. In Britain there is no change in burial practice, except for the start of ‘Arras Culture’ burials in East Yorkshire, which follow an indigenous variation on a La Tène mortuary theme (Hill 1995a). British metalwork shows the adoption of La Tène styles, and the exchange of some continental La Tène objects, from the fifth century BC onward. The change from Hallstatt to La Tène also corresponds roughly with the change from the EPRIA to MPRIA ceramics in southern Britain. EPRIA ceramics were the last manifestation of a long ceramic tradition, dating from c. 900 to 1000 BC. MPRIA (400 to 300 BC onwards) traditions have fewer clearly defined vessel forms and show greater sophistication and control in their firing (Hill 1995a). The centuries of the MPRIA appear to show little change on the surface. Contacts with other parts of Europe and within Britain appear to be few and emphasis was instead more inwardly and locally focused.

The final major changes in the southeast were the appearance of oppida. These are large, fortified urban areas. Many of these sites include within their environs rich burials and high status settlements, indicating that they were foci for the developing political entities witnessed in the coins and literary sources. Oppidum is a confusing, and potentially inappropriate, term given to a variety of large enclosed sites which date to the first centuries BC/AD (Cunliffe 1991; Darvill 1987; Haselgrove 1989; Millett 1990a). These sites are supposed to correspond to the oppida found in parts of contemporary temperate Europe, which are often seen as urban settlements (Collis 1984a, Wells 1990). Some of these sites became the locations of Roman cities and it has been assumed that oppida played an equivalent role in pre-conquest society (e.g. Colchester, Chichester, Canterbury and St Albans (Hill 1995a: 70).

In comparison, the developments from c. 100 BC appear to be a marked break from the MPRIA. The late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA) of southern Britain is chronologically marked by a range of new pottery forms, often copying north French or Roman originals, and a new technology, the fast potter’s wheel. This period of time was also witness to the expansion of the Roman Empire. Southern Britain, after failing to be conquered in 55 and 54 BC, was eventually incorporated into the Roman Empire in AD 43. This region witnessed a series of marked changes in settlement, ritual, material culture and political organisation. This resulted in the emergence of a moneyed, urbanised, state level of social organisation (Champion et al. 1984; Darvill 1987). For this part of Britain, the LPRIA is protohistoric, as Greek and Latin literary sources provide some evidence for political events, leaders and ‘tribal’ groupings, geography and culture.

From 300 BC onward the archaeological record becomes generally fuller and more visible. Not only are more sites known (a result of both expanding numbers and increasing archaeological visibility), but all classes of material culture become more numerous, and new classes of objects appear for the first time. Settlements expand into previously marginal areas and were accompanied by the laying out of extensive field systems in some areas and a concern with demarcating large tracts of land, as expressed in territorial oppida. Accompanying these changes was the appearance of new settlement forms across Britain. In north and west Scotland various forms of monumental round houses, most notably the broch, were constructed in increasing numbers from c. 200 BC. In southwest England, a new

18

The earliest of these changes was the use of coinage. Haselgrove (1987, 1993) has carried out much work on this subject and produced a map of coinage distribution zones. Coinage has been used to reconstruct the

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

form of small, enclosed household unit, the round, appears from c. 150 to 50 BC. In northeast England, new forms of square enclosed settlements, housing apparently smallersized households than earlier oval sites, were established on the heavy soils only then undergoing permanent clearance (Hill 1995a). In the southeast, agglomerated settlements became more common, accompanied by a process of compartmentalisation, whereby activities previously contained within one single large enclosure were distributed across a number of small, more specialist function enclosures.

The watershed between the East Coast rivers and the Wash rivers lies in an area of heavy soil, chiefly derived from boulder clay. This wide tract of boulder clay runs down the centre of Norfolk and Suffolk and is continuous except where it is dissected by river valleys. Another physiographical feature common to both Norfolk and Suffolk is the ridge of chalkland, between five and ten miles wide, forming a belt of relatively open country on the western side of the central clay area. This corridor connects southern England with East Anglia, and, passing through Cambridgeshire, runs through north-west Suffolk and west Norfolk to reach the coast at Hunstanton.

East Anglia

The region of East Anglia can be divided into three main zones – a central clay belt and two areas of lighter soils – and these can be further sub-divided on the basis of their varying soils and vegetation. The Fenland stretches from the edge of the upland in west Norfolk and north-west Suffolk into Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire. The whole area is low-lying, with silt chiefly in the north near the Wash and peat in the south, from which rise a few islands older and harder material. To the north-east lies the Greensand Belt. The northern part of this sub-region lies on the west Norfolk ridge and extends from Snettisham in the north to the neighbourhood of Downham Market. The upland area of the Good Sand region lies between the Greensand Belt and the north Norfolk coast and reaches as far east as Cromer. Its soils are variable; some are chalky, some sands and gravels with medium and light loams which formerly supported wide tracts of heath. Its coastal fringe, with salt marshes and sand dunes separating the upland from the coastline, is sometimes considered a separate area.

For the purposes of this study, East Anglia includes the following counties: Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk (Figure 5). I chose this region because parts of this area are often considered backwaters in the Iron Age. The body of research that has been carried out in the traditional study area of Wessex no doubt exacerbates this view. Cunliffe (1968, 1991), Haselgrove (1987, 1989, 1993, 1996) and Hill (1999, 2002a) have produced an important body of work focused on specific areas of the region of East Anglia and detailed analysis of the nature of the broader East Anglian archaeological record have been produced by the region’s county councils (Glazebrook 1997; Brown and Glazebrook 2000). In general, only small parts of East Anglia have been studied extensively, e.g. Hertfordshire, Essex and Norfolk (Saunders 1972, Branigan 1994; Davies 1996; Sealey 1996; Bryant 1997) but only in part due to their rich examples of settlement (Hunn 1992; Hawkes and Crummy 1995), burials (Stead 1967; Laver 1927), coinage (Haselgrove 1996) (Hertfordshire and Essex) or precious metal and coin hoards (Stead 1991; Fitzpatrick 1992; Hutcheson 2004) (Norfolk). East Anglia is varied and rich in its archaeological record and in studying the region through the activity of feasting, I have helped to increase the attention it receives and highlight the importance of studying the region as a whole, rather than focusing on isolated areas.

The extensive cover of boulder clay in the upland area of mid-Norfolk gives rise to strong loams. Wide deep valleys dissect the eastern side of the area. The loam region stretches from Norwich northwards to the CromerHolt ridge and to the coast from Cromer to Palling. The area is low-lying and scenically unexciting except on the beaches, overshadowed by clay cliffs up to 200ft high. On the whole its soils are light to medium, and there are considerable stretches of sand and gravels. Lying between the Loam Region, South Norfolk and the sea, Broadland includes both an alluvial area and upland. The alluvial area lies in the river valleys where a wide expanse of grazing marsh covers the silt of the former ‘Great Estuary’. The upland consists of the Norwich-Reedham-Acle peninsula and the island of Flegg with their extremely fertile soils, and the peninsula of Lothingland between Yarmouth and Lowestoft with its sands and gravels forming a less fertile soil which supports little woodland.

Geology and Geography

19

The physiography of East Anglia is particularly important to my research (Figure 6). As I highlight in Chapter Five, rivers played a prominent role in the location of some feasts and the landscape influenced activities that were carried within them, and was manipulated by those who held them (Ralph 2005b), e.g. enclosures, dykes and defence systems. The region known as East Anglia juts into the North Sea, commanding a substantial stretch of England’s eastern seaboard. Much of East Anglia lies below the 200ft contour. At only a few points in southwest Suffolk does the surface rise above the 400ft contour; in Norfolk it is rare to find any land over 300ft, while parts of the Fenland lie below mean sea-level.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Figure 5. Location of East Anglia

20

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

21

Figure 6. Physiography of East Anglia

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

It is not easy to draw a distinction between South Norfolk and Mid-Norfolk, but the soils of South Norfolk on the whole are heavier and its elevation is generally less than in the central part of the county. The sub-region of Breckland occupies a wide area of south-west Norfolk and north-west Suffolk and owes its distinctive character to a layer of sand overlying chalk and boulder clay. The Chalk Downland extends southwards across Cambridgeshire, and it provides a belt of relatively open country between Fenland and Breckland on the north and the wooded clay country on the south. The area of High Suffolk is largely boulder clay forming a continuation of that of South Norfolk but the soils are on the whole heavier, particularly towards the south-west where the surface rises to over 400ft. The Sandlings stretches along the Suffolk coast from the Stour estuary to Lowestoft. Its moderately fertile soils consist of glacial sands and gravels, and the sandy loams of the Crag.

quickly become inundated. Before the Fens were drained, the islands were in the nature of true islands, but today they form locally rising ground. Essex is bounded by the North Sea, the River Lea and its tributaries, and to the north-west and north, the watershed of the boulder clay ridge. Inland, there is a general rise towards the north-west from sea level to about 30m around Chelmsford, interrupted only by a series of hills and ridges. Thereafter the land surface rises gently to a little over 130m west of Saffron Walden, where it joins the north-eastward extension of the chalk escarpment that comprises the Chiltern Hills terminates near the border with Cambridgeshire. Apart from the coast, the county boundary is formed by rivers: the Stour to the north, the Lea and Stort to the west, and the Thames to the south. Principal rivers within the county are the Colne, Blackwater, Chelmer, Crouch, Mardyke and Roding. The Colne, Blackwater, Chelmer and their tributaries rise in the plateau area to the north of the county underlain by Boulder Clay, and flow southeastward to extensive estuaries. The Crouch flows due east across undulating lowland to the south of the Boulder Clay plateau, and is joined by the Roach to form an estuary complex with low-lying Wallasea, Potton, and Foulness Islands. The Mardyke and Roding flow south to the Thames.

Hertfordshire has a varied landscape comprising a mixture of chalk upland, clay plateau and river valleys (Bryant and Niblett 1997: 270). There are lowland areas in the centre of the county and to the southwest and southeast, whilst a small ‘upland’ area lies on the London Clay to the south. The main ‘uplands’, however, are to the northeast and northwest of Hertfordshire. The northeast ‘uplands’ are chalk, rising to a maximum height above sea level of 168m. O.D., whilst the chalky till and plateau drift terrain in the northwest rises to a maximum height of 244m. O.D. These latter two areas are separated by a narrow strip of lower ground in the region of Hitchin and together they form an eastwards extension of the Chilterns. All rivers drain into the Thames via the Lea and the Colne with three exceptions: the Ivel and the Hiz drain into the Ouse, and the Cam has its source at Ashwell (RCHME 1992: 7).

The coastline has a nearly complete fringe of marshland, but between the Colne and Stour estuaries, and at Southend, there are short stretches of cliff. The London Clay lowland is confined to the south of the county, following the coastline of the county. Rising above the general level of the London Clay lowlands are a number of low hills at about 100m. A Boulder Clay plateau dominates the centre of the county, and this is probably the most distinctive landscape of the county. It forms part of a very widespread feature developed over boulder clay extending northwards into Suffolk and westwards into Hertfordshire. The valleys of the Stort, Chelmer, Ter, Brain, Blackwater, Colne and Stour dissect the Boulder Clay plateau. Chalk crops out in the Cam and Stort valley in north-west Essex and locally on high ground where not covered by Boulder Clay.

The relief of Cambridgeshire is subdued and lies within the lowest part of England. Most of the land is below 60m in altitude, while the lowest parts of the Fens are at or only just above sea level, and in places the land falls slightly below sea level. The highest parts of the county are along the western margins, reaching 126m just north of Covington, and along the chalk ridge in the southeast where the land again rises to 126m south of Castle Camps. The basic distinction is therefore between the highest western and southern edges of the county – the upland – and the lower lying northeastern sector – the lowland.

Iron Age Landscape In the far west, the Fenland became wetter during the Iron Age. There was a maritime incursion into the central Fenland and the coastline lay south of its current position, running approximately from Wisbech to Downham Market. The southern Fens comprised freshwater wetland, which contained some dry land on islands and promontories. During the first century AD sea level dropped and the northern part of the Fens began to dry out. Substantial woodland clearance was underway by the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition. The spread

22

The rivers have had a very significant impact on the landform development of the area. The Nene, Ouse and Cam are major drainage routes across not only the county but the greater part of the region. They contribute distinctive landforms in their own right, and they also divide the county into different drainage basins. The fenland is an extensive and flat expanse of low lying land, broken by fen islands, and surrounded by the slightly higher land of the fen edge. Most of the fenland is at above sea level, and without continued drainage would

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

of heath vegetation resulted later in the Iron Age, mainly on the sandy soils of west Norfolk and especially in the Breckland. By the Late Iron Age (LIA), intensively farmed landscapes had been established in many parts of the area.

At the same time in the south of the county, another marine or ‘upper silt’ phase has been observed in the Washes at Welney. Between 425 to 140 cal BC and 10 to 605 cal AD, marine influence interrupted freshwater peat growth in the northern part of the region. At about the same time, several freshwater meres began to develop within the southern fens. The mere at Redmere, immediately to the east of Shippea Hill, had begun to form after 15 to 280 cal AD and Willingham Mere began to form by 40 cal BC to 220 cal AD.

During the Iron Age, the Fens would have been under water or waterlogged marshland. Throughout this waterlogged and marshy environment there was a series of islands, and rather than being inhospitable, this particular environment would have been an area rich in resources, providing not only fowl for food, but also reed for thatching, salt and good pasture land. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a dense distribution of Iron Age material along the Fen edge.

Settlement Evidence in Iron Age East Anglia

Much of the Broadland estuary has silted up since the Iron Age, and much has been recovered from the sea however, like the Fens, this area would have been a marshland and estuarine environment at end of the first millennium BC; a place rich in resources. During the Late Bronze Age (LBA) or late second/early first millennium BC a marine transgression occurred in the fen to the north and northwest of Thorney in the north of Cambridgeshire (Figure 7). This phase of marine flooding deposited a grey, silty clay. A further phase of marine influence affected the extreme northeastern part of Cambridgeshire beyond Thorney and Wisbech but mainly in south Lincolnshire during the LIA or during the late first millennium BC/early first millennium AD. It is possible that the development and upward growth of the upper peat meant that most of the remainder of the southern fens was not significantly affected by this marine incursion (French 2003a: 140).

Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Transition (c. 800-600/500 BC) Current evidence suggests that the distribution of settlement across the region at this time was sporadic, with locally distinct clusters of sites occurring on the lighter soils along the river valleys and the Fen-edge. There is also some evidence of limited colonisation of the edges of the extensive boulder clay areas of the region (Bryant 1997: 23). In Hertfordshire, a number of sites are known from the Chilterns including Blackhorse Road, Letchworth (Moss-Eccardt 1988) and Gadebridge (Bryant 1995) and the Bulbourne valley sites of Bottom House Lane, Crawleys Lane and Pea Lane (McDonald 1994). In Suffolk, sites dating to the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (LBA/EIA) transition also appear to be concentrated

on the lighter soils and long the principal river valleys. In particular, the Breckland soils have a relatively dense concentration of settlement evidence. In Essex there is also clear evidence for extensive arable and pastoral landscapes in the Chelmer and Blackwater terrace gravels. Few settlements are so far known from Norfolk, although the Breckland area to the east of Thetford, at the southern

23

Figure 7. Development of the Cambridgeshire fenlands showing the later Bronze Age salt marsh (a) and the postBronze Age upper peat development (b) (based on C. Begg after Waller 1994). For location see Figure 6

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Summary

edge of the county, appears to have favoured settlement of this period (Davies 1996), including the site at West Harling (Clark and Fell 1953). The distribution of sites in Cambridgeshire indicates that clusters of settlements existed where the major rivers entered the Fens. In addition to the Fen-edge clusters, evidence is beginning to accumulate for settlement along the Ouse Valley from sites such as Brampton in Cambridgeshire (Malim and Mitchell 1993).

The majority of settlements, which are known from the region, are unenclosed (Champion, T. 1994: 131). The relatively high visibility of enclosed sites from aerial survey in comparison with unenclosed sites tends to reinforce the impression that most were unenclosed. The predominance of open sites in the later Bronze Age and EIA is a notable feature of East Anglia which contrasts with some other regions, especially Wessex, where enclosed sites tend to be the norm. However, a small number of LBA enclosed sites are known from the region, e.g. Springfield Lyons (Buckley and Hedges 1987a), Mucking South Rings (Jones and Bond 1980). The settlement at West Harling, Norfolk is situated within an oval enclosure (Clark and Fell 1953) and Lofts Farm is within a rectangular enclosure (Brown 1988a). The LBA ringwork sites do not appear to continue into the EIA when enclosed sites seem to have been even rarer except for a few hillforts.

There is now a significant body of evidence from Hertfordshire and Essex for an expansion of settlement along the edges of the boulder clay plateau during the LBA/EIA transition. In addition there is some evidence for settlement on the Suffolk clay lands too. Sites producing flint-gritted wares – which could date from the later Bronze Age to the later Iron Age – are known from the edges of the boulder clay plateau in parts of Suffolk.

Early Iron Age (c. 600 – 400/300 BC)

This ‘invisible’ settled landscape makes it difficult to find evidence for feasting. It would appear that feasting was relatively low-level, but this is not to suggest that feasting did not play an important role in society during this earlier part of the period. Rather, much like the population and settlement of this period, it is not prominently marked in the archaeological record and therefore makes it difficult to understand comprehensively its influence and manipulation during the earlier Iron Age.

Evidence from the region indicates that the settlement pattern in the Early Iron Age (EIA) was probably similar to that of the preceding LBA/EIA transition, with a concentration on the lighter soils and along the river valleys, and with some exploitation of the boulder clay areas. In Essex there is an interesting local pattern with a marked concentration of EIA sites around the Blackwater Estuary which contrasts with an apparent absence of settlement in the adjacent Chelmer valley (Brown 1996). In Hertfordshire, a number of EIA sites are known from the Icknield Belt of the Chilterns (Matthews 1976; Bryant 1995) and a possible further expansion of settlement along the edge of the boulder clay is indicated at Stansted in Essex (Brown 1996). There is also evidence for an increase in settlement activity on the Fen-edge in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire during the Early Iron Age.

Later Iron Age 400/300 BC to AD 50 There is evidence of expansion and intensification of settlement in most parts of the region including the boulder clays of Norfolk during the later Iron Age (Davies 1996: 68), and settlement is known to varying degrees of intensity over most of the soils and environmental zones in the region (Bryant 1997: 28). The exceptions are the heavy clay areas (the clay-with-flints in Hertfordshire, the London Clay areas of Hertfordshire and Essex and the boulder clay area of Suffolk) and the lighter soils of Suffolk which do not have easy access to water. However, there is some evidence that settlement of the Suffolk clays does take place towards the end of the Iron Age (Bryant 1997: 28).

In Suffolk, the settlement pattern is also generally the same as it is for the LBA/EIA transition with some extensive Iron Age linear settlements which include EIA material recently revealed along the edges of the Gipping and Finn valleys, adjacent to the boulder clay. There is some evidence of exploitation of the lighter soils of the Brecklands and Sandlings in Suffolk during the EIA, although this is generally restricted to those areas within easy reach of water (Martin 1988).

In Norfolk there is some limited evidence of an expansion onto the boulder clay areas of the county and in Cambridgeshire recent fieldwork has revealed a substantial rural settlement on the clay at Foxton (Macaulay 1995), indicating a similar expansion there. In the Fens, there is general evidence for an expansion of settlement from sites such as at Haddenham Delphs (Evans and Hodder 2005; Evans and Serjeantson 1988), Cat’s Water (Fengate) (Pryor 1984), the defended Fen Island enclosure at Wardy Hill, Coveney (Evans 1992, 2003) and Tort Hill, Sawtry (Walsh 1995).

In Norfolk, as with the LBA/EIA transition, the quality of the evidence is generally poor, although there is more of it and there are signs that the settlement pattern had become more firmly established. In West Norfolk there is a significant difference between the clay areas, which have few sites, and areas off the clay, which have a much higher settlement density.

24

There is evidence for a move towards larger, nucleated

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

settlements in some parts of the region from the fourth to second centuries BC. In Essex, Little Waltham (Drury 1978), Mucking (Going 1993) and the later Iron Age phase at Lofts Farm (Brown 1988a) can probably be classed as hamlets and an extensive industrial site has also recently been discovered on the boulder clay at Wymondham in Norfolk (Davies 1996, Ashwin 1996). The settlements at Barley (Cra’ster 1961), Wendens Ambo (Hodder 1982c) and West Stow (West 1990) are also substantial and may fit in with this pattern of increasing size.

in Norfolk are geographically restricted to the west of the county and where excavation has taken place, have indicated a date range from the fifth to the first century BC and little in the way of internal occupation. There may also be a relationship between the Norfolk hillforts and the large LIA rectangular enclosures such as Warham Burrows and Thornham, with the latter possibly replacing hillforts (Davies 1996; Davies et al. 1991). In Cambridgeshire, research has identified a group of hillforts, including Wandlebury and Arbury Camp, which all have a similar, circular form and a general lack of internal occupation (French and Gdaniec 1996; French 2003b). The large multivallate circular defended Iron Age enclosure at ‘The Aubrey’ in Hertfordshire can also be added to the list of unoccupied sites (Bryant 1995). However, the circular fort at Borough Fen, Cambridgeshire (RCHME 1994) has produced evidence for relatively dense internal occupation. The function of the few Essex hillforts is also unclear. They have a dispersed and sparse distribution in the county and in terms of date, probably start in the EIA, with some continuing to be occupied into the later Iron Age. The general absence of occupation within this group of hillforts and the possible association of the Norfolk hillforts with LIA enclosures of ritual function, suggests that the hillforts too may have served a primarily ritual function. Certainly, the functional models for hillforts of defence and social storage do not appear to fit the evidence for these sites (Bryant 1997: 29).

During the first century BC, large settlement complexes or oppida appear in some parts of the region. They have produced evidence for a range of non-agricultural activities including iron and pottery production, exchange of luxury goods and ritual activity. It is however clear that a large proportion of the area within the larger settlement complexes consisted of dispersed occupation and it can therefore be assumed that agriculture was a significant – if not the dominant – activity carried out within them. A number of large Late Iron Age (LIA) settlement complexes are known in Hertfordshire and Essex including Verlamion (Bryant and Niblett 1997), Baldock (Burleigh 1995), Braughing (Partridge 1981), Cow Roast (Morris and Wainwright 1995), Welwyn (Bryant and Niblett 1997), Camulodunum (Crummy 1980) and possibly Heybridge (Atkinson 1995). The extent and nature of the LIA occupation at Kelvedon (Clark 1988; Rodwell 1988) may also indicate the presence of a large settlement complex there. The complexes extend over a significant proportion of these counties and appear to be a dominant settlement type during the LIA. The density of LIA settlement complexes is lower in the rest of the region, although several have recently been identified in Norfolk, at Thetford (Gregory 1991), Ashill (Gregory 1977; Davies 1996) and Caistor St Edmund (Davies 1996).

Linear Monuments In the Hertfordshire Chilterns short lengths of multiple ditches are situated at regular intervals along the Icknield Belt at right angles to the Icknield Way. Some may originally have been constructed during the Bronze Age but it is clear that most continued to be used and remodelled during the Iron Age (Dyer 1976; Bryant and Burleigh 1995). A large cluster of similar short lengths of multiple ditches to the east of Baldock appears to be associated with the LIA settlement complex there (Burleigh 1995). The well known linear earthworks at Verlamion (later Verulamium) and Camulodunum, some of which are massive, also appear to have been associated with the large settlement complex or ‘oppida’ (Hawkes and Crummy 1995). Davies has recently suggested a LIA date for several large linear earthworks in Norfolk (1996: 75-7). The construction of these monuments would have required a large amount of labour that would need to be paid for the work. In Chapter Five I discuss this further in relation to work-party feasts and how these large earthworks could have been constructed in return for a large feast.

Hillforts The hillforts of the region appear to fall into two reasonably distinct groups. The first group has a localised distribution along the ‘Icknield Belt’ of the Chiltern Hills and include Ivinghoe Beacon (Cotton and Frere 1968), Maiden Bower (Matthews 1976), Wilbury Hill (Applebaum 1949) and Ravensburgh Castle (Dyer 1976). They are spaced at regular intervals, and all have produced evidence of relatively dense internal occupation. Ivinghoe and Wilbury probably began in the LBA, but the main period of activity seems to be in the EIA, with some occupation continuing into the Middle Iron Age (MIA). The second group of hillforts which occur in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex, are few in number and widely scattered. They appear to begin later than the Chilterns hillforts and have generally produced little evidence of internal occupation (Davies 1996: 75). The hillforts

Summary

25

A higher proportion of settlements appear to have been

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

enclosed in the later Iron Age although unenclosed ‘open’ sites were still common in Norfolk and an open site is known at West Stow, Suffolk (West 1990). Square and rectangular enclosures seem to have been the most common type and occur in most parts of the region. They seem to have had a wide range of functions, from domestic at Gorhambury (Neal et al. 1990), Werrington (Mackreth 1988) and Kelvedon (Rodwell 1988), possibly defensive at Thornham, Warham Burrows and Wighton (Gregory and Gurney 1986) and ritual at Barnham (Martin 1979). The large enclosures at Burgh (Martin 1988) and Fison Way, Thetford (Gregory 1991) were also probably multifunctional although the importance of the ritual role of these sites is increasingly being recognised. Some circular and oval enclosures are known at Wardy Hill, Coveney (Evans 1992, 2003) and Codicote, Hertfordshire (Burleigh et al. 1990).

kinds of foods and beverages, serving equipment and etiquette of seating, serving and eating (Appadurai 1981; Dietler 1996). Pottery is a primary means of addressing feasting, as it is practical (preparation, storage, serving), socially symbolic (decoration, style) and ubiquitous in the archaeological record. Blitz (1993), through a study of consumption at Mississippian sites, demonstrated that while pottery types and styles may remain constant between domestic and communal activities, vessel sizes might diverge. Within the public context of mounds, vessel size was noticeably larger than in the strictly domestic contexts due to the need to prepare and serve large quantities of food (Blitz 1993: 90). Earlier Iron Age pottery assemblages are dominated by flint-gritted wares, the majority of which are coarse ware jars. The forms and fabrics tend to be long-lived and in some parts of the region persist well into the later Iron Age. Decoration of this group, where it occurs, is mostly restricted to cabling and finger-tipping around the shoulder and rim. The fine wares comprise thinner-walled forms which frequently have burnished surfaces, and in contrast to the coarse wares, vary across the region, both in terms of their form and their chronological development. However, in the transitional LBA/EIA period (c. 800 to 600/500 BC) the fine wares show a broad stylistic similarity, with each site displaying minor variations of vessel form. It is only from about 600/500 BC that the distinctive and characteristic EIA fine ware localised styles are clearly recognisable in some parts of the region. The most notable of these are the carinated and decorated bowls of the Chinnor/Wandlebury style which occur in the Chilterns and south Cambridgeshire from about 500 BC to 300 BC. The bowls frequently have foot-ring or pedestal bases and were clearly influenced by the contemporary vase carines pottery of the Marne area of France.

The domestic architecture of the later Iron Age is comprised primarily of roundhouses, typically represented by circular or penannular eaves-drip gullies. These are most common during the third and second centuries BC, and large numbers are known from sites in Essex such as Little Waltham (Drury 1978), Mucking (Going 1993) and Wendens Ambo (Hodder 1982c). An innovation in house design occurs towards the end of the LIA in Essex and Hertfordshire with the appearance of rectangular buildings on some sites. Examples include Skeleton Green (Partridge 1981) within the Braughing complex and Kelvedon (Rodwell 1988). The settlement and monumental evidence for this period is more visible in the archaeological evidence. A feature of this period is the construction of large, multiple ditched earthworks, e.g. enclosures, hillforts and defence and dyke systems. These constructions would require a significant labour force to complete and were possibly rewarded through a feast. Some of these new settlement types may also have had significant roles within society and their location may have been important for the holding of community feasting and consumption and events. Some new settlement types are also associated with new forms of material culture, which themselves are linked to the consumption of food and drink.

In Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and North Cambridgeshire, EIA fine wares are represented by the plainer angular bowls of the Darmsden style and the distinctive West Harling style carinated bowls. The latter are generally less common than the Darmsden bowls but are nonetheless present in a number of pottery assemblages from Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. The Darmsden bowls appear to have a longer currency than the Chinnor/Wandlebury bowls and recent evidence has suggested that they probably originated in the LBA (Bryant 1997: 23).

Material Culture

Although the accurate dating of most sites within the sub-period is problematical (within 150-200 years), it is possible to make a crude distinction between those sites with pottery assemblages which include distinctive fine wares (the period from c. 600/500 BC to 300 BC), and those sites which either do not have fine wares or which include which are not locally distinctive (the period from c. 800 to 600/500 BC). However, even this very general and crude division is problematic for the areas which not possess easily classifiable EIA fine wares such as parts of

Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Transition and Early Iron Age Pottery (800-400/300 BC)

26

Feasts, like other types of commensality, help to create and reinforce social connections and can mark points in an individual’s or community’s life history and do so within a context in which distinctions among people can be emphasised and elaborated through the use of particular

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

Norfolk and southern Hertfordshire (Bryant 1997: 23).

imported Roman forms but did not produce any local wheel-thrown wares (Hodder 1982c: 10-11).

Later Iron Age Pottery (400/300 BC-AD 50)

Summary

The transition from the EIA to the later Iron Age is marked by a general change across most of the region in pottery styles and manufacturing techniques. The widespread use of flint as a tempering material, which had been taking place for possibly one thousand years in some parts of the region, was gradually replaced by sand and shell. More rounded profiles were also adopted in place of the angular forms of the LBA and EIA pottery (Bryant 1995: 21-2; Davis 1996; Sealey 1996: 50). However, the chronology of this change cannot be demonstrated with any degree of precision and is likely to vary within the region between 400 and 300 BC. Also, in parts of Suffolk it seems likely that EIA pottery styles continued to be made well into the later Iron Age, and at Burgh in Suffolk an unabraded sherd of pottery of EIA type was even found alongside GalloBelgic and Roman pottery (Martin 1988: 39).

The most obvious change with the adoption of LIA pottery was the greater range of different shaped pottery tools available, each with different rim diameter to vessel height ratios (see Hill 2002a, Figs. 13.1, 13.2 and 13.4). Before, eastern English MIA ceramic traditions were characterised by a narrow range of simple open containers (Cunliffe 1991). In general people made and used a limited range of open cylinders – deep bowls or tubs – of varying sizes. Distinctively constricted or narrow necked jars were very rare. Pots were all hand made, in relatively small numbers, with little apparent exchange (Morris 1994). The ubiquitous open bowl/jars were used in aspects of food storage, preparation and serving. Functional differences did exist, notably between burnished vessels (more often used for serving than cooking) and plain vessels (more often used for cooking than serving), and between larger (storage/cooking) and smaller (serving/cooking) sized vessels (Hill and Braddock 2005). The impression is of multi-purpose pottery vessels; the same size, even the same bowl/jar, used for a range of functions.

In Norfolk and the northern parts of Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, there is a general conservatism in pottery manufacture and use during the later Iron Age, with handmade sand and shell tempered forms continuing in some areas into the first century AD and the Roman period (Bryant 1997: 26). This means that pottery is of limited use as a dating tool, and other datable artefacts are also rare on sites in this part of the region until the first century AD.

The situation regarding the adoption of wheel-thrown pottery in Cambridgeshire appears to be less straightforward. At Wardy Hill, Coveney, 80 per cent of a large assemblage dating to the first half of the first century AD comprised hand-made forms (Evans 2003). However, these were also mixed together with wheel-thrown forms indicating that they continued to be made at the same time as the wheel thrown forms were being used. A similar situation may also be occurring at Werrington (Mackreth 1988) and at Hinxton (Hill et al. 1999) in south Cambridgeshire, wheelthrown pottery was being used for burial urns during the first century BC whilst contemporary domestic settlements continued to use hand-made forms (Bryant 1997: 26). The adoption of wheel-thrown pottery was not a uniform process, as demonstrated by a ditch at Wendens Ambo in Essex, which contained hand-made pottery alongside

Two broad phases can be identified in the development of LIA pottery conventionally dating to before and after the Roman Emperor Augustus’ re-organisation of Gaul and actions in Germany c. 20/10 BC (Hill 2002a). In the first phase a large proportion of new ‘tall’ forms and constricted forms were added to the open bowls/jars, which were themselves now made in new shapes. These tall forms (vessels with maximum widths considerably smaller than their height) included a range of basic tall ‘beakers’, necked or cordoned jars and also pedestalled urns. This addition possibly took place before the next trend where assemblages were also distinguished by an increasing division into visually distinct types of vessel with specific forms and surface finished, each with specific functions. These include burnished carinated open bowls/jars such as tazze of different sizes, which along with necked or

27

In Hertfordshire, Essex and south Suffolk, wheel-thrown pottery appears to have been adopted during the first century BC. Datable imports also occur occasionally with burials and on occupation sites from the early first century BC. Towards the end of the century the importing – and copying – of significant quantities of pottery from Gaul together with the widespread appearance of datable brooches, also allows a relatively fine degree of chronological resolution for most later Iron Age sites within the area (Bryant 1997: 26).

This is in sharp contrast to the LIA, when potters produced a larger range of types, each with a tighter range of vessel sizes. Specific forms of LIA vessels had specific functions which can be identified on the basis of form, physical evidence and classical literary and artistic evidence (e.g. beakers, cups, flagons, platters, cooking jars and storage jars). A greater range of ceramic tool types was now used which points to important changes in how a meal would be served and looked ‘at table’, in the manner and types of foods eaten, and in the basic categorisation of this (and other) spheres of material culture. This pattern was not restricted to ceramics; there is evidence also for a wider range of metal and wooden vessels in this period (Earwood 1993; Evans 1989).

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

1982, Hill et al. 1999). This is possibly a factor of site discovery, but a relatively large number of excavations and evaluations in southern Cambridgeshire have produced MIA handmade assemblages and early-middle first century AD wheel made assemblages, but clearly later first century BC wheel made pottery is rare. On those few sites where it has been found it is in very small quantities as a minor component in hand-made MIA assemblages, e.g. Green House Farm and Wardy Hill, Coveney (Hill 2002a: 157). It appears on current evidence that early wheel-turned and grog tempered pottery may have been mainly used in funerary contexts in south Cambridgeshire. While in life either only small quantities of grog tempered, wheel-made pedestalled urns, tazze and other forms were present on settlements, or only a minority of hitherto undiscovered settlements used such pottery. Widespread adoption of the full repertoire of southern forms, often produced in local sandy fabrics, and Gallo-Belgic imports probably took place post 10 to 1 BC in this area.

cordoned bowls are special serving forms. At the same time the visually distinct ‘cooking pot’ with repeated vessel proportions and a combed surface become increasingly common, along with very large storage jars, with similar surface treatments. Certainly by the mid-first century BC ceramic assemblages were marked by a range of distinct tools, a visual and tactile distinction between kitchen wares and serving wares, and an emphasis on tall forms. In south-east England these tall forms included a range of essentially tall cylinders (Thompson 1982). These early tall jars occur in a wide range of different local forms and are often definitely or probably hand made, e.g. the handmade tall, neckless or slack shouldered open jars from Gatesbury Track, Braughing (Partridge 1978) and Baldock (Stead and Rigby 1986). Single examples also occur in MIA assemblages at Wendens Ambo (Hodder 1982c) and Little Waltham (Drury 1978). These tall cylindrical jars are largely replaced later by wheel made, undecorated, cordoned necked and other tall jars in the later first century BC (Thompson 1982) and later by beakers. Pedestalled urns, the most distinctive first century BC wheel made vessels. Pedestal urns are clearly wheel made and copy northeast Gallic types. Constricted forms, narrow necked jars and flasks were another prominent addition – forms again probably used for holding and serving alcohol. These forms comprised only 1.4 per cent of assemblages dating before c. 125 to 100 BC, but comprise 10 per cent of those dated c. 100 to 10 BC and 12.2 per cent of those dated 10 BC to AD 43 (Hill 2002a: 148).

On other sites a different pattern is evident. Around Peterborough, the Fens, Norfolk and northern Suffolk communities appear to have adapted southern wheel turned ceramic traditions to fit within existing patterns of pottery use. The limited range of MIA handmade open forms continued to be made in these areas until after the Roman conquest. Varying quantities of wheel-made LIA tradition pottery are found on many sites in the middle first century AD (c. 25 to 75). Some were originally made further south, others were local products. What is noticeable about these wheel turned vessels is the very limited range of forms acquired or locally produced. The bulk are carinated bowls and cups or necked bowls; all basic open bowl forms which clearly fit within the limited range of open forms traditionally used by these communities. Other parts of the developed southern repertoire are markedly absent or rare. There are almost no tall neckless jars, beakers, flagons, cups or platters, be they Gallic or British products, nor amphorae. This is also true on many clearly post-Roman Conquest non-military sites. The large ritual enclosure at Fison Way, Thetford (Gregory 1991), is an exception with slightly higher proportions of tall, shallow and constricted forms (including Gallo-Belgic and Samian imports) and a large number of specific vessel forms in it later phase. Contemporary sites such as West Stow (West 1990), Fengate (Pryor 1984), Haddenham (Evans and Hodder 2005) and Coveney (Evans 2003) lack almost any tall, shallow or constricted forms.

This range of distinctive pottery forms widens further in later assemblages (c. 10 BC onwards), with the addition of platters, cups, beakers, flagons and flasks. Almost all of these additions were either imports from Roman Gaul or copies of Romanised Gallic prototypes (Rigby and Freestone 1997). Almost all were new tableware forms. Flagons for serving alcohol were added to the existing range of constricted pouring vessels, while the platter and other shallow dishes mark a new way to serve food from this time. Kitchen wares continue little changed, the surfaces of cooking pots now usually being rilled rather than combed. This full repertoire continues with changes after the Roman conquest in AD 43. New additions post-AD 43 follow the trends of adding new food preparation and serving ‘tools’ such as purposely made sieves, wide open bowls/dishes and mortaria (Going 1987; Tyers 1996). There was no simultaneous change to LIA styles of pottery across East Anglia c. 125 to 75 BC (see Hill 2002a:156, Fig. 13.6). Rather, some northern parts of the region still used MIA tradition pottery after the Roman conquest. PreAugustan Welwyn phase LIA tradition pottery had a very limited currency north of Hertfordshire and Essex. In south Cambridgeshire this pottery does appear in cremation burials identical to those further south, although at present no settlement assemblages similar to Brickhill, Grubs Barn, Baldock or Braughing are known (Fox 1923, Thompson

28

A striking feature of early first century AD ceramics in northern East Anglia is the relative lack of differentiation and categorisation. There are few shapes and little decoration. Unlike southern East Anglia there is little evidence for social differentiation or hierarchy represented in the pottery or wider aspects of the foodways these ceramic tools were a part of (Hill 2002a: 158). It is not because these groups were peripheral that Gallo-Belgic pottery or amphorae are extremely rare in these areas.

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

Burial and Ritual

Rather, there was little demand for these forms – be they made locally, in southern East Anglia or further afield (Hill 2002a: 158). These patterns of pottery use in northern East Anglia should not be seen as a product of backwardness nor isolation. These were dynamic societies with contacts between each other and with those to the south. Rather, the maintenance of these ways of life was probably a conscious choice (Hill 2002a: 158).

Feasting can occur in a number of contexts and some of the most visible are those associated with funerals and ritual. Therefore, it is important to consider the development and evidence for burial and ritual in East Anglia in order to comprehend fully the use of feasting within these contexts.

Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age

Coinage and metalwork

The deposition of inhumations within settlements, either as complete bodies or as fragmentary remains, occurs in the region from the LBA and continues throughout the earlier Iron Age, although the number of burials does not appear to be as high as in Wessex or the Upper Thames Valley (Whimster 1981). Cremations also occur occasionally in the region during the later Bronze Age/EIA, usually as unaccompanied urned or un-urned burials (Brown 1988b; Needham 1995).

The archaeological record of East Anglia demonstrates that consumption need not be restricted to food and drink. The consumption of the ‘other’ can be witnessed in the coin and metal hoards of the region and I will discuss this in more detail in Chapter Five. East Anglia is noted for its later Iron Age coinage, which provides one of the most important sources of evidence for the period. It has produced some of the earliest imported and locally produced British coinage, including a large proportion of the early cast bronze alloy ‘potin’ coins, and is probably the most important region for the study of inscribed coinage (Haselgrove 1996).

Later Iron Age The burial rite of cremation was introduced into the region probably during the later second/early first century BC. The earliest cremations in the region on current evidence appear to occur in Hertfordshire and south Cambridgeshire from sites such as Baldock (Burleigh 1982; Stead and Rigby 1986) and Hinxton (Hill et al. 1999). However, the rite does not appear to have spread to Essex until after 50 BC and to the rest of the region until probably the late first century BC or the early first century AD.

Additionally, a number of finds of Iron Age metalwork are known from the region, mostly dating from the first century BC. Ornamental horse harness fittings and the decorative chariot fittings known as ‘terrets’ are widely distributed within Norfolk and north Suffolk. Likewise, the large numbers of gold and silver torcs from Norfolk and Suffolk also display a similar distribution. There are a number of metal vessels from the Fen-edge and the marshes on the Norfolk/Suffolk border. A small number of LIA swords including several from the south-east Fenedge near Peterborough, a La Tène II sword from Stoke Ferry, west Norfolk, La Tène III sword from Springfield Lyons and a La Tène III weapon hoard including swords from Essendon in Hertfordshire. A LIA sword fragment was also found together with an important hoard of twentythree LIA blacksmithing tools in a former course of the River Lea at Waltham Abbey in 1967 (Sealey 1996: 58). The fact that most of these metalwork finds are from wet or watery contexts and do not appear to be associated with settlements indicates that they were probably deposited as ritual or ceremonial offerings.

The wealthiest burials, including those previously known as the ‘Welwyn type’ and also including those recently excavated at Folly Lane (St Albans) (Niblett 1999) and Stanway (Colchester) (Crummy 1993), together form one of the most important groups in Western Europe. The region also includes a large proportion of the national sample of LIA burials including the cemeteries at King Harry Lane (Stead and Rigby 1989) and Verulam Hill Fields in St Albans (Anthony 1968; Niblett and Reeves 1990). There is also a large and diverse sample of LIA burials at Baldock (Stead and Rigby 1986). There is growing evidence for the presence of significant numbers of LIA inhumation burials in the region. Inhumations appear to occur in low frequencies alongside cremations in large cemeteries, particularly King Harry Lane and Baldock. Several small inhumation cemeteries have also been discovered in recent years on the river Thames in Essex, at Mucking and Ardale School (Going 1993; Wilkinson 1988).

Recent studies by Hutcheson (2003, 2004) into the deposition and context of metal hoards in Norfolk have provided an important up-to-date record of metalwork finds within the county. As well as highlighting the social context of these finds with regards to specific locations, geography and geology, it perhaps also emphasises the active role of metal detectors within the region and the importance of recording these finds within their context.

29

The appearance in the archaeological record of sites and areas within which activities of a ritual and ceremonial nature were carried out is a feature of the later Iron Age,

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

and East Anglia contains some of the most important examples known from Britain. The large enclosed area at Snettisham in Norfolk where a number of gold torcs and other metalwork were deposited seems likely to have been a ritual site (Stead 1991; Fitzpatrick 1992) and other ritual sites in which large quantities of metalwork and coins were deposited are known as Essendon in Hertfordshire (Esmonde Cleary 1995) and Harlow in Essex (Bartlett 1987). A LIA palisaded enclosure is known to pre-date the Roman temple at Ivy Chimneys, Witham, Essex (Turner 1999) and evidence for ritual activity is increasingly being recognised within settlement sites in the form of deposits of artefacts and the construction of shrines and other structures, frequently associated with burials. Such sites are known at Stansted (Havis and Brooks 2004), Verlamion (St Albans) (Bryant and Niblett 1997), Baldock (Burleigh 1995), Colchester (Crummy 1980), Thetford (Gregory 1991), Barnham (Martin 1979) and possibly Burgh (Martin 1988). A probable shrine is also known at Little Waltham, Essex, dating to the third century BC (Drury 1978).

dispersed, segmented and hierarchically arranged social body. The interpretation of cultural identity or ethnicity in the later pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain has traditionally been subsumed within a culture-historical framework (Jones 1997: 29). Hawkes (1931, 1959) developed the first standard cultural classification for the entire Iron Age, defining three major archaeological cultures, Iron Age A, B and C, and the scheme was subsequently popularised by Childe (1940). The ABC classification was based upon a migrationist framework in which continental Iron Age societies were regarded as the major source of innovation and change which spread to peripheral areas such as Britain as a result of the movement of peoples. Iron Age A was defined on the basis of Hallstatt-style material culture, Iron Age B on the basis of La Tène-style material culture, and Iron Age C on the basis of a distinctive cremation burial rite, wheel-turned pottery, and late La Tène metalwork in restricted areas of Britain (Jones 1997: 30). Within these major culture categories distinctive distributions of material culture, such as regional pottery styles, have been interpreted in terms of immigrant peoples, such as the Marnians and the Belgae. Within this framework Iron Age research was largely preoccupied with typology and chronology and the desire to trace prototypes and parallels between Britain and the European continent.

Identity in Iron Age East Anglia Identity and feasting are topics that have been subject to a long history of research by sociocultural anthropologists (e.g. Barth 1969, 1983; Friedman 1994; Rosman 1971; Wiessner and Schiefenhövel 1996), and have now caught the attention of the archaeologist (Dietler and Hayden 2001a; Jones 1997; Junker 1999; Meskell 2001, 2002; Shennan 1989). The interest in the issue of food and identity has been highlighted in a number of recent studies carried out both in New World archaeology (e.g. Mills 2004a) and prehistoric Europe (Parker Pearson 2003). Identity and material culture is a key issue for the later Iron Age, particularly in Britain. It often goes hand-inhand with discussion on the concept of Romanisation.

The identification of cultures and peoples in the archaeological record has been reinforced in the LIA by the existence of historical references to the inhabitants of pre-Roman Britain, which have dominated archaeological interpretation. Historically attested peoples have been conceptualised as tribes and chiefdoms, as well as ethnic groups, and it appears that ethnic groups are often implicitly regarded as corresponding with the former two categories, which have also been attributed political dimensions. Stylistic variations in LPRIA pottery, and the distribution of coin types, have been used in the identification of these tribes or ethnic groups. In East Anglia three groupings have been suggested: the Catuvellauni (Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire), Iceni (Norfolk and part of Suffolk) and Trinovantes (Suffolk and Essex). These abstract cultural and historical categories have persisted alongside, and as a backdrop to, the analysis of Iron Age socio-economic and political organisation, influencing the interpretation of the archaeological record of this period.

Recent interest in the topics of social identity and feasting represents a transformation of thinking about the past by archaeologists (Mills 2004b: 2). Identity research can be broadly considered a continuation of interest in social organisation, and feasting a continuation of research on political organisation, but current research and investigations are concerned merely with social or political organisation (Mills 2004b: 2). Past research more often focused on describing the ways that different social and political systems were structured, rather than explaining the origins of these different systems (Mills 2004b: 2). In contrast, recent archaeological research has focused on understanding the social and political dynamics that produced differences within and between societies, with an emphasis on how those differences came about (Mills 2004b: 2).

In contrast to the investigation of spatial boundaries marking the supposed territories of discrete groups in the LPRIA, the analysis of culture and identity following the Roman conquest is reconfigured in terms of a temporal boundary between the broad cultural categories of ‘native’ and ‘Roman’ (Jones 1997: 33). Close contact between Roman and native societies following the Roman conquest in Britain is assumed to have initiated a brief period of culture change, ultimately resulting in the synthesis of Romano-British culture and society – a process which has been called Romanisation. This is assumed to involve the progressive adoption of Roman culture by indigenous

The practices of food consumption are both the medium and outcome for the expression of different kinds of communal identity. Feasts provide common social experiential references in time and space for an increasingly 30

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

populations, including Roman speech and manners, political franchise, town life, market economy, material culture and architecture. Although it has been suggested that Romanisation was a two-way process, resulting in the synthesis of both Roman and native culture (Haverfield 1923; Millett 1990a), it is still assumed primarily to involve the adoption of Roman culture by indigenous populations and the eventual adoption of a Roman identity.

the location for Caesar’s victory over Cassivellaunus, the probable leader of the Catuvellauni or their predecessors, in 55 BC. However, Caesar never mentioned the Catuvellauni nor named Cassivellaunus’ people. Caesar only states that the Thames separates his territory from the maritime tribes, probably Kent, and lies about 75 miles from the sea (V.9.II). Caesar mentions that several battles were fought, which culminated in Caesar’s successful attack on his opposition’s base. Holmes (1907) argued that Wheathampstead was the site of this battle, prompting Wheeler to investigate the site in the 1930s. However, there is no archaeological evidence to support this idea. The later leader, Tasciovanus, started to inscribe coins with his name and that of his capital, Verulamium.

The recognition and articulation of ethnicity varies in different social domains, and with relation to different forms and scales of social interaction. The production and consumption of particular styles of material culture involved in the expression of the ‘same’ ethnic identity vary qualitatively as well as quantitatively in different social contexts. Jones (1997: 129) suggests that in many instances, ethnicity, amongst other factors, may disrupt regular spatio-temporal stylistic patterning, resulting in an untidy and overlapping web of stylistic boundaries (in different classes of material culture and in different contexts) which may be discontinuous in space and time.

Trinovantes (Essex and southern Suffolk) Caesar tells us that his principal opponents during his campaign of 54 BC, when he was able to press inland, were the Catuvellauni, and his principal allies the Trinovantes, neighbours and traditional enemies of the Catuvellauni and until recently the paramount tribe in this part of Britain. Shortly before Caesar’s arrival, however, they lost this position when the Catuvellauni had defeated and killed the Trinovantian king, whose young son, Mandubracius, had been forced to flee to Caesar for protection.

Therefore, adopting an analytical framework based on bounded socio-cultural units obscures the various heterogeneous processes involved in the negotiation of power and identity (cf. Barrett 1989a: 235-6). Thus, a contextual approach is required which does not use the social and cultural group as a primary unit of analysis (Jones 1997: 130).

The first king to put his name on the coins was Addedomaros (thought to be buried in the Lexden tumulus), but he never included the name of the mint on his coins (Allen 1944, 1958, 1970). However, their distribution is thought to centre around the Colne valley, suggesting that his base was at Camulodunum. The first person to put the mint name on his coins was a Catuvellaunian called Tasciovanus who struck almost all his coins at Verulamium. However, he also issued a few coins mintmarked as Camulodunum early in his reign. These coins are taken to suggest that he drove the Trinovantes out of Camulodunum. After this, the story becomes slightly blurred. One interpretation is that Addedomaros’ later coins overlapped those of Tasciovanus and therefore he must have regained control (Crummy 1997a). Another view is that he predated Tasciovanus altogether (Crummy 1997a). Either way they were succeeded by a king called Dubnovellaunus. Finally, around AD 5, Cunobelin produced the first of his coins, which, from the beginning, he mint-marked as Camulodunum. Importantly, on a few of his coin-types, he stated that he was ‘TASC FIL’ meaning ‘son of Tasciovanus’. His burial site is thought to be at Gosbecks.

Tribal groups in East Anglia Although the concept of tribal units and their importance is frowned upon in archaeological analyses, it is useful to know of the groupings thought to have existed in East Anglia during the later part of the Iron Age, even if their appropriateness to research is to be disregarded. Classical sources do refer to peoples of this region by name and these units have influenced previous archaeological work of the area and in some cases, still remain to do so (e.g. Crummy 1997a). Therefore, it is important to know of these tribes and events, if only to avoid making generalisations and mistakes as highlighted by Jones (1997).

Catuvellauni (Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire) This area of southern Britain during the LIA was thought by Caesar to have been settled by Belgae from Gaul. However, it is not clear whether or not he was referring to Hertfordshire. Graves, which shared similarities with Gaulish burial rites, were discovered during the late nineteenth century, e.g. Welwyn, and these were seen as evidence for Caesar’s Belgic settlers (James and Rigby 1997: 12).

Iceni (Norfolk and north Suffolk) We are told by Tacitus that the Iceni were the northern neighbours of the Trinovantes (Tacitus, Annals). In addition, the Romans adopted tribal names for the

31

Ever since the 1900s, Hertfordshire has been proposed as

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

administrative subdivisions or civitates created following the full absorption of Britain within the Empire, and for the main towns which administered these: and the civitas capital of the region, at Caistor St Edmund to the south of Norwich, was called Venta Icenorum or ‘market place of the Iceni’ (Davies 1999: 16). The precise boundaries of Icenian territory, however, are less easy to establish. Studies have suggested that the territory of the Iceni covered modern Norfolk, the northern half of Suffolk and north-eastern Cambridgeshire (Allen 1970).

Camulodunum where people had been driven from their homes by the establishment of a settlement for exRoman soldiers (Tacitus, Annals XIV.30). According to the account in Tacitus’ Annals, following the sacking of Camulodunum, Catus Decianus the procurator, was summoned for help. He supplied only 200 incompletely armed men, who were massacred. Both Londinium and Verulamium were then sacked by the native rebels and Decianus fled to Gaul horrified by the catastrophe and by his unpopularity (Tacitus, Annals XIV.32). The rebels were eventually routed in the midlands and according to Tacitus almost 80,000 Britons were killed (Tacitus, Annals XIV.38). Boudica then poisoned herself.

The ‘tribe’ of the Iceni probably make their first appearance in Caesar’s records of his expeditions to Britain in 55 and 54 BC. The particular reference comes after he documents that he made Mandubracious King of the Trinovantes, the tribe to the south of the Iceni, following his father’s assassination by Cassivellaunus. When Mandubracious rose to power under Caesar’s auspices, five further tribes surrendered to him. One of these tribes was called the Cenimagni, which has been interpreted as a reference to the Iceni. He names the Cenimagni as one of five tribes who sent deputations to him (Caesar, Gallic War V.21). It is not until the Claudian annexation of Britain is in motion nearly 100 years later that the Iceni, if they were indeed the tribe to which Caesar was referring, re-emerge in the historical texts. The first reference to the tribe is in relation to events of AD 47. In this year the governor, Ostorius Scapula, attempted to disarm the whole territory of Britannia from ‘as far as the Trent and Severn’ (Tacitus Annals 12.30). Tacitus also mentions them in relation to the Fosse Way defence during the same year (AD 47) (Tacitus, Annals XII.31). He relates that they paid tribute to Rome, as well as a quota of auxiliary troops. Tacitus documents that the Iceni revolted against this enforced disarmament, but were defeated by the Roman army. Importantly, we also learn that the Iceni were at this time, a ‘client’ or friendly kingdom of Rome. This meant that the tribe was able to keep its own political rulers in power. Despite their friendly kingdom status, we do not hear again of the tribe until approximately thirteen years later in relation to events in AD 60/61.

There is however, more than one version of the Boudican rebellion. The events of the years AD 60-1 were recorded by Tacitus (Annals XIV and Agricola V), Dio Cassius (Roman History VIII.62), Suetonius (Nero 39) and Justinian (Digest I.19). Tacitus mentions the uprising of AD 60/61 in his earlier work Agricola, although in this version of events, he does not mention the Iceni, instead he refers to the whole island rising-up in support of Boudica (Tacitus, Agricola XVI). In the Agricola he comments that the impetus for the uprising was in anger over taxes and slavery, the death of Prasutagus and the seizing of Icenian territory are not mentioned (Tacitus, Agricola XV). Prasutagus and the Iceni are also missing in Dio Cassius’ version of the uprising, instead he refers to the calling-in of money loans to ‘foremost Britons’ that were given by Claudius and lent by Seneca (Dio Cassius, Roman History VII.42.2.1). Iron Age studies have traditionally been focused on settlement, burial and trade. All of these features can be related to the activity of feasting, but through the study of feasting one can learn about the structure of these components within society. The first millennium BC was a period of profound social change throughout Britain, and it should not be assumed that tribal boundaries were at all static. It is more probable that local and regional societies would have been fluid in their size, composition, territory and allegiances. Feasting provides a means to give identities to these fluid political entities of this period. Commensal activities are one of the primary arenas of social action. Social identity and status are handily constructed and communicated via food-related practices and preferences. It is also important to think about the way in which social and political identities and aspirations, in turn, generate distinctive strategies of commensality and consumption (Bray 2003: 9). The act of feasting provides a dynamic through which to identify political, social and economic action, a notion traditionally studied through settlement, material culture, burial, trade and coins. Chapter Five discusses the distribution of feasting in relation to the physiographical, settlement, burial and coinage evidence. Through understanding the background to this period in general and particular features and characteristics of the Iron Age in East Anglia, one can understand the contexts

32

In AD 60/61, according to Tacitus in his Annals of Imperial Rome, Prasutagus, King of the Iceni, after a life of long and renowned prosperity died (Tacitus, Annals XIV.30). In Tacitus’ recording of events, Prasutagus had made his two daughters co-heir with the Emperor Nero on the event of his death. This practice was not uncommon when a ruler within the empire did not have a son upon whom to bestow his kingdom. Despite Prasutagus’ will, created in part to preserve his kingdom and household from attack (Tacitus, Annals XIV.30), the tribal lands of the Iceni were looted, his wife flogged, daughters raped and kinsman treated like slaves on the event of his death. As a result, under the leadership of Prasutagus’ widow Boudica, the Iceni and a number of other neighbouring tribes, including the Trinovantes to the south, were incited to rebel against the Romans. Having raised an army, Boudica first sacked

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

in which feasting is placed and how it was used and manipulated within a multitude of arenas.

to note that not all regions of Britain experienced the same social, cultural, economic or political changes as witnessed in southeast England.

Approaches to the Iron Age and Early Roman period in Western and Central Europe and Britain

Western and Central Europe Two of the best known examples of ‘feasting’ from Europe are the Vix burial (France) and the Hochdorf burial (Germany). Both of these sites are thought to be contemporaneous with the closest hillforts (dates of c. 600 BC to c. 450 BC); Mont Lassois for the Vix burial and Hohenasperg is in close proximity to the Hochdorf grave. Both are notable for their grave goods that include some of the earliest Greek and Etruscan imports into northern Europe. The Hochdorf burial was exceptionally rich and has attracted much archaeological attention since its excavation in 1978 (e.g. Biel 1982, 1997; Biel et al. 1985; Olivier 1999). The deceased was placed on a bronze couch padded with cushions, dressed in fur and textiles, and wearing a cone-shaped birch-bark hat and peaked shoes. Opposite the couch was a four-wheeled wagon, on which were placed flat bowls and plates laid for a dinner with nine participants. A large bronze cauldron, thought to have held 500 litres of liquid, was placed at the foot of the couch. To enjoy the contents of the cauldron, there were eight bronze-studded horns, and also one even larger drinking-horn made of iron. This iron horn could hold 5.5 litres: merely lifting it to the mouth would have been something of a feat, let alone emptying it. Residues from the cauldron suggest that it would have contained mead as opposed to wine. The deliberate posture and position of the dead ‘prince’ portrayed him as a host, ready to welcome his guests to a party where copious amounts of mead were to be consumed. His descendants must have deliberately wished to show him in this role, in which his status found its clearest expression: as the great giver and host.

It is important to understand the extent to which feasting and its study have entered into the above mentioned socio-economic and political patterns and landscape of Iron Age Britain and to a larger degree the archaeological investigation of Iron Age Europe. As Chapter Two highlighted, feasting and consumption studies are influenced by theoretical approaches and the datasets that are analysed. In terms of Iron Age studies, there are three broad geographical zones which have been the focus for consumption studies: the Mediterranean, Western and Central Europe and Britain. Each of these regions attracts a particular form of research. The Classicists are drawn to the Mediterranean and anthropologists (particularly from an American research background) are attracted to the archaeology of central and southern Europe. New Archaeology and Post-Processualism has produced a range of research concerned with the economic and social aspects of feasting as well as other studies of consumption. However, in Britain feasting has not received such as systematic approach, but rather it is the general study of consumption which has been the focus of the majority of studies. Are these varying theoretical approaches and their associated research areas more a product of each region’s evidence or are they linked to the scholars’ viewpoints? The Mediterranean is rich in written sources and specialised artefacts associated with eating and drinking, as is central and southern Europe. Britain on the other hand, has no written sources to speak of, and its material culture is characterised primarily by quantity rather than being specifically specialised (see pages 23 to 30).

The Vix burial has also received considerable attention due to its 1.64m high Greek bronze krater, but it has been the subject of a much-debated sex assessment of the deceased (Arnold 1991, 1995; Collis 1984b: 95; Cunliffe 1994: 347; Ehrenberg 1989: 168-9; Kristiansen 1998; Megaw 1966: 41; Sauter 1980: 89). The individual has been known as a ‘princess’ (Brun 1987; Joffroy 1979), a ‘transvestite priest’ (Arnold 1991), but more recently a female shaman (Knüsel 2003). Of course these two graves are not the only examples associated with ‘feasting’ equipment. Further examples from Germany include the Glauberg burials (Bartel et al. 1998; Rösch 1999) and the Hohmichele grave, close to the Heuneberg hillfort.

This section provides examples of feasting from Europe and Britain. By comparing and contrasting feasting evidence from Britain and Europe, one can begin to understand the potential regionality associated with this form of commensality. It is clear from research (see Chapters Five and Six) that even within East Anglia an element of regionality is apparent and therefore it cannot be assumed that consumption, commensality and conviviality take the same forms wherever they occur. Feasting can be manipulated for a variety of reasons and purposes and therefore this activity will manifest itself in markedly different ways. The material culture will differ from region to region, settlement to settlement and food and drink will be manipulated accordingly. This section draws on a number of individual sites to highlight the variety of evidence and how feasting is an invaluable analytical tool in gleaning information about the creation and maintenance of the structure of society. It is important

33

As previously noted in Chapter Two, Dietler has argued that an understanding of the relationship between food, power and status is essential to understanding the process of colonial interaction that had a major influence on the development of the indigenous societies of Iron Age Western Europe (Dietler 1996). Dietler (1996) believes

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

that this colonial encounter was largely articulated through the institution of feasting. Dietler looked at two areas in Europe: southern France and the Hallstatt zone. Both of these areas are notable for the influx in foreign imports associated primarily with drinking, but there are some significant differences between the two areas with regards to the nature of these objects and the contexts in which they were found. The objects in the Hallstatt area are far less numerous than in the south, but they are often far more spectacular. Wine amphorae are relatively few compared to the south where there are sites with more amphorae than the entire Hallstatt region combined. Fine Attic drinking ceramics are relatively better represented on some sites in the Hallstatt area, whereas in the south they consist almost entirely of drinking cups. Finally, there are a number of spectacular bronze wine-mixing vessels of a type that have never been found in southern France, e.g. the krater from the burial at Vix, and the 500 litre bronze vessel from the Hochdorf burial.

precluded the incorporation of exotic Mediterranean food ingredients, such as wine, in the élite cuisine on a regular basis, but the vessels in which food and drink were served offered a more durable and visible means of differentiating élite consumption at feasts. In the lower Rhône basin the situation is different. Social competition was centred on the institution of feasting. The competitive manipulation of commensal hospitality provided an opportunity to acquire informal political power and economic advantage. The sudden availability of an alien source of drink (Mediterranean wine) could initially have been viewed by certain individuals or groups as a way to augment their existing prestige and power. These ‘aggrandisers’ would most likely be the first to orchestrate contact with external agents. However, in the absence of an effective monopoly on access to the sources of wine, it could soon have become a threat to the base of the social power of these informal leaders. This broadening of the recruitment base for leadership contestants would most likely have resulted in an escalation of competition carried out through the institution of feasting, with increasing demand for both Mediterranean wine and native drinks and food.

The contexts in which these objects were found are also quite different for the two regions. In the Hallstatt zone, the objects are confined almost entirely to a small number of elaborate tumulus burials and to a few defended hilltop settlements around which these tumuli cluster. The few amphorae and Attic drinking ceramics appear on the settlements, and the bronze vessels and other rare luxury goods appear in the burials. In the south, Mediterranean imports are relatively rare in graves and when they do occur they are neither of a spectacular nature nor associated in any characteristic way with wealthier or more elaborate burials. Most of the Mediterranean imports appear as domestic debris in settlement deposits. Moreover, they are not confined to any particular type or size of settlement, but are spread over many different varieties. In fact, by the late sixth century BC, they are found on virtually every settlement in the lower Rhône basin.

Research on consumption, especially feasting and the role of animals and drink in both domestic/secular and funerary/religious/ritual contexts, is prominent and influential in archaeological investigations within France (see various papers in Meniél and Lambot 2002). A number of important works have highlighted the importance of understanding consumption, such as Poux (2004), mentioned below. However, much of this research has focused on sanctuaries and enclosures (Brunaux 2000). Their principal characteristic is that they yield extremely rich archaeological finds of offerings or sacrificial remains (ritually broken objects, bones or plant remains). One of the most extensively excavated sites is that of Gournay-surAronde. It was a rectangular enclosure dating to the fourth century BC and was surrounded by a deep ditch, palisade and then a second less important ditch. The first ditch contained the great deposits of Gournay – more than 2000 broken weapons and 3000 animal bones. These objects had been gradually deposited there during the whole period of use of the sanctuary (up to end of fourth century AD). Inside the enclosure, at its centre, a group of pits were dug in the middle of the third century BC. The remains of sacrificial cattle were deposited in the central pit. The sanctuary of Mirebeau in Côte d’Or yielded reasonably rich Gallic material. The finds were varied compared to Gournay consisting of fibulae, bracelets, rings and ceramics were as numerous as weapons. Lambot and Méniel (2000) interpreted the deposition of 200 sheep at the religious site of Acy-Romance, as the remains of a ritual banquet. The recently excavated enclosure at Corent (Poux et al. 2002) dates from the second century BC and shares parallels in terms of its deposits with Ribemont-sur-Ancre (Brunaux 1999). The ditches at Corent primarily contained sheep/ goats bones and amphorae, which suggest large public

34

These differences are thought to have been related to the social organisation of both regions (Dietler 1995, 1996). The Hallstatt zone societies showed marked social stratification and centralised, hierarchical political control. The lower Rhône basin was occupied by societies with a low level of institutionalised social ranking and without any regionally extensive political centralisation. In the case of Hallstatt imports of Mediterranean goods, it appears that there was never a significant influx of Mediterranean wine. Rather, rare, exotic and spectacular drinking vessels were imported for use by the élite in the context of feasting activities. These vessels were not prestige goods destined for redistribution, but were goods reserved exclusively for use and burial within the highest stratum of the local social scale. Their adoption does not constitute an attempt to imitate the Greek symposium, rather it represents the incorporation of exotic items into an established repertoire of feasting equipment in a pattern of diacritical social symbolism that was already well established. Transport and communication impediments

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

meals took place there. There were also large deposits of coins, ceramics, metal vessel, rings and fibulae.

particularly how the vessels required for the preparation, distribution and consumption of these beverages were a vehicle for inter- and intra-group competition, and underwent considerable change both symbolically and materially, through time (Arnold 1999: 71). Arnold uses Celtic literature and ethnography to stress the interplay of varying levels of social and political obligation during Iron Age feasting rituals and the qualities of generosity and hospitality that defined a good patron. The right to assemble and feast a company was synonymous with the right to rule. Her research has also focused on the excavation of burial mounds associated with the Heuneburg hillfort in southwestern Germany and conducting a longterm investigation of the EIA landscape of southwestern Germany. A study concerning the identification of honeybased drinks, most notably mead, in the ‘chiefly’ graves of this period was carried out by Koch (2003).

Large deposits of broken amphorae were found associated with a cremation at Clemency (near the oppidum of Trévires) (Metzler et al. 1991) and a similar high-status cremation was excavated in 1991 at Vieux-les-Asfeld (Lambot et al. 1994). At the necropolis of Goeblange-Nospelt, just 20km from Trévires, another remarkable grave was discovered. Five tombs were found in total, but Tomb B was particularly rich containing around 50 ceramic vessels, including wine amphorae as well as local wares. There were also bronze items all associated with the consumption of wine. A grave with similar numbers of vessels is known from Fléré-laRivière (Ferdière and Villard 1993). As well as the various bronze drinking vessels, there were 14 amphorae and over 30 ceramic vessels – all for eating and drinking. The grave assemblage from Antran contained similar items, both in bronze and ceramic.

The study of alcohol, in particular wine, and its consumption has been the subject of a systematic study by Poux (2004). He considered the wine trade, the sociological value of the drink and its methods of consumption, who consumed it and its perception by the indigenous societies of Gaul during the Iron Age. Poux focuses on the existence of collective practices and rituals based on alcoholic beverages, in the value specified by the indigenous élite and in their use in feasts and religious ceremonies which were part of public life (2004: 610). In order to investigate this, he analysed amphora deposits in terms of composition and spatial distribution, i.e. the method of formation and the ritual manipulations of which they were subjected (voluntary destruction, selective sorting, cremation, recycling) and their association with strong sociological connotations or symbolism (weapons, metal vessels, human remains, animal deposits) (Poux 2004: 610). This approach is very similar to research carried out by Carver (2001 and see below) in southeast Britain. Through a regional study of these various deposits, Poux identified two aspects of consumption. The first, hieratic, is confined to the central and eastern regions of Gaul. Here, wine appears in large quantities in sanctuary sites and enclosures dedicated to feasting practices. There is an absence of rich graves and the region is characterised by societies with little hierarchy or divisions as a result of power struggles. Close commercial connections with Rome assured a constant supply of wine. The second is hierarchic and corresponds to the regions of Eastern Belgium, the Atlantic and Northeastern Gaul, where the quantities of wine were smaller in number and concentrated, as with metal vessels, in the hands of the élites. The majority of discoveries are from sanctuaries, graves and ‘aristocratic’ residences and were used in preexisting indigenous practices based on local beverages (Poux 2004: 614). These conclusions are in a similar vein to those proposed by Dietler (1990, 1995).

Unusual deposits within ditches are a notable feature of the French archaeological record. The ‘ditch of amphorae’ at Aix-en-Provence is remarkable with over 100 amphorae being deposited at one time, along with further ceramic items and bones. Although not on the same scale a similar ditch deposit was noted from a burial at Boé. Bats (1988) carried out a comprehensive study of pottery and faunal assemblages from the site of Olbia in Provence. It included detailed analysis of the different forms and origins of pottery. Bats compared Greek and Roman styles of eating and drinking in order to understand the potential acculturation of either cuisine into the diet of this particular Gallic site. In central Europe, Matthew Murray’s (1995) work has been concerned with the LIA rectilinear enclosures known as Viereckschanzen. For several decades these large earthern enclosures were believed to be Celtic temples or sanctuaries. In the context of recent excavations, multiple social, political and religious functions have been suggested. Murray’s analysis of presumed ‘cultic’ features and objects at 36 excavated Viereckschanzen revealed little support for the suggestion that all enclosures were religious sanctuaries. There were important differences in pottery assemblages between the enclosures and contemporary settlements. From these observations and their location within the landscape, Murray (1995) suggested that they might have actually functioned as feasting places that often made reference to traditional forms of socio-political organisation represented at earlier cemetery sites. Work by Wieland (1999) has been particularly comprehensive, but unfortunately a number of these Viereckschanzen still remain unexcavated and their function enigmatic. Recent excavations would suggest that some of these enclosures were farmsteads and had a limited ritual role to play in society (Sachla pers.comm.).

Poux briefly touches on Britain (noted as a periphery in his work; 2004: 186-9). However, his study is restricted to

35

Bettina Arnold has considered the role of alcohol and

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

the aristocratic graves of the south-east, Hengistbury Head and the temple site of Hayling Island. Although Poux’s work is very interesting in terms of its regional coverage and findings, it is typical of this weak approach to feasting, which fails to recognise that feasting is deeply embedded within daily activity and is not just present in the visibly aristocratic graves, sanctuaries and temples. Each feasting context is different (as Poux demonstrates in Gaul), but as my work highlights in Chapters Five and Six, the East Anglian archaeological record for feasting is particularly varied even within such a confined area and not merely confined to large, visible communal places (e.g. shrines, temples) or rich graves. As I aptly demonstrate in Chapter Three, there is further contrast in the archaeological evidence for feasting when one looks just beyond East Anglia, further emphasising the regionality of this form of commensal activity. Feasting can take place on a number of scales (see Chapter Four for a more a more detailed discussion) and is not restricted to large public events, they can also take place within the private sphere.

2002) who is concerned with the concept of ‘romanisation’ in the context of ceramic analyses, particularly in the East Midlands, and understanding the incorporation of Roman imports into indigenous assemblages, a theme echoed by Fitzpatrick and Timby (2002). A similar study was carried out by Okun (1989) in the Upper Rhine in order to understand the process of acculturation within the region. Carver’s research (2001) into the importation of wine and its associated accoutrements in later Iron Age Britain investigated the contexts in which these items were being found in order to understand if the arrival of these commodities represented trade and if wine held a ritual significance among the peoples of later Iron Age Britain. Ceramic research has become more concerned with the social use of vessels and recent research has attempted to combine the traditional studies of pottery with more social aspects concerned with deposition, ritual, display, symbolism and social interaction (Hamilton 2002; Hill 2002a, 2002b; Pope 2003). Faunal analysis from this period has also changed its focus from the traditional economic perspective (Maltby 1996) to one concerned with deposition, ritual and social significance (Grant 2000, 2002; Hill 1994, 1995b, 1996b; Luff 1996). Work by Knight (2002, 2003) looked at butchery patterns at Danebury in order to identify the ‘butchers’ and whether or not such practices were regionally defined. Hill (see below) and Luff (1996) have studied the ‘ritual’ nature of such deposits, with Hill more concerned with ‘structuring’ and deliberate placing of rubbish. Detailed work on sacrifice/ritual deposits was focused on the region of Wessex (Hill 1996b). Hill’s work (1994, 1996b) attempted to distinguish between rubbish, ritual and structured deposition. It is argued that the bulk of material deposited on Iron Age settlements can be considered as ‘structured deposition’ resulting not from daily refuse maintenance activities but from periodic rituals (Hill 1993, 1995b; Hingley 1990). Sacrifice and ritual deposits are closely linked to feasting and is an issue that is discussed in more detail in Chapter Four.

Britain Britain is often ignored in accounts of the European Iron Age with research concentrated mainly on key hot spots and features such as rich burials with Mediterranean imports or oppida (Champion 1987; Audouze and Büchsenschütz 1992). The result is often to concentrate on a geographically restricted part of eastern France and Southern Germany. It is only until recently that interest in the social and cultural context of food and drink has emerged in British archaeology (e.g. Hill 1995b; Parker Pearson 1999). The idea of regionality is immediately apparent when you look outside of East Anglia. Evidence for feasting is identified in a variety of places and contexts. On reflection the range of evidence for feasting, even within Britain, shows that this activity manifested itself in different locations, sites and for differing purposes. Just beyond the borders of East Anglia, there are a number of contrasting examples, e.g. Kent and Leicestershire. If one moves to more outlying areas, there are even more obvious differences in the ways in which feasting is expressed in the archaeological record, e.g. why are middens numerous in Wessex, but relatively unknown for East Anglia? It certainly highlights the importance of understanding feasting and its various manifestations and uses.

Grant’s work on faunal assemblages (1989, 2000, 2002) has considered food as a potential indicator of status. A similar approach was previously used by King (1978, 1984, 1991, 1999), but he was more concerned with understanding the incorporation of Roman foodstuffs into the indigenous diet in the context of Romanisation. It is this theme of ‘identity’ that has recently received a lot of attention both in New World archaeology, in particular Mills’ work on feasting and identity in the Greater Southwest (2004a), and in Britain (detailed discussion of this subject is on pages 30 to 33). This idea was the subject of an edited volume by Parker Pearson (2003) with papers on the concept of food, culture and identity in the Neolithic and Bronze Age and is part of an investigation undertaken by Pitts (2004, 2005a, 2005b). Pitts’ research draws on the theme of identity and has used inter-site correspondence analysis to study the use and deposition

36

Recent research has been concerned with the investigation into food consumption as a means to unravel and understand the processes of Romanisation (Hawkes 1999, 2001, 2002; Meadows 1994, 1997, 1999). Much of this work has involved the study of the changing nature of faunal assemblages on occupation sites during the first century of the Roman arrival in Britain. The same approach was also used by Meadows (1994, 1997, 1999) in her study of pottery assemblages in central southern Britain. Similar studies were also produced by Willis (1994, 1996, 1997,

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

of both imported and local pottery vessels. He concluded that there was selective disposal of drinking vessels and tablewares in pits and the likely widespread consumption of beer as opposed to wine. His research has concentrated on later Iron Age and Early Roman Hertfordshire and Essex and considered the differing consumption patterns of imported and local alcoholic beverages in relation to ceramic assemblages (Pitts 2004).

the setting for the performance of religious ritual, and their interpretation within the archaeological record often relies upon being able to recognise such activity (Smith 2001: 6). His research involved looking at a variety of evidence from selected case studies including: artefactual and ecofactual evidence, direct retrospective associations and structural/locational evidence. Barrett (1989b; 1991a; 1994) has harnessed structuration theory and the concept of agency to a social archaeology and this has further developed our understanding of the role of material culture in relation to people. Accordingly ‘action by people on materials, or action in relation to other people is the means by which material conditions, social relations and the subject’s knowledge of their conditions are all reproduced. The long term and routine production of relations between people and things constitute institutional practices’ (Barrett 1989b: 304). This constant reworking and reproduction of social conditions shows how societies change historically. Material culture can be seen as a medium of discourse by which social relations are negotiated and reproduced. Social life is recursive: people act socially to create their material surroundings, whilst those material surroundings act back to structure later action (Gwilt and Haselgrove 1997: 2).

Parker Pearson has carried out work within the Iron Age and his early research looked at the Danish Iron Age (1984), from a Marxist perspective. This theoretical approach views humans to be motivated by self-interest and the accumulation of power in order to extend that selfinterest. This leads to interest groups who are defined by their relation to the production, exchange and consumption cycle. Parker Pearson investigated the relationship of ideology and material culture in order to understand how social values and identities can be given material expression and then why only at certain times. Strategies of legitimation through conspicuous consumption, manipulation of ancestors or identity consciousness were some of the forms that this expression may take (Parker Pearson 1984: 69). In investigating the burials of the Iron Age East Yorkshire élite, Parker Pearson (1999) suggested that animal offerings were used in the structuring of social differences. The different parts of an animal consumed at a funerary feast could have represented different social relationships and statuses among the mourners.

The interpretation and re-evaluation of middens has been the subject of work carried out by Needham and Spence (1997) and more recently by David McOmish alone and in collaboration with John Barrett (2004). Various midden deposits have been found in Wessex, a feature that is not known for East Anglia. Iron Age middens are relatively rare in number and tend to be characteristic of north Wiltshire. A number of these date to the LBA/EIA, a period where feasting is under-represented in the East Anglian archaeological record. McOmish’s work (1996) at East Chisenbury revealed a midden mound over 200m in diameter. It was so large that it had the appearance of being part of the natural hilltop. To the east it overlay the bank of a circular enclosure (McOmish 1996: 216-7). The exact date of the enclosure and its relationship to the midden mound is unknown, although field survey would suggest that the enclosure underlies at least the later stages of the mound build-up (McOmish 1996: 217). The midden was found to contain much fine and coarse ware pottery as well as spindle whorls, worked and decorated bone and fragments of stone. There were also worked flint and shale, disproportionately large numbers of foetal and neonatal sheep bones, a couple of human skull fragments, and copious amounts of coprolites, including human samples.

The recently excavated site of Ferrybridge in West Yorkshire (Boyle 2004) has received a lot of attention due to its location far to the west of the main group of chariot burials from East Yorkshire. Significantly the chariot had not been dismantled and was buried intact. It accompanied the skeleton of a man who was buried without weapons, but there were some joints of pork. These included half a pig skull, articulated with its mandible and atlas and a humerus. There were no butchery marks noted but the mandible is scorched on its outer, lateral, face, evidence that the complete half skull had been cooked. The ditch surrounding the grave contained bones from at least 250 cattle and a few pig, sheep and horse bones. It was argued that this was a single event deposit as they were of a consistent density and there was no fine silt with the deposit (Boyle 2004). However, radiocarbon dates have dated the animal deposit to the second century AD suggesting that they were in fact not contemporary with the main burial. The bones were recently analysed in order to discover if the deposit represents a single deposit, i.e. a single feasting event, or if in fact they represent a form of ancestral veneration (Orton pers.comm.). What is clear is that this deposit represented a very large feast if it was indeed a feast (Orton calculates the meat yield to be around 25,000kg).

Fieldwork to the southwest of the mound has located at least one other smaller midden; there may be other satellite examples grouped around the main component. Further work carried out by Reading University indicated that no less than seven linear ditches focused directly on the mound (McOmish 1996: 217). A cutting, which skirted about 100m to the north of the complex, uncovered a

37

Smith (2001) conducted research in the use of space in the Iron Age. He was concerned with the uses of constructed sacred space in Southern Britain. Sacred spaces are usually

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

double-ditched avenue and possible pit alignment also heading straight towards the mound. It is clear that certain activities were repeatedly carried out here over a period of time that led to the build up of the mound. Much of the cultural residue surviving concerns the preparation, storage and consumption of food – the by-product of feasting (McOmish 1996).

also bones of sheep and cattle. Radiocarbon dates taken from a pig bone gave an estimated slaughter date of 50 BC to AD 80, placing their deposition at around the same time as the coins (Priest et al. 2003). Interestingly, part of a copper alloy Iron Age tankard handle was found above the deposit suggesting that drinking was also taking place at these feasting events too. It was concluded that this was a hilltop favoured for ritual activities, which included feasting taking place on one side of a boundary or enclosure and coin hoard deposition on the other. As no building or structure was identified, it is thought this was an open-air gathering place.

A few other midden sites, of the same date and scale of East Chisenbury, are known. The site of Potterne, Wiltshire, 15km to the northwest of East Chisenbury, produced a midden at least 3.5ha in extent (Gingell and Lawson 1984, 1985; Lawson 1994). It overlay the postholes and other structural features of an earlier settlement. One example, All Cannings Cross, is a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age site. It sits at the foot of the Marlborough Downs escarpment, looking out across the low-lying Vale of Pewsey, towards Salisbury Plain. The site comprises large midden deposits, made up of pottery fragments, large quantities of animal bone and other cultural deposits, along with buildings and pits (Barrett and McOmish 2004). Another massive midden build-up, covering an area of 5ha, has been found 2km to the west of All Cannings Cross, at Bishops Cannings (Robinson and Swanton 1993). A further midden has just recently been excavated at Westbury (Gibson 2004), which lies at the foot of the steep chalk upland escarpment, which forms the northern edge of the Salisbury Plain. Early Iron Age features and an extensive midden deposit associated with adjacent settlement were found in Area 3, and finds included spindle-whorls, concentrations of decorated pottery (coarse ware jars and fine ware bowls), a fragment of shale armlet and large quantities of animal bone. The evaluation established that the midden is at least 45m by 30m in extent, but undoubtedly continues much further than the small area exposed. The presence of chalk ‘platforms’ and pits cutting into the midden, imply that this feature was not simply a large rubbish deposit, but may have been associated with feasting and ritual activities.

The bone deposits are placed directly east of the entrance so that they would be clearly visible from it (or that the entranceway would be clearly visible from the animal bone deposits) and it is tempting to see the ritual placing of the coins and helmet as a single major event accompanied by feasting. It was concluded that this was a hilltop favoured for ritual activities, which included feasting taking place on one side of a boundary or enclosure and coin hoard deposition on the other. As no building or structure was identified, it is thought this was an open-air gathering place (Priest et al. 2003: 360), but one which must have played an important social role. These ideas of feasting, monumentality and memory are raised at the site of Brisley Farm in Kent (Stevenson and Johnson 2004). At Brisley Farm, Kent, 3km south of Ashford, two Iron Age warrior inhumations were found. Although the mounds have gone, a square formed by the surrounding ditches still remains, hinting the barrows were also originally square. The mounds did not stand alone, but dominated a ‘feasting enclosure’. This was a large rectangular enclosure, where there was evidence of feasting (a similar enclosure has been proposed at the St Stephens cemetery at St Albans (Niblett 2002) – Site 53). The ditch that enclosed it was full of animal bones, both burnt and unburnt, as well as numerous pots, many apparently broken deliberately. To the south, there was an entrance approached by a causeway, around which the broken pot and the burnt bone clustered especially thickly. The burials were set on the far side, to the north, just outside the enclosure, one at the centre and the other in the north-east corner (Stevenson and Johnson 2004: 491).

The creation and maintenance of boundaries through feasting, ritual and monumentality is exemplified at an important hilltop site, recently discovered by metaldetectorists in Leicestershire (Priest et al. 2003). Excavations revealed a religious site on a ridge top location, dating to the first half of the first century AD. The site is partitioned by a ditch marking out a ritual area; it is not clear whether this is an enclosure around the site or merely a boundary. The terminal of the ditch to the north might suggest a boundary; however there was no corresponding terminal to the south and it may be that this marks a second entranceway. This produced over 3000 Iron Age and Roman Republican gold and silver coins. These coin hoards were located around the entrances to this site. East of the entrance, deposits of animal, mainly pig, were discovered. The bone deposits were spread over 20 square metres. While pig bones were the most common, many with butchery marks, there were

38

Interestingly, although the burials at Brisley Farm were made in the years before the Roman conquest, the enclosure to which they were attached remained in use well after their interment. Much of the pottery in the surrounding ditch dates to the latter half of the first century AD suggesting that feasting continued at the site of the two warrior burials well after the Roman conquest, possibly into the early second century AD (Stevenson and Johnson 2004: 493). The monumental graves, relative richness of the burial and material culture, which is interpreted as evidence of continued veneration at the barrows into the Roman period, are said to illustrate the importance of these

Chapter Three - Background to Area of Research

two warriors (Stevenson and Johnson 2004). However, it is difficult to know if the continued use and subsequent reuse of the enclosure was related to the original importance of the buried warriors. It is possible that these individuals were mythologised and their mounds became non-specific places of spirits or ancestors. Britain Ralph

Iron Age Britain and that different models of feasting would have been in effect at this time, be that levelling or aggrandising. It is vital to place these events within the context of Iron Age East Anglia.

France Poux

Germany Dietler

Classical World (Greeks, Romans, Etruscans)

Arnold/Murray

*Focus on consumption of food and drink

*Focus on alcohol consumption (especially wine)

*Focus on alcohol consumption (especially wine)

*Focus on alcoholic consumption and its containers

*Focus on artistic representations (frescoes, reliefs, vase paintings)

*Consider feasting in all contexts, not just special contexts (such as burial, sanctuaries)

*Focus on sanctuaries, enclosures and burials

*Focus on both settlement and burial

*Consideration of both settlement, enclosure and burial contexts

*Burial contexts

*Consider scale of feasting

*Studies distribution of amphorae remains

*Studies distribution of two types of ceramics

*How these events are linked to lifecycles

*Vessels *Political implications

Table 2. Differences in approaches to the ‘consumption’ archaeological record

Conclusion It is clear that the study of consumption is influenced by the theoretical and research background of scholars and as such this has resulted in the fragmentation of consumption studies (Table 2). Many of these studies are materially based and fail to recognise the linkage between sociopolitical change and feasting. These material culture studies appear to be concerned with either recognising a more ‘romanised’ lifestyle (e.g. King 1978; Meadows 1994) or using the archaeological data to distinguish between ‘indigenous’ and ‘Roman’ populations (Pitts 2004, 2005a and b). How useful is it to make these distinctions? How can they aid our understanding of the social and political dynamics that produced differences within and between societies? Can they help to comprehend how these differences came about?

39

Feasting provides the opportunity to move beyond the one-sided approach to the data of this period and consider the more active roles played by individuals or groups in altering or maintaining their standing within society and how the potentially competitive nature of feasting could have affected the structure of society as a whole and how this in turn resulted in marked changes in material culture and the socio-political and economic make-up of later Iron Age Britain, especially the region of East Anglia. Dietler does not situate feasting within the life history of individuals, but I situate my research within this social discourse and how feasting interacts with people’s life cycles. The activity of feasting can provide the opportunity to tackle the inherent problems associated with terms such as Romanisation or Creolisation. It is important to realise that feasting is strongly bound up in the changes of later

Chapter Four Methodology Introduction

and marrow may be conserved for days or even weeks after) they may not show up as a feasting midden, since the bones may be chewed by dogs or scattered around a settlement (Parker Pearson 2000: 227-30).

This section provides an outline of the methodology used to acquire my data. It discusses and explains the criteria and archaeological indicators as put forward by Hayden (2001) and expands upon the original ideas of Dietler and Hayden, which I presented in more detail in Chapter Two. Using Hayden (2001) as a basis from which to work from, I describe the various processes of data collection that I employed in order to investigate feasting in the archaeological record of East Anglia and how I have been able to approach my data from an original perspective and provide new and innovative interpretations of the role of feasting in Iron Age society and the understanding of social, economic and political change during this period.

Equally, separating pottery that is broken in day-to-day contexts from pottery, which is broken at feasts or other rituals (see Brück 2001) requires careful study of formation processes and temporalities of midden accumulation. The frugalities of day-to-day life (in which even cracked and broken pots may be carefully reused) often form a marked and even deliberate contrast to the wasteful consumption involved in feasting (Parker Pearson 2003: 10). The quantitative strategy of competitive feasting has obvious benefits to the aspiring commensal politician. The slaughter of large numbers of domestic animals for a feast is not easily emulated by one’s peers and so the risk that the grand gesture will pass unnoticed or be forgotten is low. On the other hand, such profligate destruction of finite resources is very costly and, unless the symbolic capital so accrued confers lasting material benefits, may not be repeatable (Halstead and Barrett 2004b: 7). The qualitative strategy of competitive feasting offers the possibility of impressing one’s peers or potential clients at more modest cost, but is unlikely to be effective unless the host already enjoys the high-status that enables her/him to set norms of cuisine or etiquette – in effect to create value (Halstead and Barrett 2004b: 8).

Feasting Criteria and Archaeological Indicators Feasts as distinct events are difficult to detect in the archaeological record and there is the problem of distinguishing them as an activity distinct from everyday domestic refuse, ritual deposits and sacrifice. Possible feasting events may not even be possible to identify in the archaeological record. A large number of specific formation processes and a much large number of potential combinations of processes could have contributed to the genesis of any deposit (Schiffer 1983). By understanding the processes of transformation that feasting deposits undergo before eventually being recovered by an archaeologist (a factor not considered by Hayden in his criteria (2001)), it may possible to identify and distinguish their archaeological markers from other forms of deposits (Figure 8). Without markets and refrigerators, the killing of large domestic animals in agricultural societies is often reserved for special occasions of feasting – the sacrifice of animals is not a daily activity (Parker Pearson 2003: 10). If pit deposits were made periodically, but contained remains from the consumption of large quantities of meat, one possibility is that the mode of consumption may have been feasting. At Danebury, Knight (2002) found that the scattered nature of pit deposits suggested that whole animals were not being cooked and eaten at once, or if they were, not deposited into a single pit. Instead, feasting may have involved each participant accepting (or bringing) a meat part, perhaps related to their status. Alternatively, it may have been that individual meat parts had no particular status, and that the parts simply reflect what was available. Where the bones are deposited in the aftermath of feasting (and sometimes the meat, blood

Value can be created in commensal contexts. Value might be regarded as intrinsic to what is consumed because of its relative scarcity. It is also a cultural construct, e.g. ceramic vessels may imitate metal prototypes. Here value is not founded on the illusion that locally-made ceramic vessels are actually metallic or imported, but rather on the acceptance that these ‘imitations’ symbolically represent their prototypes and the social contexts with which the latter are associated (Halstead and Barrett 2004b: 8). Alternatively, value may appeal to local tradition. The construction of value can appeal to a variety of currencies, suggesting that prestige foods, drinking services or etiquettes are as likely to achieve their value by association with persons of high-status and vice versa. In order to focus on food and drink as signifiers of social categories or cultural values, and ultimately on the role of such signification in social change, the evidence must be analysed contextually and in terms of short-term episodes rather than aggregate periods of consumption. For obvious reasons, major feasts are more likely than smallscale domestic consumption to generate viable samples 41

aftermath of feasting (and sometimes the meat, blood and marrow may be conserved for days or even weeks after) they may not show up as a feasting midden, since the bones may be chewed by dogs or scattered around a settlement (Parker Pearson 2000: Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia 227-30).

Equally, separating pottery that is broken in day-to-day contexts from pottery, whichof isdistinctive broken debris at feasts or are other rituals Brück requires study and so likely to be (see targeted for 2001) with other finds.careful This could thenof denote degrees of ritual contextual analysis. Debris from diacritical feasting is (see Brück 1999), rather than pigeonholing deposits as formation processes and temporalities of midden accumulation. The frugalities of particularly likely to be distinctive in composition and ritual or secular, the separation of which is in any case context, thanks to the role of material culture, space irrelevant for most societies day-to-day life (in which even cracked and broken pots may be carefully reused)(Knight often 2002). and time in marking such occasions as special and in formdifferentiating a marked and even different deliberate contrast to the wasteful involved in in examining ritual using between groups of participants Thereconsumption are inherent complications (Halstead and Barrett 2004b: 12). zooarchaeological remains since, as Grant (1991: 110) feasting (Parker Pearson 2003: 10). has pointed out, ‘ritual and economic [behaviours] are

FEAST SCALE FAMILY

COMMUNITY

SPECIFIC EVENT

DEPOSITION SELECTIVE/STRUCTURED DEPOSITION SINGLE DEPOSIT

ACCUMULATION

E.g. Burial

E.g. Midden

TAPHONOMIC PROCESSES ORGANIC vs. INORGANIC

SIZE/DENSITY OF DEPOSIT

PRESERVATION

RECOVERY

IDENTIFICATION BY ARCHAEOLOGISTS

42

Figure 8. Flow-Diagram indicating the processes of inextricably entwined’. Rituals are frequently accompanied Figure. 11. Flow-Diagram indicating the processes of transformationby of food a feast transformation of a feast and drink, small meals and large feasts. Indeed, the gathering of people around a daily meal almost invariably has ritual aspects. The frequent association of Ritual, ‘Structured’ and Sacrifical food with ritual makes it a difficult 86 task to distinguish ritual activities involving food from daily or mundane Deposits meal refuse. In general, scholars detect ritual using any The use of the word ‘ritual’ itself is problematic. Knight number of criteria that mark a deposit as distinctive, where (2002) uses it to describe any activity which is engendered their location, context and modification add symbolic or in societal rules and is repeatable, conforming to an ritual significance, such as: (1) the presence of whole, accepted meaning. It could be argued that any or all activity, unbutchered animals or articulated portions of animals; (2) including deposition, is structured according to social the presence of very young animals or very old animals; trends, since it is impossible to act outside of one’s own (3) a selection of specific parts (horn cores, heads etc); (4) frame of reference, which will have been socially defined an abundance of one sex; (5) an abundance of a particular (Brück 1999). It is possible that there are degrees, instead taxon; (6) the presence of rare taxa; (7) association with of definitions, of ‘ritual’. By comparing types of deposit human remains; and (8) association with grave goods it may be possible to rank deposits according to certain (Whitcher Kansa and Campbell 2004: 4). While any one criteria, for example the integrity of deposit or associations of these characteristics can often be attributed to non-

Chapter Four - Methodology

ritual behaviour, the co-incidence of a number of these characteristics taken together may point to some kind of activity that can be seen as out of the oridinary.

relevant to my period and little evidence is known for these practices during the Iron Age, particularly in Britain. These were paraphernalia for public rituals (dance masks or costume elements) and record keeping devices (presence or absence and frequency of tally sticks, counting tokens or symbolic pictograms).

Cunliffe (1992) and Grant (1984) regard ‘special deposits’ – articulated animals or parts of animals, skulls, unusual combinations – as propitiatory offerings, while Hill (1995b) suggests that all material in pits was ‘structured’. He proposes that the number of bones recovered from Iron Age sites do not represent the total numbers of animals bred, therefore, bones that did survive must have been specially treated. Hill’s hypothesis requires the bones to have been selected for inclusion in pits, and so certain combinations or elements might be found together. Immediate deposition in available pits after consumption, with no ritual basis to the action, would mingle the bone elements, reducing any evidence of ‘structuring’. There are many difficulties associated with identifying the differences between ‘special’ and ‘mundane’ deposits. Feature type could be regarded as an indicator, with special deposits found in pits (Hill 1996b). Any material in postholes could be from natural accumulation as the post rotted, and material in gullies from silting or after disuse.

These indicators put forward by Hayden are aimed at providing a more generalised approach to feasting and therefore designed to be cover a wide variety of events taking place on different spatial and temporal levels. As a result I have modified and added to this list in order to make them more relevant to the time period in question. Criteria

Other ritual acts such as sacrifice could be recognised by the deposition of whole animals or articulated parts of animals with no butchery evidence, which may have been deposited fully fleshed. Identification of sacrificial activity is further complicated by ethnographic evidence that some acts of sacrifice are accompanied by feasting (Knight 2002). The resulting bones may bear butchery marks and be disarticulated, making them very difficult to distinguish archaeologically from the remains of ‘ordinary’ consumption. One final possibility worth noting in the context of ritual activity is the deliberate curation of rubbish for later deposition (Pollard 1992). It could be inferred archaeologically by the incidence and location of gnawing and weathering, and small parts of disassociated bone.

Hayden’s Feasting Criteria Hayden (2001) produced a list of criteria, which he believed could be employed to identify feasting in the archaeological record (Table 3). This has provided a basis from which to work from, but my main concern has been attempting to distinguish between everyday deposition and possible feasting debris. Although Hayden provides a useful ‘checklist’ the real difficulty I face is whether it is possible to identify the remains of day-today food consumption. I have attempted to tackle the tension between the everyday and embedded ritual within everyday contexts. This is more difficult than one may think, after all is it not possible that most if not all animal bones on a site may be the result of feasting?

Recognition in the archaeological record

Food

*Rare or labour-intensive plant/animal species *Special ‘recreational’ foods – sprouting grains are said to represent the production and consumption of beer *Quantity of food items *Evidence of waste of food items

Preparation vessels

*Unusual types, large sizes, numbers *Closed vessels v open display feasting vessels

Serving vessels

*Unusual quality or materials, size and numbers of serving vessels

Food-preparation facilities

*Unusual size of facilities, location or construction of facilities

Special food-disposal features

*Bone dumps *Special refuse fires containing feasting items *Feasting middens

Feasting facilities

*Special structures *Special display facilities

Special locations

*Mortuary or remote locations, not habitation *Loci associated with nuclear households *Ports of trade, temples, religious sites

Associated prestige items

*Presence or absence *Destruction of wealth or prestige items

Ritualised items of etiquette

*Smoking and narcotic paraphernalia – consider work of Goodman et al. (1995) *Ritualised vessels for consumption of alcohol *Sealey (1999b, 2004) and strainers

Existence of aggrandisers

*Wealthy burials; social or site hierarchies; large residences with high storage per capita

Pictorial and written records of feasts

*Classical accounts

Food-storage facilities

*Stables, storage pits, granaries

Resource characteristics

*Abundance, intensified exploitation, invulnerability to overexploitation

Table 3. Archaeological indicators of feasting (after Hayden 2001). Italics denote additions by myself

Food Examples were sought which represented ‘luxury’ foods or rare/labour intensive foodstuffs (see Van der Veen 2003 for a more detailed discussion). These could include new types of herbs, spices or vegetables that are not previously known in the archaeological record for this period or stand out when compared to the rest of the material culture from a particular site. This category includes the identification of different quantities of food, i.e. abnormally large quantities of single waste disposal for a particular social unit. Although this may appear at first glance as an easy

43

Hayden included two more criteria, but I have excluded these from my research because I felt they were not

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

thing to identify in the archaeological record, one has to take into account the size of the ‘normal’ social unit in order to understand if what one is witnessing is in fact a large gathering of people or just the average amount of refuse of one group generated from one meal. With regards to evidence for waste of food items, this could potentially include the activity of sacrifice. There is some difficulty with this for sacrifice may not necessarily be linked to feasting and may actually serve different purposes entirely. This must be taken into account when studying the archaeological record and its appearance and context must be considered alongside further evidence for feasting as indicated in Table 3.

parts of small animals, for example a whole sheep limb. A range of species and bone elements, perhaps in distinct butchery units (as identified during butchery analysis), might be indicative of general household debris. Another characteristic of smaller communities is the preservation of meat, when the quantity of meat available from one animal exceeds the amount that the group can eat before the meat begins to rot. In early modern Britain, one pig per family per year was slaughtered, and the preserved meat lasted until the next pig was killed in the next year (Malcolmson and Mastoris 1998).

Preparation and Serving Vessels

Knight (2002) highlighted some models for identifying different activities and social groups using butchery evidence and animal bone distributions. In some cases they overlap, and the same bone distribution could be used to argue for more than one scenario. Where it is impossible that the scenarios could have co-existed, it is necessary to include other types and sources of information other than faunal remains, and from different sites, to clarify interpretations.

Criteria associated with preparation vessels are unusual types. This is taken to include vessels with specific functions, such as those associated with brewing or the preparation of certain foods (linked to food category). I am looking for deposits which include an unusual quantity and large sizes of preparation vessels. These criteria could represent the preparation of a meal for a large number of people and thus would require vessels that could hold larger quantities of food than normally required for everyday consumption or if no larger vessels were available, the use of more vessels than normally required. Of course this assumes that after every feast the preparation equipment was disposed of and not used again and thus represents the remains of one feast. Of course it would be fair to assume that these vessels would have been used on several occasions and unless ritually destroyed after each feasting event, their disposal represents only one of potentially feasting events in which these vessels were used.

The first is feasting or ‘household’ scale consumption. Ethnographic and historical sources cite that meat eating in large quantities is often regarded as desirable, but is in fact relatively uncommon (Fiddes 1991: 11-23). However, communal eating and feasting could be represented by the presence of bones that carry large quantities of meat, or by dense deposits of many bones from individual animals. A dense deposit could be recognised from the archive data, if a large number of bones was recovered from a relatively small volume of soil. The meat from a modern young pig (similar in size to a mature Iron Age pig) could feed at least 60 people, and if this number of people was eating at once, the bone remains of an entire pig may be found together in one deposit (Knight 2002).

Identifying feasting with serving bowls requires looking for different qualities of materials used to make these specific vessels. For the Iron Age, there is a marked shift in ceramic usage towards the later part of the period where there is an increase in the use of serving vessels and specific ceramics being produced for different functions and purposes. These items tend to be more ‘Roman’ in nature and therefore can be linked to the arrival or imports into the region and later their imitation by the indigenous population. Much like the preparation vessels, I looked for archaeological contexts and deposits which included unusual types or quantities of these types of vessels. Again, there is the assumption here that after consumption the vessels were deposed of.

Carcasses are unlikely to remain articulated even when the whole animal is roasted on the bone (as might take place prior to feasting), as the ligaments break down during cooking and the bones disarticulate. However, articulated parts or whole animals may have been filleted, even if they do not show any butchery marks, and would have produced a similar quantity of food to an animal cooked whole on the bone. In both types of butchery, the full resources available would not have been utilised, as when the butchery method left parts of the animal still articulated, it is likely that small scraps of meat and the marrow would have been deposited with the bones. This type of cooking, while not feasting, certainly does not utilise the carcass to its fullest potential.

Within this category I have also chosen to consider the relationship between open and closed display feasting vessels and to study the differences in numbers of each of these particular vessels in any potential feasting deposits. In doing this I may be able to determine how many people were present at an event and the importance placed on a particular form of vessel.

Smaller scale ‘family’ or ‘household’ eating could be inferred from small parts of larger animals, such as a small consecutive series of vertebrae from a pig, or by larger

44

Chapter Four - Methodology

Food-preparation Facilities

to be ‘special’ to the archaeologist, may not have been the case for past individuals or groups.

This section attempts to identify facilities of an unusual size, such as large roasting pits or hearths, and perhaps an unusual number of these types of facilities, e.g. several hearths in a row. It may be possible to identify facilities associated with food-preparation that are located or constructed in unusual or remote places and in differing ways. This is potentially linked to a later criteria referring to location. It is worth noting here too whether or not there is evidence nearby for the consumption of the food being prepared at these facilities or if in fact the prepared food was being consumed in an entirely different location and was being taken to the feasting event by guests or even the hosts.

Associated Prestige Items Indicators for this particular criterion are the presence or absence, and relative abundance of prestige items typically used in different types of feasts. There is also the destruction of wealth or prestige items either via intentional breakage or burial. The deposition of coin and metal hoards is notable for this period in East Anglia and is prominent part of the archaeological record of the eastern part of the region (Norfolk and Suffolk). I want to discuss this issue because it contrasts with the consumption of food and drink and represents a different consumption all together. This particular subject will be discussed on its own and will not be considered within the context of this category.

Special Food-disposal Features This category calls for identifying features such as bone dumps or special refuse fire which many contain feasting items, as well as actual feasting middens. Particularly with the bone dumps, it is important to make sure the deposit was made in one single event in time. If it had been carried out over a large period of time it would then be classed as a midden. The concept of sacrifice must again be taken into account here or the possibility that a deposit could represent a grave of sick animals.

Ritualised Items of Etiquette Hayden defines this as smoking or other narcotic paraphernalia and ritualised vessels for the consumption of alcohol or other prestige drinks. Studies carried out by Goodman et al. (1995) are important to consider particularly within the context of prehistoric Europe. For the Iron Age, Sealey’s work (1999b, 2004) on bronze strainers is particularly relevant, given their constricted distribution and uniqueness in Iron Age Europe.

Feasting Facilities Criteria for this indicator involve the identification of special structures (either permanent or temporary or both) which could be used by high-ranking guests or hosts or by large numbers of people.

Existence of Aggrandisers This particular category refers to evidence for wealthy burials, social or site hierarchies and large residences with high storage per capita. Within the context of Iron Age Britain, examples include the chieftain burials of southeast England and the emergence of new settlement forms towards the end of the Iron Age, such as oppida. Hayden (1990) acknowledges that there is no one-to-one correspondence between people with the greatest socioeconomic control on the one hand, and the most elaborate burials or the most prestige goods. While a specific accumulator might not be buried with exceptionally lavish grave goods, accumulators as a group can be expected to be buried with more lavish grave goods than supporters or individuals not participating in feasts. Similarly, communities with accumulators should exhibit a much wider spectrum of burial-furniture assemblages than communities without accumulators (Hayden 1990: 44-5).

Special Locations This particular category ties in with the food-preparation, food-disposal and feasting facilities, for location is important to each of these criteria. Locations considered to be associated with feasting could be mortuary or remote areas, areas which are clearly not habitable sites. They can also be loci associated with nuclear households, residential corporate households, large feasting middens or central community spaces. I have chosen to include ports of trade under this category too because these sites would have been places where imports would have been received and potentially used for the first time. Traditional centres of power, such as ‘tribal centres’ could be incorporated into this category too, but there are inherent problems associated with this term (as discussed in previous chapter). One can also include temple or religious sites in this category as well, after all these too are central places for communities to congregate, especially for special occasions and events. There is a degree of subjectivity involved with this particular indicator for what may appear

As Hayden notes (1995, 1996), accumulators try to maximise their power and influence by accumulating desirable foods, goods and services and by carefully channelling these through themselves and dispensing such commodities as rewards to those who will support them. It is debts that make up the accumulator’s power and 45

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Resource Characteristics

prestige. The most effective context for acquiring debts and distributing desirable commodities that accumulators seem to have discovered is the competitive feast, exemplified by the potlatch. One of the most important characteristics of these feasts is that highly desirable, rare, valuable and often labour intensive foods or delicacies are employed to impress guest competitors with the host’s wealth and power, and to increase the magnitude of the debts incurred by the guests. The accumulator’s power is based on, and limited by, the amount of goods, especially food, that he/ she can persuade his/her supporters to contribute, or to ‘loan’, to him/her for his/her competitive feasts. It should be evident that once socio-economic competition emerges, accumulators and feasts should also develop. Once this threshold is crossed, aspiring accumulators can be expected to exert all their ingenuity to bribe, coerce, cajole and con other members of the community into supporting competitive feasts and producing as many delicacies or other high quality foods as possible for feasts.

Abundance, intensified exploitation and invulnerability to overexploitation are considered indicators for this category. However, these are very much linked to Hayden’s theoretical approach to feasting in that it is related to economic and environmental factors. Hosting feasts is an effective means to demonstrate one’s economic and political abilities and to engender prestige and the support of followers. Depending upon the quantity and quality of resources mobilised for communal feasts, and the frequency with which they are mobilised, feasting can be a quantitative measure of abilities of the host as an efficient, skilful, vital and generous leader. The degree to which the host successfully coordinates intercommunity participation at feasts is a strong incentive for community allegiance and support, especially in situations involving supra-community alliances exchange and marriage relations, conflict and competition (Potter 2000: 472). Recent literature concerning feasting and its role in the origins of social inequality emphasises the use of resources that are abundant and whose productivity may be effectively intensified by aspiring leaders. Alternatively, the consistent use of relatively rare resources may be an additional means through which to gain prestige and place individuals in contractual debt. Feasting resources that must be obtained through exchange, resources requiring new technologies for their processing and relatively rare, large-bodied hunted game may play an important symbolic role in prestige-enhancement, especially if consistent access to these resources is restricted within or among communities (Potter 2000: 475). As mentioned in the previous category, abundance, intensified exploitation and invulnerability to overexploitation could all be indicators for redistribution centres.

Pictorial and Written Records of Feasts For Britain, unfortunately this type of evidence is rare. However, it is possible to draw on classical accounts of Europe (see Chapter Two for a discussion on these sources) and use this information to help in interpreting the archaeological record in Britain. There are problems with this form of evidence and although they can provide useful descriptions of events, they were written by those of classical world who viewed anyone outside of Greece and Italy as ‘barbaric’ and therefore a political agenda was no doubt behind these literary sources.

Food-storage Facilities

Building upon Hayden’s Criteria

Evidence for these include stables, storage pits and granaries. The geography and geology dictate the way in which foods can be stored and in the case of East Anglia, the high water table precludes the use of storage pits in many areas, particularly the northeast. It is important to define what qualifies as storage for feasting events, i.e. how many granaries/storage pits would have to be found at a particular location for an archaeologist to be certain that this represented evidence for the storage of feasting foodstuffs. Once again the social unit of the settlement needs to be taken into account in order to consider if what is being stored is not merely for personal consumption. One could include in this category redistribution centres, a feature which is sometimes associated with oppida. However, one would have to distinguish between storage for feasting events and storage of items for eventual redistribution to other sites, or the gathering of items as tribute which could eventually be used as part of a community feast.

Although this list is intended to cover a broad range of time periods and geographical regions, I have adapted some of the indicators to suit my period of interest and to draw on the sources of evidence available to me. These changes are highlighted in italics in Table 3.

1. Food In this section I will consider the archaeological evidence for the production and consumption of beer – a beverage commented on by Classical authors and often associated with the ‘Celtic peoples’. Evidence includes tankard handles, sprouting grains, pollen residues (associated with honey and thus mead) and possibly storage of large quantities of grain.

46

Chapter Four - Methodology

2. Vessels

workforce was paid through a ‘work party feast’. I want to investigate this further and therefore have highlighted these structures. Linked to this is the idea of ceremonial routes and it may be possible that feasting sites may be connected to these features of the landscape too.

Ceramic analyses have recently considered the relationship between closed vessels and open ‘display’ vessels. I will incorporate these approaches into my research in order to attempt to identify possible ‘feasting’ assemblages, i.e. do the changes in vessel type indicate a change in social interaction? Can quantities of closed vessels highlight a feasting production area and do high numbers of open vessels indicate the arena for the feast? Can the relationship between these types of vessels explain social change and social complexity at this time?

Identification and Implementation of Feasting Criteria in Iron Age East Anglia As I have highlighted in Chapter Three, East Anglia is rich in terms of its archaeological data and heritage for the Iron Age. As a result, identifying sites or deposits, which are representative of feasting, requires a two-stage approach to the data. The first stage represents the initial collection of data from the SMR. This is immediately refined by excluding entries, which refer to cropmarks or isolated finds of pottery or other items which cannot be classed as hoards. Features that are not substantial and contain very little material culture were rejected. These included parts of a ditch, gully or linear feature, which have not been fully excavated and are considered in isolation as opposed to discussing their relationship to other features and the nature of settlement or site that they may belong to. Sites are also excluded on the basis of a complete absence or limited amount of secondary information on which to base further investigations.

3. Special Locations I have included ports of trade, temples and religious sites in this category for these too are places where people congregate, but do not necessarily reside there. Ports of trade are important to consider because these are likely to be the location where people first come into contact with the newly imported Roman ceramic wares. Thus, I want to know if there is a high incidence of feasting close to these sites. Religious sites are places where one would expect people to congregate and hold feasts in veneration or celebration.

4. Ritualised Items of Etiquette A particular item that is unique to Britain is the strainer. These objects are associated with alcohol consumption and are thought to have been used alongside native forms of drink rather than imported wine. I will look at their distribution and contexts in order to fully understand their function and build upon work already carried out by Sealey on the subject (1999b, 2004).

The second stage is a more detailed analysis of the archaeological data. It focuses on sites that have extensive secondary sources and, according to the initial SMR summary, represent possible feasting deposits, sites or structures. Sites are also considered on the basis that they are located in contexts or represent settings where one would expect feasting to take place. These types of sites are discussed below in further detail. For each site, I look for a variety of features that are mentioned in my list of feasting criteria. For example, this could include an analysis of pottery and faunal reports. Below I discuss how I identified evidence for each particular feasting indicator and subsequently produced my dataset on which to base my research.

5. Pictorial and Written Records of Feasts Iron Age Britain has little written or pictorial evidence and therefore I have consulted Classical sources which talk generally about the ‘barbarians’ of Northern Europe or refer specifically to the Gauls or Germanic peoples. Both pictorial and literary sources have been discussed in a Chapter Two.

Food

6. Monuments

Excavation reports were consulted in order to identify appropriate examples and much of the focus was on the faunal and botanical reports. The overall amount of faunal remains recovered from a site determined whether or not the site would be excluded. Once this had been established, deposits were analysed which contained an unusual amount of bone, given the size of the site, and could be considered the result of a single act of deposition. The following were considered:

Although not specifically referred to by Hayden in his list of feasting characteristics, I have chosen to include this as a separate category. A feature of the East Anglian landscape during the Iron Age, particularly the later period, is the construction of monumental defensive ditch and dyke systems, e.g. the system around the oppidum of Camulodunum (Colchester). These structures would have required a substantial amount of labour and in line with Dietler’s research, it could be suggested that the

47

•

Evidence of butchery and burning in order to exclude

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

assemblages that could be indicative of sacrifice; •

Over representation of particular elements, i.e. meat yield elements (e.g. humerus, femur);

•

Types of animals – were particular species favoured over others?;

•

Wild animals vs. domesticates; and

•

Location of deposit – pit, ditch, within the settlement or on the boundary.

areas for other forms of food and drink, given the limited preservation of such items in the archaeological record. Storage pits are another feature that can be studied, but these too are predominantly used for grain. As with fourpost structures, one is looking for an abundance of pits, which can provide evidence of the stock-piling of supplies. Within East Anglia, certain areas preclude the use of pits due to the high water table, e.g. the Fens. Therefore, storage takes a variety of form within the region and this needs to be considered when studying excavation reports, i.e. is a lack of storage facilities a true reflection of the situation or a geographical/geological constraint.

Preparation and Serving Vessels

Food preparation facilities can be identified in the archaeological record by recording large numbers of hearths, i.e. more than would be required for the size of the site to function on a daily basis. Distinctions between preparation and serving areas are considered as well as highlighting differences between everyday structures and buildings, which stand out from the rest of the settlement.

The pottery report for each potential site was consulted and much like the approach to identifying feasting food examples, it was important to establish whether or not the site had a significant pottery assemblage from which to work from. If suitable deposits were present the following were considered: •

Special Food-disposal Features

Size of the deposit – does it represent an assemblage of material, which does not correspond with the size of the site and its everyday usage?;

•

Location of the deposit;

•

Proportion of closed vessels vs. open display vessels;

•

Is the assemblage dominated by either preparation or serving vessels?;

•

Function of the pottery, e.g. for food or drink;

•

Presence of amphorae – food or drink, source of the amphorae; and

•

Proportion of imported pottery and/or local copies of imported wares.

Disposal features can be of two kinds: single acts of deposition or accumulated material (middens). Although middens do not represent single events of feasting, they do symbolise repeated acts of feasting and the gathering of communities. Once suitable deposits are identified, the following are considered: •

Location – inside/outside settlement, on boundaries, in wells, hearths; and

•

Faunal remains – distinguish between ‘waste’ animal bones and ‘consumed’ animal bones.

Feasting Facilities Examples were identified by looking for particular structures/ buildings where these feasting activities could take place, e.g. a larger building than those used for living (long houses, larger round houses, rectangular structures). This includes identifying structures, which are not used on an everyday basis. Therefore, it is important to consider the location of structures within a settlement and within the wider landscape context. Of course, matters are complicated where feasting facilities could take the form of open-air sites.

Food Storage and Preparation Facilities This particular criterion is concerned with identifying the storage capabilities of a site, which appear to be more than adequate for the actual size of the site. Of course this could be perceived as evidence for a redistribution centre, but if there is no further evidence to support this hypothesis (e.g. the actual size of the site), then it can be presumed to represent extra storage facilities for occasions such as feasts.

Special Locations

The archaeological evidence for storage facilities is fairly limited for Iron Age Britain. The most obvious features are the four-post structures, which have been interpreted as granaries. This structure is limited to providing evidence for the storage of grain and it is difficult to identify storage

48

In order to identify special feasting locations, I began by focusing on sites where I would expect feasting to take place, i.e. places where groups of people would gather on a regular or seasonal basis. These places include hillforts,

Chapter Four - Methodology

oppida, temples, shrines, forts, population centres, regional centres and ports of trade. Once having identified these sites, evidence for the other feasting criteria was sought. A number of the temple sites were dismissed on the basis of incomplete or insufficient data for further feasting evidence, e.g. Ivy Chimneys and Harlow in Essex.

•

A broad analysis of examples that fall into each of these categories takes place (Chapter Five) followed by a more detailed discussion of highlighted sites (Chapter Six), which display evidence for a number of these indicators. This is then followed by a discussion of the results in the broader context of social, political and economic change and its relationship with cycles of life (Chapter Seven) and finally I conclude how feasting is an important analytical tool in understanding the above changes in Iron Age Britain, particularly East Anglia (Chapter Eight).

Associated Prestige Items/Ritualised Items of Etiquette These two criteria have been identified in the archaeological record by looking for metal vessels associated with eating and drinking. Evidence for the destruction of prestige items was considered, e.g. items being placed in a funerary pyre or destroyed during festivities. I have also identified hoards of prestige items and paraphernalia of a prestige nature associated with eating and drinking.

Scale of Research Scale is an important factor that I have considered during my investigation for it affects all aspects of my research and can influence the results of the data interrogation. Scale needs to be taken into account when defining my research area and this in itself could affect my results. Champion (S. Champion 1994) examined the question of whether archaeological regional studies have been carried out at a scale appropriate to the type of questions being asked and the type of information that analysis of the archaeological material might be expected to yield. A region can be defined in a variety of ways, all of which have their limitations.

Existence of Aggrandisers In order to identify aggrandisers in the archaeological record, I studied all the entries for burials during the later Iron Age. For each burial, the following were considered: •

Presence of items associated with food and drink, e.g. amphorae, pottery and metal vessels, meats, buckets;

•

Quantities of these items;

•

Location, e.g. within a cemetery, isolated;

•

Differentiation if located within a cemetery – central or satellite burial;

•

Presence of feasting equipment – firedogs;

•

Prestige items – glass, metal items, gold, furs, imports; and

•

Quality and quantity.

The first is a region as a modern political or administrative unit. Regional studies are frequently presented in this form, concerned with areas such as English counties. The convenience for the archaeologist of the arbitrary or random boundary, which may obviate the necessity of making difficult decisions on the basis of the archaeology of what to include and what to omit, is generally outweighed by the drawbacks of working within a region which may have little or no relationship with boundaries, known or unknown, in the past (Champion, S. 1994: 145). The second is a region as a geographical unit. These regions are defined by natural features such as mountains, rivers and plateaux. Such regions might be regarded as the most ‘objective’, but their boundaries may be imposed from a modern theoretical perspective which bears little relation to how such areas were understood in the past (Champion, S. 1994: 145). A study area is defined, either by intention or in practice, by the archaeological distribution of cultural traits, i.e. the concept of Kulturkreis. Regions defined in this way are very common: indeed, the very concept of regional diversity implies their recognition, and the prescribed cultural homogeneity may appear to benefit the analysis. Nevertheless the study must of necessity start out with preconceptions, and some, at least, of these are rooted in ideas of culture formulated half a century ago or more (Champion, S. 1994: 145). Linked to the idea of Kulturkreis is the notion of a region as a territory. Here cultural traits are ascribed to a people when named groups

The Grouping of Criteria

Food, its preparation, storage and disposal;

•

Vessels – preparation and serving;

•

Feasting facilities and special locations;

•

Aggrandisers;

•

Prestige items and items of etiquette; and

49

In order to present the data efficiently, I have grouped the criteria outlined above into associated categories. •

Other modes of consumption – metal and coin hoards.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Rate and Date of Discovery

appear in the classical record and cultural definitions are sought for them. This is a theme that was discussed by Jones (1997) and mentioned in the previous chapter. The problems with regions defined in this way are self-evident: it has always been hard to define the territory of a named group, even in the protohistoric period.

One of the most influencing factors for any piece of archaeological research is the mode of discovery. The ways in which archaeological data are recovered can have a profound affect on research results (see Cardarelli et al. 1980; di Gennaro and Stoddart 1982 for a detailed discussion of these matters in relation to Italian archaeology). Distribution maps can be distorted due to varying rates of archaeological activity within a particular region, as well as research aims or methods of the archaeologist. Kristiansen’s work (1985) on post-depositional formation processes in Denmark is particularly informative given the long history of archaeological research within the country. Kristiansen identified determining factors regarding archaeological recovery. The first were physical and environmental factors. The influence of these sets of factors is in general constant within a given geographical and climatic region. When examining the representation of a certain group of finds within a research area, Kristiansen considered it to be of great importance to draw systematic distinctions between the various states of preservation of identical materials which are due to variations in the physical surroundings and the various states of preservation under uniform physical conditions which are due to differing properties of the material (1985: 7-8).

These definitions of a region can lead to analysis on a wide variety of scales. The larger the area, the more likely that significant regional diversity is masked in attempts to tell a story that fits the most prominent similarities across a region; while analysis at a very local level may throw up variations which it is inappropriate to consider when attempting to model large-scale social and/or economic change. Champion (S.Champion 1994) suggests that one approach would be an attempt to try and understand how Iron Age people viewed the landscape, both geographical and socio-political, within which they operated, and to what extent the physical properties of barriers and distances limited their socio-political horizons. Although my research area is broadly based on modern political boundaries, geographically and archaeologically speaking East Anglia is a region of variability. East Anglia consists of contrasting geographical and geological zones and, especially for the Iron Age, there is no coherence in the archaeological record for the region. Due to these marked contrasts throughout the study area, scale is an important concept that needs to be factored into my research in order to fully comprehend the archaeology of my chosen area. Therefore, in order to understand the archaeology of Iron Age East Anglia, I have compared my data to areas from the rest of Britain and then discuss the results in the context of Europe, drawing on examples from Continental Europe (see Chapter Two for examples).

The second consideration is cultural and economic factors. The influence of these depends on the relationship between the formation of the present cultural landscape and the state of the prehistoric material. These factors are variable and can be divided into active and passive (Kristiansen 1985: 8). The active factors include such activities as the cultivation of new areas, ploughing, peat cutting, industrialisation and war. By passive factors are meant the presence of wastelands like heaths and moors. These may often cause gaps in our knowledge of the hidden sources lying buried in the ground, but offer great potential in terms of completeness and state of preservation when systematically recorded and excavated (Kristiansen 1985: 8).

Within the context of feasting, scale needs to be taken into consideration. The act of feasting would have taken place on different levels; starting small scale there would be feasting activity amongst family (household) or extended family members. On the next level, feasting could take place among many families, i.e. a community or village, and then this could increase in scale to a society (the meeting of several villages or towns). Therefore, it is important to recognise these varying scales of feasting and attempt to identify them in the archaeological record. If these differing forms of commensal acts can be recognised in the archaeological record, they have the potential to inform the archaeologist about a wide variety of social, political and economic structures.

Finally research factors and archaeological factors of registration are variable and may either be of quantitative or qualitative nature (Kristiansen 1985: 8). A quantitative factor is the intensity of registration, which is defined by the relationship between the size of an area and its archaeological coverage. Qualitative factors refer to indirect information, which is dependent on the scope of documentation. There is also the factor of recognition. Without prior knowledge and understanding, one cannot recognise and interpret what is being studied.

In order to provide a context for my feasting examples, I felt it was important to map all the Iron Age site types within the region. This allowed me to understand where feasting was taking place and its relationship to settlement occupation in the area, monumental structures and geographical features.

All three factors are important in my research area. The varied geology of East Anglia provides mixed results for the use of aerial photography, by both masking and revealing sites. The soils also affect the preservation of material culture, with acidic soils hindering the 50

Chapter Four - Methodology

recovery of faunal remains and the Fenlands providing opportunities of recovering organic materials. Urban expansion, particularly in the southeast of the region, has had a profound and marked effect on the archaeological record and has resulted in an increase in the intensity of archaeological investigations in the area. This can of course be linked, in part, to the introduction of the PPG 16 in 1990, and thus the obligation to carry out either intrusive or non-intrusive archaeological investigation prior to development. However, redevelopment and expansion projects of the post-war era often went unobserved and there is the possibility archaeological data has gone unaccounted in these areas, such as Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead in Hertfordshire.

in to the county database and supply further leads to chase. Discussions with local museums and researchers in the region also provided invaluable information that undoubtedly would have been difficult to obtain through the literature of county database. Firstly, the data are analysed according to the criteria suggested by Hayden (2001) and modified by myself to increase its relevance to Iron Age Britain (see above). A more detailed analysis follows of sites which display evidence for several of the criteria and therefore a potentially clearer representation of feasting in Iron Age East Anglia. Secondly, the data are then compared to the rest of Britain in order to provide a further contextual approach and to investigate the notion of regionality. It is important not to consider Britain in isolation from the rest of Europe, and therefore examples from Europe are drawn on in order to compare and contrast the different manifestations of feasting. By placing the East Anglian data, firstly in the context of Britain and then in Europe, I illustrate how the range of evidence for feasting reveals how this activity manifested itself in different locations, sites and for differing purposes. It certainly highlights the importance of understanding feasting and its various manifestations and uses.

Perhaps one of the most significant factors in my research is the archaeologist’s interpretation and selection of data. Have the research aims that drive an investigation changed over time and are particular activities, such as feasting, being recognised more readily in more recent and current archaeology? There are two mutually exclusive sectors in archaeology: an academic wing concerned with research, and a commercial wing whose activities are related to the planning process (Bradley 2006). Over recent years, it is the latter which has begun to undertake the majority of fieldwork. As a result, the vast majority of field projects are never published in any other form than the original client report. The problem is in learning about them and finding where copies are held. Even if the grey literature were to be accessed, it is important to remember that many, or most, of the reports are not composed for wider circulation among the archaeological profession: they are produced primarily for the clients funding the original fieldwork and for the relevant planning authorities (Bradley 2006). Therefore, it was essential to talk to the staff of field units as well those in charge of the historic environment records. There is often a considerable time lag between fieldwork and the submission of reports, and there can be further delays in filing them and making them available. This is particularly true of the larger and potentially more informative field projects (Bradley 2006). Do current trends in theoretical thinking and research affect the ways in which data are presented and potentially manipulated? These are questions that I will answer in Chapter Five.

In analysing my data I have considered the settlement types within the landscape where feasting is taking place, its location (both geographically and within the actual site itself) and I have also noted the date of discovery. I wanted to know if there were more recent examples due to new methods or more attention paid to identifying such activities in the archaeological record. Did the date of discovery affect the different contexts in which feasting evidence was found? Were later examples confined to more obvious locations, such as graves, and are more recent finds situated within settlement contexts?

Problems and Biases in the Data There are inherent problems in using the county SMR. As my research included data from several counties, it was sometimes difficult to be consistent in approach. Each respective county operated a slightly different database programme, which potentially altered the search results. In order to search the database specific terms had to be used, such as settlement, ditch, hoard, bone. This in itself created a bias, for results were dictated by the predetermined terms provided by the programme, which in turn were influenced by the original personnel who entered the data. Of course the database could be searched purely by period, but this produced too many hits to be manageable or useful and the chronological search terms differed from county to county. As a result this approach was particularly time-consuming and highlighted the importance of contacting local archaeological units in order to double-check information and to learn of sites

Data Collection

51

Many of the data used in my research derive from each respective county’s SMR. These records provide the most up-to-date information regarding the archaeology of each county and the knowledge of each County Archaeological Officer is invaluable for obtaining information about sites that may appear only in the grey literature. Each record entry contains an extensive bibliography and these could then be followed in much greater detail. Visits to local archaeological units allowed me to obtain information regarding current excavations that had yet to be entered

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

that could have slipped through the net. With any data collection, it is important to realise that the introduction of the PPG 16 legislation in 1990, could potentially create a significant bias in the data. Development in certain regions could create false distributions when compared to areas which have not undergone major urban redevelopment. Of course the same could be said of archaeological research itself, with investigations favoured in particular areas over others. It is also important to highlight the role of amateur archaeologists and metal detectorists in this region for their work could potentially go unrecorded or create a bias in the archaeological record. Particular parts of the region have also been subject to largescale and intensive landscape survey. The best documented examples were carried out by David Hall (1992, 1996; Hall and Coles 1994) and called the Fenland survey. This research was particularly successful in identifying new sites and updating previously known data. Although particularly insightful for those studying in the region covered by the survey, it leaves the surrounding areas under-researched and thus creating a bias in data presentation. Perhaps the biggest bias of all is myself. I am choosing sites that I believe to contain evidence for feasting. Feasting could seem to have become a new buzzword for archaeologists and therefore it is vital to put any evidence and interpretation into perspective and evaluate its importance for my research. If anything it highlights the importance of keeping in contact with local archaeologists and constantly reviewing the literature in order to remain up-to-date with current interpretations.

52

Chapter Five From Raw to Cooked Introduction

EIA

This chapter analyses the data gathered from the study area and is presented in the sub-sections, as detailed in Chapter Four. This section provides an overview of the sites included in each sub-category and considers their relationships to one another, both spatially and temporally. These sites are discussed in the context of the settled landscape in order to provide a background to society during this period. They have been classed by settlement type and by period of occupation. The settlement types were used according to each respective county SMR. Where there was no clear evidence to suggest that the site was either enclosed or unenclosed, they are categorised as ‘settlement’.

MIA

M/LIA

LIA

Conquest

Linford

Kelveden (Doucecroft Site)

Prickwillow Road, Ely

Baldock

Stansted SCS

North Shoebury

Stansted ACS

Gorhambury, St Albans

Foxholes

Birchangar

PuckeridgeBraughing

Silfield

Elm’s Farm, Heybridge

Skeleton Green, Braughing

Fison Way, Thetford

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site)

Caistor St Edmund

Birchangar

Baldock

Fison Way, Thetford

Haddenham (HAD VI)

Foxholes

Claydon

Maxey

Gorhambury, St Albans

Barnham

PuckeridgeBraughing

Addenbrooke’s Site, Cambridge

Skeleton Green, Braughing

Woodham Walter

Food: Preparation, Storage and Disposal

Datchworth

Examples from this category span a wide period of time, although they are more prevalent towards the later part of the Iron Age and into the Conquest phase (Table 4). The majority of finds come from enclosed settlements with broadly similar numbers found on settlements, open settlements, hillforts and oppida (Table 5). For the Earlier Iron Age (EIA), sites are located close to water sources (rivers or the coast) within valleys or coastal areas (Appendix B, Figures 9-13). In the context of general settlement of this period, they are located in populated areas (Appendix B, Figures 14-18). A similar pattern is apparent for the Middle Iron Age (MIA) too, with both river valleys and coastal zones being favoured. Again, these sites are located within fairly densely inhabited areas. The Middle Iron Age/Late Iron Age data are of a similar character. Both the Late Iron Age (LIA) and Conquest period produce a pattern which again highlights a preference for river valley or coastal locations, with a few appearing on the higher ground of the chalk uplands in the south-east of the study area. The examples are clearly not associated with sites that have traditionally been referred to as ‘seats of power’. The one exception is Verulamium which has an example from both the LIA and Conquest period. EIA

MIA

M/LIA

LIA

Upper Millfield Wood, Buntingford Caistor St Edmund Hunstanton Fison Way, Thetford Claydon Burgh Addenbrooke’s Site, Cambridge Woodham Walter 6

Wandlebury

Aldwick, Barley

Maxey

Orton Longueville

North Shoebury

Wandlebury

Fison Way, Thetford

Orton Longueville

Birchangar

Foxholes

Prickwilow Road, Ely

PuckeridgeBraughing

Trumpington

Elm’s Farm, Heybridge

Barnham

Asheldham Camp

Wandlebury

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site)

3

23

14

Table 4. Examples of Food: preparation, storage and disposal Site Type

Conquest

Haddenham (HAD V)

12

EIA

MIA

M/LIA

LIA

Conquest

Total

Enclosed Settlement

2

7

1

12

8

30

Hillfort

1

2

0

1

0

4

Settlement

1

0

1

3

1

6

Unenclosed Settlement

2

2

0

0

0

4

Oppidum

0

0

1

3

3

7

?

0

1

0

4

2

7

Total

6

12

3

23

14

58

Table 5. Site type on which food examples are found

53

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Vessels: Preparation and Serving

– oppida. These sites contain a number of other feasting indicators too, such as food.

Examples of deposits of preparation and serving vessels dating to the EIA are of a similar pattern to those relating to food (Table 6). There is a preference for either a river of coastal location, but apart from one example, they appear to be in less densely occupied areas (Appendix B, Figures 9-13). This is in contrast to the deposits relating to food. Moving into the MIA, communication and transport routes are clearly influencing the location of these sites, and this remains the case for the MIA/LIA as well. There is some movement onto the slightly higher ground of the chalk uplands, but the majority of examples come from riverine or coastal locations. The later Iron Age produces more sites with these deposits which again are found close to transport routes and are also connected with examples of food and marking a special location or feasting facility. The Conquest period highlights these connections too, with many vessel deposits being found associated with food and burials. EIA

MIA

M/LIA

LIA

Fengate

Fengate

Fengate

Orton Longueville

Stansted SCS

Birchangar

Howell’s Farm

Ardleigh

Birchangar

Maldon, Beacon Green

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site)

Fison Way

Birchangar

Elm’s Farm, Heybridge

Barham

Wendens Ambo

PuckeridgeBraughing

Elm’s Farm, Heybridge

Kelvedon

Slough House Farm

Fison Way

Kelvedon

Gorhambury

Barham

Wendens Ambo

PuckeridgeBraughing

Foxholes

Gorhambury

Fison Way

PuckeridgeBraughing

Thornham

Fison Way

Hockwoldcum-Wilton

Hockwoldcum-Wilton

Woodham Walter

Barham

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site)

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site)

Fox Hall Farm, Southend

Foxholes Skeleton Green

5

7

4

Site Type

MIA

M/LIA

LIA

Conquest

3

0

1

2

1

Total 7

Enclosed Settlement

1

5

1

9

9

25

Unenclosed Settlement

1

1

1

2

1

6

Oppidum

0

0

1

2

2

5

?

0

1

0

1

1

3

Total

5

7

4

16

14

46

Table 7. Site type on which vessel examples are found

Feasting facilities and special locations Sites falling into this category date to the later part of the Iron Age and into the Early Roman phases (Table 8). They are mainly enclosed sites and oppida (Table 9). Saham Toney (Brown 1986; Bates 2000) and Fison Way (Gregory 1991) are thought to represent ‘tribal’ centres and it is interesting to note the similarities in the construction and layout of site at Fison Way to Viereckschanzen of Central Europe. As remarked upon in previous chapters, Viereckschanzen are thought to represent feasting arenas (Murray 1995; Wieland 1999) and therefore the variety of feasting evidence found at Fison Way could support this theory. As with the other indicators, there is a preference for these examples to be located near water sources and communication routes (Appendix B, Figures 9-18).

Conquest

Haddenham (HAD IV)

EIA

Settlement

EIA

MIA

M/LIA

LIA

Borough Fen

Borough Fen

Wardy Hill, (Coveney)

Wardy Hill (Coveney)

Fison Way

Wardy Hill, (Coveney)

Sheepen

Sheepen

PuckeridgeBraughing

Stansted ACS

Quidney Farm, Saham Toney

Fison Way

PuckeridgeBraughing

Fison Way

Skeleton Green

Quidney Farm, Saham Toney

Gosbecks

Stansted DCS

Fison Way

Haddenham (Snow Farm)

Stansted DCS

Gosbecks

Woodham Walter

Haddenham (Snow Farm)

16

14

Conquest

Trumpington 0

2

4

9

6

Table 6. Examples of Preparation and Serving Vessels Table 8. Examples of special locations and feasting facilities

54

In terms of settlement types where these examples are found, there is a noticeable increase in association with enclosures (Table 7, Figures 14-18). However, this could merely highlight the changing nature of settlement evidence during this period. A few examples are also appearing on the new settlement types of the later Iron Age

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

Site Type

EIA

MIA

M/LIA

LIA

Conquest

Total

Enclosed Settlement

0

Oppidum

0

0

1

2

1

4

Settlement

0

0

0

1

0

1

?

0

0

0

1

1

2

Total

0

2

4

9

6

21

2

3

5

4

Single Burial

14

Cemetery Total

LIA

Conquest

Total

10

8

18

7

2

9

17

10

27

Table 11. Site type for the existence of aggrandisers LIA

Conquest

Total

12

9

21

5

1

6

17

10

27

Isolated Burial/Cemetery

Table 9. Site type on which special locations and feasting facilities occur

Settlement Context Total

Existence of Aggrandisers

Table 12. Location of these burials

Unsurprisingly this particular category is confined entirely to the LIA and Conquest period (Table 10). Their geographical spread is restricted to the south-eastern corner of the study area, with Snailwell (Lethbridge 1954) representing the most northerly limit of the distribution (Appendix B, Figures 9-13). Of course this later part of the Iron Age witnessed the emergence of a new burial rite, cremation, and the construction of cemeteries (Table 11). Many of these burials are furnished with items associated with food and drink. The rich so-called ‘chieftain’ burials are located in the traditional seats of power – Camulodunum, Verulamium. There are then a number which are associated with the newly emerged settlement types – oppida, e.g. Baldock (Burleigh 1982; Stead and Rigby 1986), Welwyn (near Wheathampstead) (Smith 1912) (Table 12, Figures 1418). The rest are located within settlement contexts, which were perhaps trading centres, e.g. Heybridge, or are located near to transport routes and would therefore potentially have access to importations or vessels and food (see discussion in Chapter Six and Seven for further detail).

Prestige Good and Items of Etiquette These items are primarily metal vessels and date to the later Iron Age and Early Roman period (Table 13). These vessels are associated mainly with drinking, such as the spouts from Beck Row (Sealey 2004), Ashmanhaugh (Norfolk Historic Environment Record (HER)), and the strainers to which they would once have been attached to, e.g. Ingoldisthorpe (Norfolk HER) and Ardleigh (Sealey 1999b). The distribution of these items is concentrated within the Suffolk and Norfolk region, a pattern which stands in stark contrast to the remaining criteria (Figures 913). Many are isolated finds which can be explained partly by the active presence of metal detectorists within this region (Table 14, Figures 14-18). They are located close to watersources and in areas of low-density occupation (see discussion in Chapter Six and Seven for further detail). EIA Elvedon

LIA

MIA Elvedon

Conquest

M/LIA Beck Row, Mildenhall

LIA

Conquest

Ardleigh

Willingham Fen

Ashmanhaugh

Folly Lane

Hinxton

Snailwell

Snailwell

Birchangar

Ingoldisthorpe

Woodcock Hill, Saham Toney

Ardleigh

Knebworth

Snettisham

Icklingham

Birchangar

Lexden

Lakenheath

Welwyn

Stansted DFS

Woodcock Hall, Saham Toney

Lexden

Stanway

Elvedon

Brandon

Maldon Hall Farm

Baldock

Brandon

Beck Row, Mildenhall

North Shoebury

Folly Lane

Stansted DFS

St Stephens

Stanway

Verulamium

Beck Row, Mildenhall 1

Harpenden

1

1

8

7

Table 13. Examples of prestige items and items of etiquette

West Mersea

EIA

MIA

M/LIA

LIA

Conquest

Hertford Heath

Settlement

0

0

1

2

3

King Harry Lane

Enclosure

0

0

0

0

0

St Stephens

Isolated Find

0

0

0

4

2

Verulamium

Burial

0

0

0

0

1

?

1

1

0

2

1

Total

1

1

1

8

7

Baldock

17

10

Table 10. Examples for the existence of aggrandisers

55

Table 14. Site type and context in which prestige items and items of etiquette are found

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Date and Rate of Discovery

and ubiquitous in the archaeological record. Blitz (1993), through a study of consumption at Mississippian sites, demonstrated that while pottery types and styles may remain constant between domestic and communal activities, vessel sizes might diverge. Within the public context of mounds, vessel size was noticeably larger than in the strictly domestic contexts due to the need to prepare and serve large quantities of food (Blitz 1993: 90). However, it must be noted that the need to prepare and serve large quantities of food could be met by an increased number of standard sized domestic vessels. Knight’s (2001) research into Woodland period platform mounds in eastern North America concluded that vessels used in feasting activities did not exceed the vessel sizes of those found in ordinary domestic contexts. Further evidence from the Mississippian Moundsville polity demonstrates that pottery that was used as diacritical markers in feasting activities was dependent on the level of the political hierarchy of contemporary sites (Welch and Scarry 1995: 413-414). The differences in pottery consumption highlighted in these three New World examples are related to the level of hierarchical, social and political integration at the sites. Despite the presence of the same pottery styles and types, their usage differs markedly. The remains of ceramic vessels from Early Dynastic society in Mesopotamia suggest the mass distribution of foodstuffs

As discussed in Chapter Three, the rate and date of discovery can have a marked effect on the archaeological record and can potentially distort results. As both Table 15 and Figure 19 show, the majority of finds date to the post-war era. Urban expansion and redevelopment that took place in the region, in particular Hertfordshire and Essex can explain these numbers. There is a peak in the discovery of vessels and food associated with feasting during 1970s and 1980s. Many of these finds are related to large-scale excavations, such as Baldock (Stead and Rigby 1986) or Stansted Airport (Havis and Brooks 2004). There are fewer sites with evidence for food, facilities and vessels that were found during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. A number of finds of prestige items were found in the nineteenth century, as were some important burial groups of the Iron Age, such as Welwyn (although the most famous grave from this area was discovered during the construction of the Garden City in 1960s (Stead 1967)). This more than likely reflects the concerns of antiquarians at that time – an interest in attractive artefacts. It also reflects a period of history when the act and art of collecting were becoming in vogue (Levine 1986; Pearce 1995). Date of Discovery

Food/Preparation/ Disposal/Storage

Feasting Facilities/ Special Locations

Aggrandisers

Vessels - Serving/ Preparation

Prestige Items/ Items of Etiquette

1840-1900

1

0

3

1

5

1900s

1

0

1

0

0

1910s

0

0

0

0

0

1920s

0

0

1

0

0

1930s

1

1

1

0

0

1940s

0

0

0

0

1

1950s

3

0

3

1

1

1960s

2

0

5

3

0

1970s

11

1

3

7

1

1980s

6

3

3

6

1

1990s

4

2

1

2

4

2000-2005

3

0

0

0

0

and liquids, probably for on-the-spot consumption (Pollock 2003: 31). The containers, especially the shallower varieties, would not have been easy to transport when full, this enhancing the suggesting that they were used to distribute foodstuffs which were consumed in the context of labour for impersonal institutions (Pollock 2003: 31).

Table 15. Date of discovery for the five feasting categories in East Anglia

Table 15 highlights an increase in discovery rates during the later part of the twentieth century, especially among finds associated with food and vessels. The discovery rate of burials remains fairly constant over time, with very little marked increase or decrease. The same can be said for feasting facilities and special locations, although there is a dearth of evidence during the first half of the twentieth century.

Food, pots and politics are intimately linked. The study of ceramics can be turned from more traditional uses, such as markers of chronology and exchange, to explore the complexities of commensal politics. Ceramic vessels serve in the mediation of political power. They offer many provocative insights into the negotiation of power relations and the process of politics in past societies and can be used to move beyond the understanding society based purely on their structure and typology. Rather than simply looking at ceramics as signifiers of ethnicity, time period or status,

Pottery and Feasting

56

As highlighted in Chapter Three, pottery is a primary means of addressing feasting, as it is practical (preparation, storage, serving), socially symbolic (decoration, style)

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

we can now focus on the active role of pots as functioning objects and the relationship between pottery and food in articulating, defining and negotiating identity and power.

aggrandisers borrowing foreign ceramic technology for personal advantage in displays of competitive feasting (Clarke and Blake 1994). Here, ceramics were initially

Number of Sites

12 10 8

Food/Preparation/Disposal/ Storage

6

Feasting facilities/special locations

4

Aggrandisers

2 Vessels – serving/preparation

-1 90 19 0 00 19 s 10 19 s 20 19 s 30 19 s 40 19 s 50 19 s 60 19 s 70 19 s 80 s 20 199 0 00 -2 s 00 5

0

18 40

Prestige items/items of etiquette

Date of Discovery

Figure 19. Line graph illustrating rates of discovery for the five feasting categories

adopted more for their power to impress than for their culinary potential in food preparation.

Pots are tools, as proposed by Braun (1983) and are used for storing, preparing, cooking and serving food and drink: the ‘foodways’ of societies. This term refers not only to food preparation technology and the types of foods consumed, it also encompasses the social aspects of food such as the conventions of the meal; how cooking and eating reflect and reproduce the structure of family life; the use of meals to incorporate or distinguish, express or compete for status. Viewing pottery in this light allows archaeologists to move away from the more technological and functional ceramic analysis, and develop the notion that the need for specific types of ceramic vessels is directly related to how specific cultural foodways require vessels to prepare and serve certain foods and drinks in specific ways.

I have looked at the presence of new pottery types within the context of feasting (Ralph 2006), particularly within the region of East Anglia. East Anglia provides an interesting case study for there was no simultaneous change in LIA styles of pottery across East Anglia from c. 125 to 75BC. Rather, some northern parts of the region still used MIA tradition pottery after the Roman conquest. It is important to ask why southern East Anglia developed LIA tradition pottery so early and why other areas continued with MIA tradition pottery for much longer? If changes in pottery forms, deposition and production can be linked to wider aspects of social discourse, feasting may provide an analytical tool with which to understand these ceramic variations. These ceramic variations within the region could indicate significantly different foodways in different cultural environments. A striking feature of early first century AD ceramics in northern East Anglia is the relative lack of differentiation and categorisation. There are few shapes and little decoration. In contrast to southern East Anglia, the northern area displays little evidence for social differentiation or hierarchy in the pottery or wider aspects of the foodways these ceramic tools were a part of. It is not because those groups in northern East Anglia were peripheral that Gallo-Belgic pottery or amphorae are extremely rare in these areas. Rather, there was little demand for these forms – be they made locally, in southern East Anglia or further afield. Nor was there the demand for exotic foodstuffs and beverages that were eaten and drunk from them. Whatever changes took place in these areas in terms of cooking and serving meals and the setting and social contexts of such meals as well as larger social discourses they sustained or changed, these changes occurred within the existing foodway traditions (Hill 2002a: 158).

57

Feasting could have influenced the technological or stylistic design of container crafts. Containers that appear at feasting events may in turn influence the ritual process of informal meals within households; they do not go into hiding after feasts are over. Design changes brought about by feasting events can reverberate beyond these formal occasions – thus expanding the influence of feasting behaviours across multiple domains of social action. Practical qualities are tied to the preparation and consumption of foodstuffs. These are determined by the context of use (public vs. private), the contents (liquids vs. solids) and the social composition of such events (individuals vs. extended families and households). They also depend on the transfer of knowledge and access to specific manufacturing materials and can be associated with specific cultural groups or identities. The role of pottery in enhancing the social occasion of eating and feasting has been suggested as a reason for its original adoption in many societies. It is argued that in Mesoamerica, the adoption of ceramics was as a result of

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Categories are a product of peoples’ thinking on and practical engagement with their worlds and these are subsequently expressed through the use of new types and forms of pottery in specific contexts. The increased demand for these new types of pottery forms could be suggested to be linked to the introduction of the potter’s wheel, which would have been employed to meet this demand through the production of indigenous imitation wares. When technologies become affordable by a large number of people in communities, élites or incipient élites may completely abandon these technologies for the production of new prestige items. Alternatively, élites may find ways to embellish the value of objects through either expensive hand-crafted decoration or technical elaboration (Hayden 1995: 263).

capable of producing large litters, are ideal animals to be used for the production of meat for feasts; large quantities can be produced in a relatively shorter time than from cattle or sheep (Albarella and Serjeantson 2002: 35). During the LIA pigs do not form a large percentage of the bones on sites, but at certain sites in the southeast, their remains range between 20 to 50 per cent of the three main species. The sites are all high status, usually oppida, and their material remains are thought to suggest participation in extensive trading networks, particularly with Gaul (Grant 2000: 18). Gallic sites of the same date also display similar percentages. The Roman world and it seems the Gaulish élite in the LIA, valued pork as a delicacy and as a highstatus meat (King 1991: 16). It has been suggested by some that this preference was emulated by Britons in those areas where contact with the continent was strongest and that this could be interpreted as an adaptation of a ‘romanised’ or ‘gallicised’ diet (King 1991: 16). However, in my view it indicates a preference for pork as a feasting food.

Although concentrations of imported prestige items might reflect increasing wealth, the absence of such imports need not indicate a lack of prosperity. Social, political or religious motivations might cause the deliberate exclusion of imported prestige items. Caesar, for example records that in Gaul the Nervii banned the import of wine and other luxuries, which they believed would impair their courage (Bell. Gall. II, 15, 4). The patterns of pottery use in northern East Anglia should not be seen as a product of backwardness nor isolation. These were dynamic societies with contacts between each other and with those to the south. Rather, the maintenance of these ways of life was probably a conscious choice. East Anglia provides an example of an area in which the manifestation of wealth and influence was articulated through insular traditions rather than imported exotica. The conquest period settlement at Thetford, Norfolk, despite requiring the mobilisation and large-scale consumption of both material and human resources in its construction, is impoverished in terms of imported finewares (Healy 1991). As will be shown later, groups in northern East Anglia accommodated and transformed selected elements of the new ceramic traditions but social discourse was carried out in a different field of consumption – the consumption of large amounts of precious metals and coins in hoards. Generally, the paucity of imports in Suffolk and Norfolk stands in stark contrast to the remarkable concentration of gold-alloy neck-torcs and coin hoards recovered from the area.

The relatively high proportions of pig remains at Skeleton Green (sub-site of Braughing) may be interpreted as a confirmation of the importance and comparative wealth of this settlement (Ashdown and Evans 1981; Grant 2000: 443). This large settlement, with its close trading connections with the European mainland, produced an assemblage of pig bones that even outnumbered the cattle bones. The range of imported material goods found during excavation further demonstrates the wealth and importance of Skeleton Green (Partridge 1981). The overall site of Braughing was an important settlement from 50 BC to c. AD 25 with rich assemblages of coins, imported amphorae and finewares. Thereafter, its importance as regional centre appears to have diminished, possibly replaced by Verulamium, until its fortunes were revived after the Roman Conquest. The faunal assemblage consisted of a large percentage of pig bones in the pre-Roman and early Roman phases. In the later phases, sheep become more important and pigs less so. This may be as a result of the decline in the site’s status. Pigs appear to play an important role in sacrifice, ancestor worship and religious/ritual activities (see Hamilakis and Konsolaki 2004 for their archaeological work in Greece, and Rappaport’s (1984) ethnographic research on the subject). Distinctions between the realms of the living and the dead appear to have been inscribed in the choice of species and selection of body parts of the animals that occasionally accompanied the dead. Work by Parker Pearson (1999) in Yorkshire has shown that, in contrast to Wessex, these offerings never included the remains of cattle, though cattle bones are frequently found in pits and features associated with houses. Pig and sheep bones are found in domestic contexts but their deliberate inclusion in Yorkshire burials is in stark contrast to the deposits of cattle skulls and articulated body parts of cattle in settlement contexts (Parker Pearson 1999: 52-3).

Pigs and Feasting

58

Surveys of faunal remains from British sites from a wide period have demonstrated an apparent correlation between relatively high proportions of pig remains and high status occupation (Grant 2000: 443). Pigs are raised specifically to produce meat – the only significant by-product of the living animal is manure. Viewed in this way, a pig becomes a ‘luxury’ animal giving status to those who can afford to feed and eat it (Grant 2002: 18). Therefore, a mark of social difference throughout the British Iron Age may have been the totemic significance of the pig as a highstatus feasting food. Pigs, fast growing animals which are

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

It would seem that the rear (of both sheep and pigs) was reserved for the living. Pig bones placed in graves are always frontal parts (head, ribs and front legs) (Parker Pearson 1999: 53). This selective process is echoed in my research within East Anglia. Sites relatively rich in pig remains or burials accompanied by pig bones appear to be concentrated within the south eastern region of the study area, i.e. Hertfordshire, Essex and southern Cambridgeshire. Examples include cremations such as Baldock (Burleigh 1982, 1995), Birchangar (Medlycott 1994), Stansted (Havis and Brooks 2004), North Shoebury (Wymer and Brown 1995) and Snailwell (Lethbridge 1954). At the King Harry Lane cemetery of the 309 burials recovered from the site, 64 were accompanied with cremated pig remains. Examination of the parts of the pig skeleton present in each burial indicates that only parts of the body were cremated, such as a single left or right limb or joint, or a limb plus the head. It is apparent not only that individual burials were accompanied by restricted parts of the body but that in general heads were preferred (Davis 1989: 250). This preference was also apparent at North Shoebury, Stansted and Birchangar.

refreshment, however, the moral obligations to reciprocate by participating in the work-exchange events of those who have participated in one’s own event are very strong and explicit (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 242). This reciprocation can be in person, or by sending a member of one’s household as a substitute. At work-feasts, reciprocal labour obligations may be very weak, but the lavishness of the hospitality expected is quite significant. With this form of CWE, labour can be mobilised on a much larger scale and projects can be undertaken that would not be possible with work exchanges (such as the construction of defence systems). Work feasts are a more effective way of recruiting workers from a wider social radius, without reference to kinship, neighbourhood affiliation or social status (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243). It is the scale of hospitality (quantity and quality of food and drink offered, as well as the reputation of the host for providing these things) that draws people to participate rather than close social relationships. These are also ad hoc events that are mounted for specific projects and do not form part of a permanent cyclical organisational structure of labour relations. Therefore, there are not lingering obligations on the part of the host to participate in work feasts of his or her guests (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243).

Junker’s (1999) work on feasting in The Philippines showed that animals such as pigs were viewed as intermediaries between the human and spirit worlds who exchanged their lives to bring ‘vitality’ to the individuals sponsoring the sacrifice. Anyone who participated in consuming the ritual animals’ flesh was also imbued with ‘vitality’ and to some degree shared the supernatural protection afforded by carrying out the sacrificial rites (Junker 1999: 317). Pig skulls were preferred for the head of the pig is viewed as the locus of the animal soul or vital spirit. By possessing this portion of the animal, the consumers are able to transfer the ‘vitality’ or spiritual power of the animal to themselves to ward off the weakening attacks of predatory spirits (Junker 1999: 321). The skulls from Stansted and North Shoebury have been cleaved, and in light of Junker’s observations, this act could be interpreted as a way of physically releasing the spirit of this totemic animal.

There are two forms of work feast: voluntary and obligatory (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 244). In the voluntary work feast, people are drawn to the event simply on the reputation of the host for providing lavish feasts. The obligatory form exists where there is institutionalised central authority, such as chiefs. In these cases, people are drawn to participate because a ruler or public institution has the moral authority to require their presence as a form of labour tribute (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 244). With this in mind, it may be of significance that many of the later Iron Age defence systems of East Anglia are located in what have traditionally been termed as ‘seats of power’. I have spoken of the ‘constructive’ nature of consumption in relation to Viereckschanzen, funerary monuments and middens (Ralph 2005b). Classical authors have referred to use of specific enclosed spaces for sociopolitical purposes, such as feasting, entertainment and jurisprudence (Murray 1995: 135). In the third century BC, Phylarchos related how a wealthy Gaul hosted his present and potential followers with offerings of meat, drink and grain during annual gatherings within fixed enclosures scattered across the landscape (Pauli 1991: 129). In a first century BC passage attributed to Poseidonius (cited in Tierney 1960: 248; Berger 1963), Athenaeus described attempts by the Arvernian nobleman Luernius to maintain a political following by distributing treasure among his adherents and erecting an enormous rectangular enclosure outfitted with vats of costly drink and victuals for their entertainment. Caesar’s (Gallic Wars VI,13) recitation of another fragment from Poseidonius, concerning annual meetings of Gaulish spiritual and judicial leaders at a fixed location, may suggest that religious and legal matters were also undertaken within rectangular enclosures. A

Feasting and the construction of dykes and defence systems

59

One feature of the later Iron Age is the construction of monumental ditches or defence systems. These earthworks would have required a large work force to be gathered in order to construct them. In return for their labour, they would have been treated to food and/or drink, in the form of a feast or ‘work-party’ feast. Work feast is a term used to describe a particular form of the ‘empowering feast’ mode of commensal politics, as proposed by Dietler (1996, 2001), where commensal hospitality is used to orchestrate voluntary collective labour. Collective Work Events (CWE) have two poles; work exchange and work feast. Workexchanges require little to be provided, other than simple

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Viereckschanze may have been where these events were taking place. Interestingly, many of these enclosures are located within close proximity of funerary monuments.

As I noted in Chapter Three, feasting, monumentality and excessive display are interpretative themes echoed by McOmish in his work on middens (1996). Middens represented a series of symbolic events revolving around the preparation, display and consumption of food. Activities such as these were part of an increasingly competitive society with modes of display which included settlement monumentality and the manipulation of everyday material, thus middens made a political and symbolic statement as well as a purely physical one. They symbolise the conspicuous consumption of the agricultural cycle and perhaps the size of the feasting midden itself could become a mark of the status of the feastgivers (Huffman 1996: 20-2). The unusually large deposits associated with middens were placed in particular locations in the landscape so that they would stand out and be noticed. McOmish (1996) believes the middens or feasting sites, visually impressive and conspicuous from nearby settlements, played a pivotal role in a society abruptly changing from one dominated by mainly unenclosed, dispersed, settlement forms to one where boundaries become important, either enclosing domestic space or dividing the wider landscape. Monuments are often thought to have been constructed at times of social tension (cf. Cherry 1984).

When constructed within or near older burial monuments, the Viereckschanzen made reference to the past through manipulation of a landscape that already had structure, creating new meaning perhaps by appealing to the ancestors, highlighting a possible common heritage in order to motivate people to pull together, or showing ancestral inheritance to power and the right to rule. Holding feasts within close proximity of earlier cemeteries may have been an attempt to maintain and reinforce existing relationships (Murray 1995: 139). The patterning of Viereckschanzen in the landscape (appearing within a few kilometres of one another) may also represent rival strategies of feasting and wealth distribution, during which different social groups competed for power and influence by constructing enclosures and providing feasts for present and potential adherents. Viereckschanzen were a distinctive element of the late Iron Age landscape that was created as people produced and reproduced the conditions of their lives. The construction of certain Viereckschanzen in reference to early Iron Age cemeteries may suggest a process of legitimation or naturalisation through an appeal to traditional social and political structures.

Figure 20. Ditch Systems around Camulodunum

60

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

61

Figure 21. Distribution of defensive ditch systems in East Anglia

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

I would argue that feasting was about creating lasting political bonds and these could have been expressed physically in the landscape through the construction of lasting monumental statements such as funerary monuments or middens. Large deposits, such as middens, were placed in particular location in the landscape to make physical and socio-political statement. Food, being one of the most powerful embodied mnemonic devices, can play a key role in the production of remembering events of importance, on both a personal and group level. When this is coupled with a location within a landscape that has been deliberately chosen for variety of reasons, be it social, political or economic, the mnemonic power of these events is increased. The host has shrewdly created an opportunity where participants will always remember this particular event and the resulting discussions and outcomes of that feast. Both host and attendee will always associate a certain feasting event with a particular location and vice versa, thus never forgetting what happened at that occasion.

Bicham Ditch, Devils Ditch and the Foss Ditch (WadeMartins 1974; Davies 1996: 75-7). These earthworks, which are in the main a single bank and ditch, have undergone little archaeological investigation, hence the uncertainty regarding their date. Only the Laun Ditch has any conclusive evidence that it is at least pre-Roman. Excavation of one section of this ditch showed that it was cut by a Roman road, and in a field twenty-five metres to the west, a series of postholes dating to the Iron Age were found arranged in a linear formation running parallel to the ditch (Gurney 1993). The other ditch with possible prehistoric connections is the Bicham Ditch, which appears to be associated with the hillfort at Narborough. Only one such example is known from Suffolk: Black Ditches. This runs in a more or less straight line, but in two sections, extending for 5.45km from the south side of the River Lark in Cavenham, across the Icknield Way, to Risby Poor’s Heath. The earthwork is undated, but a section cut across it in 1992 revealed a second and narrower ditch running parallel to it but 10m to the east, and this contained sherds of a LIA ‘Belgic’ cordoned jar (Caruth 1992). There is a significant cluster of Iron Age sites immediately to the east of the Black Ditches, out of which grew the major Roman settlement of Camboritum/Camborico at Icklingham (Martin 1999: 90). Of course, these features may have served a ceremonial purpose, as well as a purely functional one. They could have served as routes to special locations, where feasting, amongst other activities, took place.

The construction of defence and dyke systems can be viewed as social, political and economic statements. As mentioned, their construction would have required a substantial workforce and would surely have been a pronounced political statement for an individual (or group) who was able to gather such labour. In East Anglia, these earthworks are largely confined to the southeast of the region (Hertfordshire, Essex and southern Cambridgeshire) (Figure 21). Many are associated with sites termed as oppida, such as Camulodunum, Verulamium and Braughing, or rich burials, e.g. Welwyn and Baldock.

Consuming the other – metal and coin hoards

The major oppidum of Camulodunum is surrounded by a complex of dykes and settlements (Figure 20). Excavations has shown that the majority of the dykes should be attributed to the later Iron Age (Hawkes and Crummy 1995). The Verulamium/Welwyn area contains a number of oppida and dykes. To the north of Prae Wood lies Devil’s Dyke which provides an outer line of defence for the settlement at Verulamium. West of the River Ver is the massive linear earthwork known as Beech Bottom Dyke. To the north-east of Verulamium is Wheathampstead and this oppidum is surrounded by the Devil’s Dyke. To the east of Welwyn and in the vicinity of Welch’s Farm lies a major defended settlement. This site is surrounded by rich burials (Mardlebury to the north; Welwyn Garden City to the south and Hertford Heath to the south-east). Welch’s Farm was apparently enclosed by major ditches, but it is not known if multiple dyke systems were involved and how the oppidum related, in defensive terms, to the nearby River Mimram.

The introduction of coinage is a key defining feature of the LIA and Conquest period and many of the metal items found in hoards date to this period too. An important factor to consider with regards to these metal finds is that of recycling. Metal vessels may have been more ubiquitous than actually represented in the archaeological record. Their survival rate, when compared to ceramics, is considerably lower due to differential rates of preservation and the opportunity to melt the items down and to re-work them. The majority of metal artefacts known from Norfolk have been recovered by metal–detectorists or by chance discovery. Since the 1970s Norfolk has had a policy of recording metal-detected finds on its county Sites and Monuments Record (Hutcheson 2004: 2). Neither Suffolk nor Cambridgeshire have seen the quantity of metaldetected material recorded, or the high level of material recorded with eight figure grid references. As such, the data from each county are not comparable, making subregional patterns in the distribution and deposition of metal finds potentially meaningless. Therefore, a further distortion in the region as a whole is possible.

Few dykes or defence systems are known from Cambridgeshire, Norfolk or Suffolk. Brent Ditch in Cambridgeshire blocks the Icknield Way 3.5km north of Great Chesterford. There are a number of linear ditches in Norfolk that are thought to be prehistoric in origin. These five linear features are located towards the west of the county and comprise the Laun Ditch, Panworth Ditch,

62

Hutcheson’s (2004) research on metalwork deposition in

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

Norfolk is particularly informative for she notes a number of patterns in the placing of these hoards within the landscape. There was a general move away from depositing hoards of metalwork and coins in remote places in the landscape from the second century BC through to the first century AD (Hutcheson 2004: 89). For example, torc hoards (Phase One) all seem to have been deposited in areas where there is no apparent evidence of other later Iron Age material in the immediate vicinity. The same is true of Phase One items of horse equipment. During Phase Two and Three, fifty per cent of Iceni silver coin hoards are located in areas where other later Iron Age material has been recovered. This is also the case for all Phase Three hoards of horse equipment. By the first century AD, then, it would seem that there is a move away from depositing hoards in remote places, and instead, there is growing emphasis on placing hoards in areas that are within close proximity to other Iron Age ‘activity’ (Hutcheson 2004: 89).

imports in Suffolk and Norfolk stands in stark contrast to the remarkable concentration of gold-alloy neck-torcs and coin hoards recovered from the area. The LIA distribution (see Appendix B, Figure 22) highlights these differences. In southern East Anglia (Hertfordshire, Essex and southern Cambridgeshire) coin and metal hoards are relatively few in number and tend to be associated with settlements, rather than in isolation, as would appear to be the case in the northern part of the region. Both metal and coin hoards are sited in riverine or coastal locations, which is a pattern that is repeated during the Conquest period (see Appendix B, Figure 23). It is interesting to note the distribution of bronze, silver and gold coin finds in the region when compared to feasting sites. Of course coin distributions are not entirely representative of coin usage and can in the context of my research, provide information concerning the varying forms of ‘consumption’. Haselgrove’s (1987) seminal work on coin finds in south-east England is important when considering the distribution of coin finds. In analysing the dominant coin metals on settlements, Haselgrove identified different kinds of coin-using areas (1987). He identified a number of gold-using ‘peripheries’ and a restricted distribution for silver and bronze. However, silver in central southern England and bronze throughout the rest of his study area are restricted to a more limited territory of origin and within these zones, the pattern of distribution differs further. The southern silver has a relatively uniform distribution, whereas the south-eastern and eastern silver and bronze are more clustered, with losses concentrated on the major nucleated settlements and their satellites (Haselgrove 1987: 217). Figures 24 to 29 (see Appendix B) highlight this distribution within the region of East Anglia.

A number of areas within Norfolk display high densities of later Iron Age metalwork. One such area is Fring where there is continuous deposition of metalwork and coin hoards within the landscape from the second century BC through into the first century AD. A Romano-Celtic temple site is centrally placed within the Fring landscape (Hutcheson 2004: 90). No excavation has taken place here to know if an earlier Iron Age structure stood there, such as at Hayling Island (Downey et al. 1978, 1979) or Frilford (Bradford and Goodchild 1939). As Hutcheson (2004: 91) suggests, even if the temple is not placed on a pre-existing structure, it was perhaps placed within a landscape where the deliberate deposition of metal finds was a known and repeated practice. A similar pattern also occurs at North Creake and at Snettisham, where a ditch dating to the later first century AD was dug round the base of the hill to enclose the hoard area. These three examples are located in areas where there are concentrations of other potentially votive metalwork deposits. This would suggest that the practice of burying metalwork and coins in this region is a continuous tradition; the material changes, but the practice remains the same (Hutcheson 2004: 92). There is also a shift away from depositing metalwork and coins in remote places in the landscape. These three examples were remote locations, devoid of evidence for other later Iron Age material in the second and first centuries BC, and became ‘bounded’ places in the later first century AD (Hutcheson 2004: 92).

Haselgrove suggested that these patterns related to differences in socio-political organisation, i.e. goldonly usage is associated with the more decentralised communities and bronze and silver with the more obviously centralised polities (1987: 217). This pattern is to an extent exemplified in the high number of bronze and silver coins found in Essex and Hertfordshire (and to a lesser extent in Cambridgeshire), when compared to Norfolk and Suffolk (Table 18), and the same is true when gold finds from these latter counties are compared to Essex and Hertfordshire (Table 18). The different types of regional distribution that silver and bronze display may be less a function of their use in different kinds of transactions than a reflection of the different cultural forms and settlement patterns through which these transactions were mediated, according to Haselgrove (1987: 217). He suggests that there is a definite association of coin deposition with the leading settlements and probable residences of the élite (1987: 217), a pattern which is displayed in the coin data for East Anglia (see Appendix B, Figures 24-29). In looking at the ‘peripheries’, gold shows the characteristics

63

Generally speaking, northern East Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk) has very little evidence for the importation of finewares and amphorae, when compared with southern East Anglia. Communities in northern East Anglia accommodated and transformed selected elements of the new ceramic traditions but social discourse was carried out in a different field of consumption – the consumption of large amounts of precious metals and coins, represented in the archaeological by hoards. Generally, the paucity of

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

of a ‘primitive valuable’. It was a means of acquiring superior, political, social and religious roles. Gold coins display an extensive uniform distribution as a result of exchange and alliance formation. Bronze on the other hand, and even silver, look more like forms of ‘early cash’ (Haselgrove 1987: 217). They were part of small market or controlled transaction and their distribution is either restricted or clustered, i.e. restricted by transaction or confined to a territory (Haselgrove 1987). County

Cambs

Essex

Herts

Norfolk

Suffolk

Coin Type

be considered ‘ports of trade’, e.g. Braughing, Heybridge and Colchester. It is on these types of sites where some feasting sites are also located. The other feasting examples are not found in conjunction with large numbers of coins and would seem to highlight different areas of ‘consumption’. Tables 16 and 17 and Figures 25 and 28 show that there are more instances where large numbers of silver coins are found in particular locations. As with the bronze coin distributions, a number of feasting sites are found in

Number of Coins per Location 1

2

3

4

5

6-10

11-25

25-50

51-150

151-300

301-450

451+

Bronze

17

3

4

3

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Silver

17

3

2

1

1

4

3

0

0

0

0

0

Gold

20

5

3

0

2

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

54

11

9

4

4

8

3

0

0

0

0

0

Bronze

19

9

1

1

0

4

7

1

2

0

0

1

Silver

18

4

2

0

0

4

3

0

0

0

0

0

Gold

36

11

2

1

4

4

2

1

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

73

24

5

2

4

12

12

2

1

0

0

1

Bronze

7

2

1

0

5

1

1

0

4

1

0

0

Silver

7

3

3

2

0

2

4

0

0

0

0

0

Gold

12

2

1

1

0

6

1

0

0

1

0

0

TOTAL

26

7

5

3

5

9

6

0

4

2

0

0

Bronze

26

9

2

0

2

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

Silver

14

4

2

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Gold

37

9

4

2

1

4

1

0

1

0

0

0

TOTAL

77

22

8

2

3

6

1

1

1

1

0

0

Bronze

30

15

2

5

1

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

Silver

38

8

2

5

3

5

3

2

0

0

1

0

Gold

31

11

1

3

1

4

2

2

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

99

34

5

13

5

12

6

4

0

0

1

0

Table 16. Coins finds by county 1

2

3

4

5

6-10

11-25

25-50

51-150

151-300

301-450

451+

Bronze

99

38

10

9

9

Silver

94

22

11

8

4

10

9

1

6

2

0

1

16

13

3

0

0

1

Gold

136

38

11

7

0

8

21

6

3

1

1

0

TOTAL

329

98

32

24

0

21

47

28

7

7

3

1

1

conjunction with large finds of silver coins. However, these are less numerous than those associated with bronze coins. There is certainly a more pronounced distinction between feasting sites and silver coin deposits.

Table 17. Coins finds according to metal type Cambs

Essex

Herts

Norfolk

Suffolk

TOTAL

58

914

529

263

121

1886

Silver

104

104

110

73

618

1009

Gold

68

196

301

256

197

1018

230

1214

940

592

936

3912

Bronze

TOTAL

This distinction is more apparent when the feasting sites are compared with gold coins (Figures 26 and 29). The distribution of gold coins could represent the retention of wealth, i.e. gold coins are less likely to be lost and instead a representation of aggrandisement. The largest concentrations of gold coins are found on sites traditionally regarded as ‘seats of power’, e.g. St Albans, Colchester. One exception is Snettisham, which is well-known for both its rich metal and coin hoards. This in itself highlights different forms and levels of consumption, i.e. metals vs. food or ceramics.

Table 18. Number of coins per county

64

In East Anglia, the distribution of bronze coins indicates areas of trade and exchange. Figures 24 and 27 (and Tables 16 and 17) show that the majority of finds are those of single, individual coins, many of which are in the eastern part of the region (potentially a product of the work of metal detectorists). The larger number of finds are located on sites, which could

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

General Summary

large, unenclosed, agglomerations of round-houses and other structures (Hill 1999: 190). Excavations rarely find the edges of these sites, probably due to the constant shifting nature of these settlements. These more open and ‘wandering’ settlements thus make habitable sites difficult to define either through intrusive or non-intrusive research. Feasting examples relating to food are in close proximity to burials or cemeteries and there is another ‘food’ site and a vessel example which are located near to shrines or religious sites. The sites with evidence for the deposition of both serving and preparation vessels would seem to favour the coastal areas or estuarine locations, where as those from the food category appear both inland in riverine settings and long the south coast of Essex. This period is limited in terms of types of feasting evidence, i.e. primarily food and vessel indicators.

From a brief analysis of the data, there would appear to be seven groupings of evidence. These areas are highlighted on Figures 30-34 (Appendix B). 1. Coastal distribution – Essex coast 2. Chalkland distribution – Hertfordshire 3. Riverine distribution -

Ouse

-

Nene

-

Little Ouse/Lark

-

Gipping

-

Bure/Yare

During the MIA, settlement in general increases in number but there is still the tendency for habitation to be focused on the riverine valleys or coastal areas. There is once again a clear distinction in habitation between the eastern and western halves of the region. The number of feasting examples also increases during this period too. The River Ouse feasting distribution becomes more pronounced during this period and the chalkland cluster begins to emerge. The distribution associated with the tributaries of the Ouse is more noticeable. Both burials and shrines, much like the earlier Iron Age distribution, are focused on the river valleys and are in relative proximity to feasting sites. For both the EIA and MIA is would seem that there is no clear distinction made between areas for the living and those for the dead. Food sites appear to have two distinct distributions; inland riverine locations and coastal areas. Sites with vessel deposits seem to be concentrated in the south of the region, near the coast. There is of course the one exception nestled in the chalk upland area. This pattern could however be a result of pottery adoption within the region. There was no simultaneous change to LIA styles of pottery across East Anglia from c. 125 to 75 BC. Rather, some northern parts of the region still used MIA tradition pottery after the Roman conquest. Feasting locations appear in the archaeological record at this point and are located in the north of the region and prefer the river valley location.

These groupings are clearly focused on water sources, transport and communication routes. During the earlier Iron Age, although not as distinct as the later period, there is certainly a preference for these locations. The feasting sites appear in fairly populated areas which, much like the settlement data, cluster around rivers, estuaries and coastal zones. There is a noticeable difference in settlement evidence between the Norfolk/Suffolk area and the Cambridgeshire/Hertfordshire/Essex region. In part this probably is a feature of increased archaeological investigations in response to urban expansion into the latter area. Norfolk and Suffolk have a lower population density when compared to the rest of the region and thus there is not the pressure for development, which would require archaeological evaluations as part of PPG 16. However, there is the possibility that settlement is harder to define in the eastern half of the region. One of the most distinctive features of northern East Anglia in the later Iron Age is the paucity of enclosed sites of all sizes, be they farmsteads, ring works or hillforts (Champion, T. 1994; Davies 1996). Hill (1999) characterises much of Iron Age Britain as having ‘spotty’ settlement landscapes, i.e. discrete, spatially isolated and bounded settlement entities which can be represented as neat dots on a map; a landscape full of small enclosed farmsteads with their surrounding fields, with perhaps the occasional much larger enclosed hillfort. Norfolk and Suffolk, in contrast, are characterised by a ‘spurgy’ settlement landscape (Hill 1999: 190). The failure to find evidence for a ‘spotty’ settlement pattern is partly due to the fact that these discrete isolated settlement units are largely invisible, because they were not physically enclosed. Not only were settlements unenclosed in this region, they appear as spreads of material and settlement components extending over large areas, i.e. relatively

65

The transitional phase from the MIA to the LIA reiterates these general patterns. Vessel deposits associated with feasting are concentrated in the coastal areas, whereas feasting locations are concentrated more in the north of the region. The later Iron Age is marked by an increase in settlement, particularly onto the chalkland and numbers of burials and cemeteries. The latter of course is a defining feature of this period and therefore it is not surprising to witness this increase. Linked to this observation is the appearance of burials which provide evidence to support the existence of aggrandisers. These rich burials are concentrated in the south of the region with the Snailwell grave in Cambridgeshire the most northerly example. They cluster around river valleys and coastal zones and are in

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

particularly prominent in areas which have traditionally been associated with centres of power, such as St Albans or Colchester. The seven distinct distribution groups are now apparent. During the LIA more feasting examples are known from the northern areas of the region, although many of these are items of prestige or etiquette. However, they do seem to cluster in the eastern half of the area. It is worth noting that many of these deposits are isolated finds and probably reflect and highlight the high level of metal detecting activity within that sub-region. The western half of the region appears to be dominated by sites with evidence for food. This is in contrast to the south- east where there are more vessel ‘deposits’. The feasting locations do not appear to be in significantly populated areas, which would suggest that they served communities brought together over much larger distances rather than just the immediate area. The LIA would seem to be the peak in feasting activity and this may relate to the political climate at the time, particularly regarding the imminent arrival of the Roman army on British soil. It could also be related to dramatic social changes too, i.e. the movement of populations into previously uninhabited areas. Feasting would have provided the perfect tool for renegotiating the social vacuum created by this shift in population. I will discuss these ideas in more detail in Chapters Six and Seven.

commanding view down a river valley or towards the Thames estuary or the coast, e.g. Loughton, Ambresbury, Wallbury, Ring Hill, Weald Park, Langdon Hills, Downham Grange, Danbury, Asheldham and Pitchbury. The settlement morphology is more diverse during the MIA. There are small farmsteads or hamlets, sprawling and amorphous sites like Mucking, open villages such as Little Waltham and enclosed defended sites. Although many settlements are enclosed, it would be mistaken to think in terms of a general trend towards enclosure in the MIA because such sites are also known for the EIA. The later Iron Age is marked by the appearance of oppida and sites of town-like proportions. Enclosed sites increase in numbers, as does the general occupation of the region.

There is a slight decline in number of feasting sites during the Conquest period, which like the LIA could reflect the ever-changing social, political and economic situation. This decline in feasting indicators, such as food, vessels and locations, is in stark contrast to the increasing numbers of items of prestige and etiquette and coin and metal hoards. The Ouse, Nene, Gipping and coastal groups and to a certain extent the chalkland area, all decrease in terms of distribution. This is in contrast to the Lark distribution which expands in numbers, but mainly deposits of prestige items. These sites are in apparently sparsely populated areas, although broadly speaking there is a general decrease in settlement evidence for this period. Many of the other feasting sites in the south, which during the LIA were in populated areas, are now in locations that have witnessed a significant decrease in habitation.

Earlier Iron Age (EIA and MIA) feasting sites are located in populated areas, which are dominated by unenclosed settlements and generic ‘settlements’ (as defined by each respective county SMR). It is in the size of particular ‘feasting’ deposits that make them stand out in the archaeological record. This period has evidence for food (including its preparation, storage and disposal) as well as vessels associated with preparation and serving. It is interesting to note the clear distinction in location of both the food and vessel deposits. Vessel sites are located on rivers, whereas the food examples are located away from rivers, closer to the coast.

This general pattern is also highlighted in the site type of feasting data from this region (Tables 19 and 20); the earlier Iron Age examples appear in unenclosed or hillfort locations and during the later Iron Age more feasting deposits are found on enclosed settlements and oppida. The existence of aggrandisers is present in the burial record of this particular area and appear as single cremation burials or as part of a cremation cemetery. Only one example of items of prestige or etiquette is present and this appears on an unenclosed settlement.

The coastal site of North Shoebury (Site 30) produced a large quantity of carbonised peas from a shallow hearth base, which lay to the west of the main area of settlement (Wymer and Brown 1995). Remains of pulse crops are in general uncommon at British prehistoric sites (Murphy 1995: 146) and therefore this very large sample of charred peas, comprising almost 5000 seeds, is of particular interest. The possible large-scale preparation of food was found at Linford (Site 27), which produced four cooking pits and three hearths (Barton 1962). There were five postholes placed round one of the hearths; four of which were square above the hearth and the smaller fifth placed nearer to it. This would suggest that a frame, supported by four stakes was built over the fire upon which vessels were suspended. Indeed, in another hearth a pottery fragment was found with a pierced rim, perhaps to take some form of suspension. This concentration of cooking facilities could suggest specialised areas in the settlement.

In order to comprehend fully the nature of all the feasting examples, it is necessary to know what the actual deposit consisted of. These descriptions of the data are presented according to the distribution groupings, as defined at the beginning of this section.

Coastal Distribution

66

This coastal region has a stable population density throughout the Iron Age, which increases during the later Iron Age. As highlighted in Chapter Three, during the earlier Iron Age this region is characterised by open settlements and a number of hillforts. Most hillforts are sited on promontories rather than hilltops, with a

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

Food

EIA

MIA

Vessels

North Shoebury

Maldon Beacon Green

Linford

Slough House Farm

Asheldham Camp

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site)

Locations

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site) North Shoebury

MIA/LIA

LIA

Howell’s Farm Elm’s Farm, Heybridge

Ardleigh

Gosbecks

Ardleigh

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site)

Elm’s Farm, Heybridge

Sheepen

Lexden

Woodham Walter

Kelvedon

Maldon Hall Farm

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site)

North Shoebury

Woodham Walter

Stanway

Ardleigh

West Mersea

Conquest

Elms Farm, Heybridge

Elms Farm, Heybridge

Gosbecks

Lexden

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site)

Kelvedon

Sheepen

Stanway

Woodham Walter

Kelvedon (Doucecroft Site) Fox Hall Farm, Southend Woodham Walter

Table 19. Feasting sites in the coastal distribution zone Food

Vessels

EIA

2-Unenclosed

1-Unenclosed 1-Settlement

MIA

1-Unenclosed 1-Hillfort 1-Enclosure

1-Enclosure

MIA/LIA

Location

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

1-Unenclosed

1-Unenclosed

LIA

3-Enclosures

1-Unenclosed 4-Enclosures

2-Oppida

3-Single Burials 3-Cemeteries

Conquest

3-Enclosures

4-Enclosures 1-Unenclosed

2-Oppida

1-Single Burial 1-Cemetery

and its estuary. These pieces rarely occur in the Chelmer valley/Blackwater estuary. Only a few sherds were recovered from Heybridge (Brown 1986), just to the north of Beacon Green. It seems likely that the shell-tempered sherd from Beacon Green may be part of a vessel brought to the site via the Blackwater estuary, possibly from south Essex (Brown 1992: 18). A selective deposition of jars and bowls was found in a pit at Slough House Farm (Site 32). Much like Beacon Green, evidence for burning was present in the lower fill where a high charcoal content accompanied a quantity of Darmsden-Linton pottery (Wallis 1998a). No scorching was present within the pit itself and suggests that the contents had been burnt elsewhere.

Table 20. Site type for feasting data found in coastal distribution zone

Analysis of the vessel deposits reveals that there was more of an emphasis on storage and preparation than the activity of display and serving. The two EIA assemblages are dominated by closed forms (bowls and jars), which is a characteristic feature of this period in general (as highlighted in Chapter Three). Although the actual ceramics are not extraordinary, it is the quantities and context in which they were deposited which distinguishes them from other contemporary sites. At Maldon (Beacon Green) (Site 29) a shallow hollow yielded an assemblage of 2018 pottery sherds (Bedwin 1992: 10). The fills within the hollow were a series of buff-yellow, silty clays, most of which contained some little burnt daub and fire-cracked flint. It seems likely that the pottery was dumped in MBF 11 soon after breakage (Brown 1992: 15). There is evidence of distinction made in the ceramics being used at these feasting events. Of note is one shell-tempered sherd which commonly occurs on EIA sites along the Thames

67

The MIA is similar to the EIA in terms of settlement features and the distribution of feasting sites. There is still this distinction made between sites with evidence for vessels and those for food. Evidence for a grain storage area is present at the hillfort of Asheldham Camp (Site 18). A pit contained two sharply contrasting fills. The black lower fill (63) consisted very largely of charred material (an

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

estimated 40kg), made up of charred grain and charcoal, some of the latter in large lumps, clearly derived from worked wood (Bedwin 1991: 20). There were fragments of oak charcoal from planks, stake tips and the staves perhaps from a small barrel. Within this fill were about 40 large unabraded sherds from a single, thick-walled storage jar in a heavily flint-gritted fabric, of MIA date. The upper fill was a fine, sandy deposit, free of charred material, but containing an almost complete MIA bowl in sandy fabric. Murphy (1991a) suggests that grain (derived from the later stages of crop processing and consumption) was being kept in pottery and wooden vessels.

The collection contained both preparation and serving vessels and included a range of early examples of imported finewares, along with grog-tempered beakers and jars. There are at least five platters, all different and in three different fabrics. The first is a Central Gaulish micaceous terra nigra for Cam 1. Three platters are in terra rubra and the fifth is from Campania. Sherds from a Central Gaulish flagon were also recovered along with a mortarium. There are pieces of at least seven beakers and at least one import, probably Central Gaul. The remaining vessels were locally made, mainly jars, but there is a bowl which would have had a lid however this was not present. All of the sherds join to form exactly half of the vessel (Atkinson pers. comm.). Also present were parts of three Italian Dressel 1b wine amphorae imported from the Campania. Most of the pottery had been burnt to varying degrees and is thought to represent the remains of pyre debris, all be it a selective deposit due to the absence of significant quantities of charcoal and ash suggest there was no shovelling of material into the pit. This is clearly a site that brings people and communities together through trade and exchange of material goods, but a particularly interesting feature (Pit 15417) would suggest this site also brought people together in the exchange of hospitality and commensality.

The later Iron Age witnesses a change in settlement type and in density. More enclosed settlements appear, but there is still a preference for riverine locations with settlement clustering around the rivers Colne and Blackwater. This pattern is also reflected in the location of feasting sites; food and vessels are restricted to the river Blackwater (Heybridge and Kelvedon), whereas the majority of aggrandisers are in close proximity to Camulodunum (Lexden, Stanway) and cluster along river valleys or the coastline (North Shoebury and West Mersea). Special locales are associated with Camulodunum (Gosbecks and Sheepen). There is a marked difference in the assemblage make-up of ceramics during this period. There is a shift in focus from purely preparation (closed) vessels to an interest in serving and display (open vessels). This is represented in the archaeological record with the introduction of new forms of vessels for specific functions and purposes, contrasting with the multi-functional nature of earlier Iron Age ceramics. The later Iron Age also witnessed the importation of some of these new forms and items from Gaul and the Mediterranean. A number of feasting sites in this area exemplify these changes occurring in the ceramic assemblages, e.g. Howell’s Farm (Site 23) (Wallis 1998b) and Kelvedon (Sites 24 and 25) (Rodwell 1988; Clark 1988).

The new material culture of this period testifies to a new interest in the social uses of alcohol and related to the importance of hospitality and competitive feasting. During the later Iron Age imported wine was incorporated into indigenous feasting, alongside native forms of drink. This emphasis on imbibing is particularly significant at the site of Ardleigh (Site 17) and is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Six. The vessels and items of etiquette are unique and of note for they suggest a preference for native forms of alcohol over imported products and highlight indigenous modes of alcohol consumption, which were used alongside the selective acculturation of new pottery forms, which were associated with new types of alcohol. The ‘Cauldron Pit’, a LIA feature located just beyond the western boundary of the settlement, contained pottery copies of bronze vessels. These included five strainer bowls and a cauldron. Late Iron Age and pre-Flavian spouted strainer bowls are found in eastern England between the Thames and the Wash. There is a concentration in the south of the region, centred on Essex and Hertfordshire. The feature contained a Braughing jar, a form common in Hertfordshire and introduced into the Essex area. There was also a beaker dated to c. AD 1050 and these are local copies of Gallo-Belgic girth beakers. The assemblage also included a pedestal urn of first century AD date, a sherd from local copy of terra rubra beaker, bowls, cups and jars (Sealey 1999b).

Many of the ceramic assemblages contain vessels that would suggest an emphasis on drinking. Of course towards the end of the later Iron Age new forms of alcohol (wine) were arriving in Britain, a situation apparent at Sheepen (Site 31) where its amphorae assemblage would suggest it was being supplied by a wide variety of sources, some even as far as Pompeii (Niblett 1985). However, amphorae are not abundant on the majority of sites and do not appear in such quantities as are found in continental Europe. Elms Farm (Heybridge – Site 20) is of particular interest for it is postulated that Heybridge had a dual function as a point of collection and supply of agricultural produce to regional centres and as a service centre for the local community (Atkinson and Preston 1998: 107; Atkinson and Preston forthcoming). The marketplace produced evidence for the preparation and disposal of food, but it is the pottery assemblage found in an oval pit towards the eastern side of the site (Area M), which is of particular interest.

68

Bronze spouted strainer bowls of Late Iron Age and early Roman date have been thought of as wine strainers. However, there are no prototypes from the Roman world that can be used to explain the appearance of these objects in Britain. There is also little direct association of strainer bowls and wine amphorae in Britain. The only example is

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

from the Welwyn ‘chieftain’ burial in Hertfordshire where a spouted strainer was found with five wine amphorae. This item though is thought to have originally been an imported Roman bowl that had been turned into a spouted strainer by a local metalworker. Many of the strainer finds are from areas where wine amphorae are absent in both the Late Iron Age and early Roman periods. We may view the Welwyn example as an isolated attempt to treat imported wine in the same way as local drinks for which the strainers primarily catered, a unique experiment that was apparently not repeated. Examples of bronze prototypes are known from early Roman metalwork hoards, e.g. Brandon (Suffolk) (Grew 1980: 376) and Crownthorpe (Norfolk) (Henig 1995: 35, pl. 17) and Santon Downham (Suffolk). Spouts in the shape of fish have also been found at Felmersham (Bedfordshire), Beck Row (Suffolk) and Ingoldisthorpe (Norfolk) (the latter two will be discussed later on). Of these examples, four have been found in association with cauldrons, further emphasising their use with the consumption of beer. These are Ardleigh, Brandon, Santon Downham and Felmersham. All were made of bronze apart from the handmade pottery cauldron from Ardleigh.

and transference of power upon death. Certainly, the different parts of an animal consumed at a funerary feast may represent different social relationships and statuses among the mourners (Parker Pearson 1999: 59-60). The pig remains found in the graves at North Shoebury are of interest, especially in light of Junker’s (1999) and Parker Pearson’s (1999) research (see detailed discussion above). In people’s cosmologies and perceptions, eating and dying, food and death are closely connected, both homologically and antithetically. Humans are consumed by death, as food and drink are consumed in a mortuary context. In Melanesian societies, mortuary feasting is part of a process crucial in the constitution of social life by constructing memory and forgetting (Hamilakis 1998: 116). Memory can be created through ceremonies which produce bodily sensory and emotional experiences, such as the consumption of food and drink. When these practices are incorporated into the mortuary context, a much more powerful mnemonic device would be produced (Hamilakis 1998: 117). In Melanesia these ceremonies are also about social forgetting, about ‘finishing’ or ‘killing’ the memory, where the social relationships with the deceased are severed and new relationships with the living are initiated (Hamilakis 1998: 117). The location of mortuary feasting may have been chosen especially to enhance the mnemonic power of the event and as a consequence a particular landscape will always retain a special significance for those who attended the funeral.

It is more likely that these vessels catered for a local drink and were used to remove vegetable additives when the drink was served. Sealey (1999b) suggests that they were for serving beer. Study of the residues in a bronze spouted strainer bowl from c. AD 50 grave at Stanway (Essex) indicated the presence of wormwood, a plant native to Britain and used in historical times to flavour ale and other drinks (Sealey 2004: 16). This enjoyment of the local brew is possibly shown on the coins of this region, where ears of barley are depicted.

This emphasis on food and drink is apparent in many of the burials of this distribution area. Of the richest are Lexden (Site 26) (Laver 1927) and the mortuary enclosures of Stanway (Site 37) (Crummy 1993, 1997a, 1997c). One of the biggest chambers at Stanway (Enclosure 3) contained fragments of at least twenty-four vessels from a dinner service, each single one imported. A secondary ‘warrior’ burial contained a copper-alloy pan and jug. There was also a pottery dinner service, amphora, beaker, flagon and cup, all of which had been imported into Britain. A secondary ‘gaming’ or ‘doctor’s’ grave was discovered in Enclosure 5. Along with medical instruments were an amphora, a dinner service of plates and cups made in northern Gaul, a Samian bowl from southern Gaul and a flagon. A copperalloy pan imported from Italy was also present and it appears to have been tinned all over so that it would have looked silvery in colour. The previously mentioned copperalloy straining bowl was also part of the grave goods. At Lexden the remains of a wide range of expensive personal and domestic objects were discovered. There were six Dressel 1B amphorae (dating before c. 10 BC) and thirteen Dressel 2-4 amphorae (c. 15 BC to second century AD). It is not known if any of these vessels had been placed intact in the grave since the fragments were in a part of the grave which had been disturbed in antiquity.

69

A characteristic feature of the LIA and Conquest period is the emergence of a new burial rite (cremation) and the construction of cemeteries. Many of the burials show a concern for feasting in either the afterlife or as part of the funeral itself. The funeral is a moment when individuals must repair the torn fabric of community and engage in the political struggle to re-create society. Murray has argued that the burial places of the early Iron Age in southern Germany were scenes of contentious discourse in which rival versions of socio-political reality were negotiated through the medium of different mortuary rituals and the consumption of material goods, and the construction of various mortuary structures, which then became enduring monuments in the landscape (Murray 1992; 1995: 137), thus becoming physical socio-political statements. An important part of this competitive discourse apparently included feasting, as evidenced by the common placement of comestibles or their containers in most graves, the inclusion of feasting and drinking equipment in élite graves, and hoards of pottery vessels within cemeteries (Murray 1995: 137). There is no indisputable evidence that certain structures or enclosures at Iron Age cemeteries were exclusive arenas for feasts. However, feasting would have been a useful mechanism in inheritance strategies

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Chalkland Distribution

amphorae and high quality glassware support this.

During the earlier Iron Age, this area is characterised by open settlement and a number of hillforts on chalkland promontories. Enclosed settlements are known from this period, but their numbers increase during the later part of the period. Throughout the Iron Age, population expansion into the area is noticeable. There does appear to be a preference for river valley locations and the chalkland ridge, with very little significant movement onto the actual chalk area. This is most likely a question of logistics and a consequence of archaeological investigation. The LIA settlement trend is similar to the coastal distribution and during this period the area witnesses the emergence of oppida and a rise in enclosed settlement, as the landscape becomes increasingly ‘bounded’. This general settlement pattern is apparent in the feasting sites for the area. Tables 21 and 22 highlight a clear trend in increasing enclosure numbers for the LIA and the emergence of new settlement types and burial rites.

During the LIA both the number of settlements and feasting sites increases dramatically. There is a general avoidance of the central upland zone, with the river valleys and chalkland ridge preferred instead. Vessel and food distributions do appear to be confined to the south of this zone, as are the feasting locales. The evidence for aggrandisers is slightly more dispersed, although there is clearly a preference for the river valleys. The change in the ceramic repertoire is more marked during this period. The main enclosure ditch in Area 1 at Foxholes Farm (Site 45) produced a large amount of pottery including beakers, jars, flagons, tazza, bowls, cooking pots and cups. The majority of the vessels are of local production, particularly around the Verulamium area, apart from amphorae sherds. Fragments came from Dressel 1 (Italian origin), Dressel 2-4 (Spanish) and Dressel 20 (Spanish – Gaudalquivir region). Several features at Skeleton Green (Site 52) produced a varied ceramic assemblage (Partridge 1981). Pottery from one pit included a Samian platter and numerous Gallo-Belgic finewares (ten platters, three cups, eleven beakers and six two-handled jugs). There were also sherds from nine micadusted jars, as well as a large assemblage of coarsewares (six platters, eight butt beakers, two bead-rim jars, one necked cup, six pedestal vessels, eight cordoned bowls and jars, fifteen further jars and bowls, three large storage vessels and seven lids). A further pit yielded fragments from ten Samian vessels and a large assemblage of Gallo-Belgic wares (nineteen platters, fifteen cups, ten beakers, rim from a large two-handled jug, rim from a small jug, beaker and small jar). Sherds from 28 mica-dusted jars were also identified along with three forms of amphorae (Dressel 20, oil amphora from Guadalquivir valley, Spain; Dressel 2-4, Campanian wine amphorae; Dressel 7-11, made in Southern Spain and possibly held garum). There were fragments from a mortaria and a variety of coarsewares (three platters, four butt beakers, a bead-rim jar, twelve pedestal vessels, nine small-necked bowls, ten other jars and bowls, eight coarse bowls, nine large storage vessels and four lids). A similar variety of wares came from a deposit at Gorhambury (Neal et al. 1990) (see Appendix A details, Site 46). Not all sites obtained vessels from continental Europe, highlighting the variety in the modes of display and consumption. At Stansted DCS large quantities of Iron Age pottery were recovered from a ditch (241/5/316) (Pottery Group 1). The ditch lay close to a sequence of LIA/early Roman cremations. A late first to third centuries AD pit (108) produced a large quantity of pottery (Pottery Group 2). Group 1 consisted of a large assemblage of grog-tempered wares (mainly jars) and some imported amphora sherds (Italian and Spanish), but no imported fine or tablewares. Group 2 (late first to early second century) produced a group dominated by grey wares and lacking in imports. These included flagons, jars, platter and sherds from a southern Spanish amphorae (Havis and Brooks 2004).

As with the coastal distribution, earlier Iron Age feasting sites are notable more for the size of the deposit than its quality. Vessel deposits display a similar pattern to the coastal pattern, whereby they cluster near river valleys and the chalk ridge, rarely penetrating the interior of the chalk uplands. At Stansted SCS (Site 36), a large quantity of pottery came from pit sequence 2187 in the southwestern corner of the site (c. 80kg of EIA pottery). The assemblage consisted of a large number of jars and bowls, many being fine-wares. It contained a full range of fine and coarse jars, bowls and cups, indicating a variety of functions (Havis and Brooks 2004). Evidence suggests that storage/cooking and consumption may have been carried out in spatially distinct areas. This predominance of closed, preparation vessels is a feature of the pottery of this period and is in keeping with the patterns witnessed in the coastal distribution. During the MIA this pattern continues with regards to pottery assemblages (see Wendens Ambo (Hodder 1982c), Birchangar (Brown 1994) and Foxholes Farm (Partridge 1989)). Food sites for this period are again distinguished from other sites by the sheer size of assemblages. In the case of Foxholes Farm, it is the predominance of pig bones in a deposit which is of interest. Pig, as previously discussed, is often regarded as a high-status feasting food and its outnumbering of cow and sheep bones is always noteworthy. Progressing into the later Iron Age feasting sites remain within the river valleys and on the chalkland ridge. The change in the use of ceramics that was noted in the coastal distribution zone is apparent here as well. A concern with serving and open display vessels is evident in deposits from Puckeridge-Braughing (Site 51). This site is also noteworthy for it is thought to have been a trading centre with extensive and far-reaching trade contacts between Italy and Gaul and the Puckeridge-Braughing region, particularly during the later years of the first century BC (Partridge 1980). The presence of Arretine, Gallo-Belgic imported pottery, 70

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

Food EIA

MIA

Vessels

Stansted SCS

Stansted SCS

Foxholes

Wendens Ambo

Birchangar

Birchangar

Locations

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

Foxholes MIA/LIA

LIA

Aldwick, Barley

Puckeridge-Braughing

Puckeridge-Braughing

Birchangar

Birchangar

Puckeridge-Braughing

Birchangar

Baldock

Wendens Ambo

Stansted ACS

Stansted DFS

Focxholes

Gorhambury

Harpenden

Gorhambury, St Albans

Puckeridge-Braughing

Baldock

Puckeridge-Braughing

Foxholes

Hertford Heath

Skeleton Green, Braughing

Skeleton Green, Braughing

King Harry Lane

Datchworth

Stansted DCS

St Stephens

Puckeridge-Braughing

Upper Millfield Wood, Buntingford

Verulamium

Stansted ACS

Conquest

Welwyn

Birchangar

Birchangar

Birchangar

Baldock

Gorhambury

Stansted DFS

Gorhambury, St Albans

Puckeridge-Braughing

Baldock

Puckeridge-Braughing

Skeleton Green, Braughing

Folly Lane

Skeleton Green, Braughing

Stansted DCS

St Stephens

Folly Lane

Knebworth Verulamium

Table 21. Feasting sites in the chalkland distribution zone Food

Vessels

EIA

1-Settlement

1-Settlement

Locations

MIA

1-Enclosure 1-Settlement

1-Enclosure 1-Unenclosed 1-Settlement

MIA/LIA

1-Settlement 1-Oppidum

1-Oppidum

1-Oppida

LIA

3-Enclosures 3-Oppida 3-Settlement

3-Enclosures 2-Oppida 1-Unenclosed 1-Settlement

1-Oppida 1-Enclosure

Conquest

3-Oppida 1-Enclosure 1-Settlement

2-Oppida 1-Enclosure 2-Settlement

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

5-Cemeteries 4-Single Burials 3-Cemeteries 4-Single Burials

1-Single Burial

This passion for pork is also noted at Stansted ACS (Site 33), where a rectangular enclosure is interpreted as a possible shrine (Havis and Brooks 2004). Two pits (779, 817) located on either side of a rectangular structure (667) produced large quantities of early Roman pottery. Cattle had the lowest frequency of indicators (6 per cent), while pig and sheep/goat were roughly similar (18 per cent and 15 per cent respectively). There appears to be a preeminence of pig in the assemblage and a high incidence of skull fragments. What is interesting is the lack of finewares despite the presence of amphora. The bulk of the coarse pottery is wheel-thrown and in the characteristically grog-tempered fabrics of the later Pre-Roman Iron Age. Virtually absent from the site are imitations of Gallo-Belgic forms, but also vessels of Cam Forms 204, 210 and 212 – the common carinated cup and bowl forms of late Augustan, Tiberian and Tibero-Claudian date. The pottery assemblage is interesting for it would be considered highly unlikely that a site able to acquire wine amphorae would also be unable

Table 22. Site type of feasting examples in the chalkland distribution zone

71

The sites with evidence for the preparation, storage and disposal of food, suggest that this area acquired a taste for pork, particularly in the newly emerging oppidum sites, and that people were eating a distinctly varied diet compared to the earlier Iron Age. At Skeleton Green a pit contained several thick layers of oyster shells and analysis of the faunal remains concluded that remains from sixteen cattle, twentyone pigs, thirteen sheep, two horses, seven chickens and a red deer were present. A further faunal assemblage from a well contained remains from twenty-four cattle, twenty-nine pigs, nineteen sheep, twenty-two chickens and four horses. A small sample of fish bones also came from this deposit and included eel, roach, chub, carp, mackerel, flounder and plaice. This small collection of fish bones included estuarine and marine fish, suggesting the importation of fresh or preserved fish from more distant waters.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

to obtain fine wares. It could instead represent differential consumption strategies and the incorporation of new forms of alcohol into a pre-existing feasting repertoire.

and a tripod vessel. There was also a cup belonging to a class of silver drinking vessels popular in the Mediterranean world, and among the Romans in particular, during the last century BC and the first century AD. There was also a bronze strainer (previously mentioned in relation to Ardleigh) and dish, although the strainer is thought to have originally been an imported Roman bowl that had been turned into a spouted strainer by a local metalworker. To the north at Welwyn, two burials were discovered in 1906 (Smith 1912). The first contained an amphora, two pots (pedestal urn and cup), the base and a handle of a bronze bowl, a handle from a bronze jug, three bronze masks and a pair of iron firedogs. The second burial contained five amphorae, two pots (pedestal urn and cup), two silver cups, bronze patera, bronze jug, tankard with bronze handle and an iron frame (similar to firedogs).

At Baldock several unusual faunal assemblages are recorded (Stead and Rigby 1986). Within the main settlement, a well (B189) dated to the end of first century AD produced heavily charred bones from mainly cattle, sheep and pig. This burnt material comprises food bones from eight cattle, seven sheep and two pigs including a wild boar. A further pit (A12) dates to AD 50-70 and contained the bones of 98 sheep, five cattle, nine pigs and twelve fowls. The sheep bones were not fragmented and were largely intact. The sheep were apparently not jointed and dispersed, as was normally the case on this site. The evidence indicates that the flesh was removed from the bones, an unusual practice when preparing sheep meat. This suggests that it may have been intended for preserving – perhaps by salting, smoking or drying – and was to be packed to be as light and compact as possible.

Some of the Samian dinner services placed in these graves appear to have been new or at any rate unused at the time of burial. This is believed to be the case at Verulamium (Site 55) where most of the footrings were unworn and some of the vessels retained traces of kiln grit on the side of their bases (Niblett and Reeves 1990). This grave also produced a bronze bowl with decorative handles in the form of either dolphins’ or birds’ heads with long beaks, flanking a central female head. The workmanship suggests a Gaulish or Italian origin. Near the east wall of the grave was an iron tripod, perhaps originally serving as a folding chair. It could of course have been intended to support the bronze bowl, which was found lying adjacent to it. Both objects could have formed part of the equipment for a dinner party or drinking party.

A cess pit from Gorhambury contained the mineralised seeds of coriander, fig, lentil, field pea, sloe, bullace, ribes species, blackberry and grape (Neal et al. 1990: 28). The cesspit included seeds of a number of edible plants. All could have grown locally though it seems likely that fig seeds arrived in imported dried fruit. The fruit species indicate a fairly varied diet including some more exotic species such as grape and fig. As with the coastal zone, this area is important in terms of the existence of aggrandisers. Many of the rich burials are associated with oppidum and large centres, such as Verulamium, Baldock, Welwyn and Stansted, and in the case of Welwyn, are now considered as site-types for particular forms of burial rites. The burials contain feasting accoutrements and display a concern with eating and drinking, both in the world of the living and dead. At St Stephens (Site 53) was an enclosure devoid of burials, but there were small area of burning (Niblett 2002). These are too small to be the remains of pyres, but are possibly evidence for hearths used in feasting. Numerous amphora sherds might indicate the associated drinking, as might the ceramic beakers, many nearly complete, found in a large shaft on the opposite side of Watling Street. This is further apparent at Folly Lane (Site 44) where strewn across the shaft floor were small fragments of forty broken pots – fifteen South Gaulish Samian ware, five Gaulish imports (includes a butt beaker and flagon), fourteen imitation terra nigra, possibly four to six Italian amphorae (Dressel 2-4), four vessels in local ‘native’ fabrics (platters, bowl, jar, cups. None of the vessels were complete (Niblett 1999).

The majority of these burials contain food offerings as well as evidence for drinking. Of particular interest is the inclusion of pig bones, particularly skulls, vertebrae and rear legs. Baldock has produced a number of rich cremations, the first being discovered in 1968 (Stead and Rigby 1986). This burial consisted of two iron firedogs, a large bronze cauldron, a pair of imported shallow bronze dishes, a pair of wooden buckets with bronze attachments and a Dressel 1A amphora. Along the western edge of the burial pit was a length of pig vertebrae. Further excavations in 1980 revealed a square ditched enclosure (Burleigh 1982). Six secondary urned cremation burials were identified, which surrounded a central burial made up of two separate pits. The first was the pit with the remains of the funeral pyre and assemblage of horse, cattle, sheep, pig and fowl. The horse fragments were teeth and foot bones, perhaps representing the remains of a hide (similar to the bear skins used at Welwyn and the other Baldock burial). The cattle bones were teeth and foot bones and the seven fragments of pig came from the right tibia and ulna and teeth (these remains are not associated with the carcass from the second pit). The burnt sheep fragments came from the fibula and radius, whereas the unburnt bones were from the head and teeth. The second pit contained two sides of pork and half a third animal. Adjacent to this and next to the remains of a pottery urn, was the rim of a

72

The area around Welwyn has been particularly fruitful. One of the richest burials was discovered during the 1960s (Stead 1967) and contained a rich array of grave goods. These included five amphorae, seven pedestal urns, seven bowls, four cups, five beakers, three platters, three flagons

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

Riverine Distribution – Ouse

small wooden vessel with bronze and iron fittings. At Birchangar (Site 19) the cremation was accompanied by eight vessels (Medlycott 1994). Two imports were recovered; a butt beaker in North Gaulish fine white sandy ware and an ovoid beaker in terra rubra. There were two vessels in King Harry Lane (KHL) silty ware; a twohandled flagon and a platter, the latter possibly of local manufacture in Hertfordshire. Two local Essex wares were present; two vessels in fine Romanising grey ware (beaker or small jar with a pedestal foot and bell-shaped cup) and two vessels in grog-tempered ware (platter and conical cup with a foot ring). These are local copies of Gallo-Belgic imports. However, the assemblage is unusual in that although a relatively large number of vessels were found, none of them were Samian. This is similar to the cremation cemetery at King Harry Lane which produced over 700 vessels of which only six were Samian (Horsley 1994: 41). Five unburnt pig bones also accompanied the burial. There was the skull (without mandibles), the right scapula, humerus, radius and ulna. Although the latter four could not be described as articulated, they were roughly aligned, and suggest that most of the right foreleg (without metapodials and phalanges) was deposited in the grave. Cremation burials of a similar date from Stansted Airport (Site DFS), 1.25km to the east, also contained pig skulls (Havis and Brooks 2004). DFS 555 contained four pottery vessels (two Samian platters, a two-handled flagon and an everted-rim beaker). On the northern side of the cremation were the remains of the right side of a young male pig skull, which had been cleaved in half down the centre. The complete skeleton of a chicken was also present. A similar burial was also discovered (DFS 313) dating to the same period. Two pottery vessels were recovered (an everted-rim beaker and flagon), along with the right side of a young female pig skull, which was cleft in half, and bones representing the right side of a chicken.

Four broad categories of Iron Age settlement were identified by Knight (1984) and said to characterise the Ouse Valley; hillforts, single enclosures, multiple enclosures and open settlements. Unenclosed settlement in the Ouse existed from at least the beginning of the first millennium BC. Coexisting with unenclosed settlement from the earliest Iron Age onwards were settlements within a single- or double-ditched enclosure. Such sites, often identified from aerial photographs, were not defensible; the ditches are shallow and lack evidence for palisades or revetments (Dawson 2000: 115). The third group of settlements are those where habitation is surrounded by several, possibly focused enclosures. In the area of the lower Ouse, War Ditches, Belsars Hill, Arbury, Borough Fen and Wandlebury are referred to as ringditches, to distinguish their near circular enclosures from the typical contoured hillfort. The four circular earthworks to the north and south of Cambridge (Wandlebury, War Ditches, Arbury Banks and Belsars Hill) may have occupied a marginal position in the landscape, peripheral to the presumed main centre of settlement, burial, arable farming and meadowland on the sides of the Cam valley. It may be appropriate to think of these sites in terms of the ways they fixed (and contained) certain social practices and ideas in the landscape (Hill 1999: 198). Hill (2000) defines two Iron Ages for Cambridgeshire: one of hillforts (Stonea and Arbury Camp) and the other of settlements, such as Fengate and Haddenham. Evidence suggests a LBA/EIA pattern of clusters of individual unenclosed farmsteads set within field systems. These clusters of settlements were not evenly spread across the county and there were probably large areas with only light permanent settlement. This changes with the agglomeration of individual farms into larger unenclosed loose villages on hill slopes or higher ground. Examples include Fengate, Chatteris and Wandlebury. During the later Iron Age there are more sites, including large enclosures or hillforts. There was also expansion into previously marginal land, such as the Fens. There are two broad patterns of settlement: unenclosed agglomerated villages and small enclosed single farms. The large villages are found in the river valleys, and on some fen islands. Figures 14 to 18 show that the lower Ouse has high-density occupation throughout the Iron Age, which increases towards the LIA and Conquest period.

At King Harry Lane, of the 309 burials recovered from the site, 156 contained cremated animal bones. Sixtyfour of these were pig remains. Only parts of the pig were cremated, such as a single left or right limb or joint, or a limb plus the head. Not only were individual burials accompanied by restricted parts of the body, but in general heads were preferred. Graves at Stansted exhibit this selection of feasting equipment and meat offerings and are discussed in greater detail in Chapter Six. Cremation DFS 505 contained the remains of five pottery vessels along with the partial skeleton of a neonatal pig and a single chicken bone. The vessels included three platters, a carinated cup and a butt beaker. A particularly rich grave at the Duckend site (DCS 247) was accompanied by five copper alloy vessels (a jug, an amphora, two skillets and a bowl), five glass vessels (two bottles, a bowl, an urn and a cup), a ‘dinner service’ of eight Samian vessels, and other pottery containers including a colour-coated beaker and a carrot amphora. An iron knife with a bone handle was found associated with the remains of the rear leg of a pig.

73

Tables 23 and 24 support these settlement trends and show the increase in enclosure towards the end of the later Iron Age, as well as a general increase in settlement occupation and expansion. The feasting sites, as with the latter distribution zones, are located in habitable areas and flow along the length of the river Ouse, with particular clusters in the lower section (southern Cambridgeshire). The earlier Iron Age examples are limited to a few sites and associated with food and vessel deposits. Wandlebury

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

(Site 14) exhibited evidence for grain storage, as well as the consumption of large amounts of animal bone (French 2003b; French and Gdaniec 1996). Wandlebury may have acted as a centre for a community and therefore the evidence for storage and the consumption of large quantities of food may suggest communal consumption.

Food EIA

Vessels

Locations

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

Wandlebury Haddenham (HAD V)

MIA

occupation, primarily due to the character of deposition and site layout. The key question concerning the site is whether or not it represents a domestic and/or ritual compound, i.e. a shrine (Evans and Hodder 2005: 73). One complete vessel was deposited as part of a large deposit of pottery (with a broken oven plate and bone) in the base of the southwestern terminal of the outer enclosure ditch (F60).

Haddenham (HAD IV)

Wandlebury Prickwillow Road, Ely Haddenham (HAD VI)

MIA/LIA

LIA

Wardy Hill, Coveney Trumpington

Wardy Hill, Coveney

Hinxton

Wandlebury

Haddenham (Snow Farm)

Snailwell

Prickwillow Road, Ely

Trumpington

Addenbrookes Site, Cambridge

Conquest

Addenbrookes Site, Cambridge

Wardy Hill, Coveney

Snailwell

Willingham Fen

Haddenham (Snow Farm)

Table 23. Feasting sites in the River Ouse distribution zone Food EIA

1-Hillfort

MIA

1-Hillfort 3-Enclosures

MIA/LIA

Vessels

Locations

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

1-Enclosure 1-Enclosure

LIA

1-Hillfort 1-Enclosure 2-Settlements

2-Enclosures 1-Settlement

1-Cemetery 1-Single Burial

Conquest

1-Settlement

2-Enclosures

1-Cemetery

1-Settlement

The site of Haddenham displayed a number of features that would suggest the organisation of activity areas, as well as its importance as a communal ritual/religious focus in the landscape (Evans and Serjeantson 1988; Evans and Hodder 2005). It is worth nothing the proximity of the site to the Ouse river system, which could have carried goods in this area from settlements along its middle/upper reaches. It may also have acted as a communication/transport route to bring people/communities to the site for the feasts. HAD V (Site 5) and VI (Site 6) are sub-square enclosures and lie at a distance of 150m apart on the southern flank of the Upper Delph terrace (below a causewayed enclosure). They are linked by a ditched boundary which continues to run for at least a further 170m to the west of the northernmost square enclosure. Along this western boundary line, HAD VII (two unenclosed MIA roundhouses) was found to lie immediately north of the main field line, and a broadly contemporary pennannular-ditched stock enclosure was situated on its southern side.

Large parts of seven vessels, plus the complete vessel are present in this deposit, including three constricted vessels, a slack shouldered vessel, an everted rim open bowl and a very large tub. The deposit also contains five medium-tolarge sherds and parts of the same vessel are also present in the primary fill of the southeastern terminal of the inner enclosure (938), which contain small parts of another five vessels. The restricted range of vessels at HAD IV does not immediately correspond with those types expected from a shrine. The assemblage lacks the round bodied, globular and burnished serving forms most likely to be present at a shrine if eating and drinking were assumed to be an important activity at such sites. Instead the pottery is largely unburnished medium to large sized forms used primarily for cooking and storage. This points to a more restricted range of activities using pottery than found on a standard continuously occupied settlement site (Hill 2005: 90). It would suggest that HAD IV was not a permanently occupied site, but one where relatively little pottery was broken over a long period of time, and on which a restricted range of activities (which used pottery) took place.

The later Iron Age enclosure of HAD IV (Site 4) was unusual within the context of the Delphs’ Iron Age

Within the double-ditched enclosure of HAD V were three circular buildings. The central ‘living’ house is

74

Table 24. Site type of feasting sites in Ouse distribution zone

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

substantially larger than its two flanking ‘huts’, and the presence of a series of ovens in the eastern most structure would suggest that it might have been a cooking hut. A large formal hearth dominates the limited floor area of this building, and the nature and quantity of artefacts found within the perimeter (coarse-ware pot, potboilers and eggshell fragments), it is suggested that is a cooking or storage building. The central building is thought to be mainly for residential purposes. The layout of the interior and the degree of planning, which is evident in its construction, would suggest that it was a household unit of a relatively high social status. A large number of bird shells were also recovered from a MIA building and are thought to represent seasonal egg collection. Within this assemblage there were the remains of a skeleton of a crane, pelican wing bones and fish and eel bones.

of pottery and animal bone, but few other finds except a small amount (186g) of fuel ash residue (Atkins and Mudd 2003). There were 195 sherds (3917g) of pottery (representing 25 per cent of the entire Iron Age assemblage by sherd count). A lot were fairly unabraded and many are reasonably large sherds. A few sherds of the first century AD are present. Pottery from the midden included ovoid or round-shouldered jars both plain and decorated. This pottery assemblage highlights more general differences in ceramic types and use between more northerly zones of the region (particularly the upper Ouse) and the chalkland and coastal distribution zones to the south. There is little emphasis on open display vessels and the repertoire of ceramics also differs in terms of the continuous use of MIA pottery into the LIA and the limited amounts of imported wares, such as amphorae (a pattern more apparent in the areas now defined as Norfolk and Suffolk). The site of Wardy Hill (Site 15) illustrates some of these differences, which would seemingly contradict its role in the local social, political and economic landscape. This is a defended enclosure complex and was probably strategically located to command a causeway crossing the Cove (Evans 2003). Both wheel- and hand-made pottery are evident and assemblages include imports, e.g. two Samian vessels, a handful of early Roman sherds and two La Tène-style decorated vessels. There was also a decorated metal piece from either a small wooden bucket or tankard. One of the structures (St.1) was later used as a midden and contained a large amount of faunal remains. The pottery assemblage is important because it is missing the specialised drinking or serving forms such as beakers, cups, flagons and platters (except the Samian examples). At Willingham Fen (Site 16) three pewter plates were stacked together in a hole and accompanied by animal bones, including two cattle skulls, two sheep jaws, horn core, vertebrae and scapula (all cattle). There were also Roman potsherds, including colour-coated wares and mortaria (Evans 1984).

The site of HAD VI (Site 6) displayed a contrasting faunal assemblage from HAD V. Nearly 13 per cent of identified bones are from pigs and this is significantly higher than HAD V. Beaver is also absent from the site and this too is in marked contrast to HAD V. The contrast with HAD V is important, suggesting a deliberate selection of pigs as animals to keep and eat. Further, the absence of beavers and birds can only indicate deliberate avoidance of the wild animals which were so abundant at the nearby settlement. There is a clear contrast in the regime of animal exploitation and food consumption between this pair of related sites. The Snow’s Farm complex (Site 7) included a series of Romano-British shrines with tight sequences of votive animal deposits. In the floor of a possible shrine were a number of sheep/goat mandibles with hooves laid out on either side were found and in the mouths of two were coins. In the northwest compound were a series of shallow pits containing four complete sheep/goat skeletons each of which were accompanied by a pot. Located along the lower Ouse, further ritual foci were identified at Trumpington (Site 13). There were over 600 pits as well as a series of sub-rectangular enclosures, mortuary enclosure and possible foci/shrines (Hinman 2004). The remains of about 60 individuals were recovered, mainly neonates / infants, as well as over 14000 sherds of pottery and over 240kg of animal bone which included a wide range of domestic and wild species. One particular pit (2624) contained two pigs, placed on top of one another. They were covered by a very dark, blackish brown sandy silt, with frequent charcoal and occasional pot. This has been interpreted as the remains of cookery waste. The upper fill contained moderate amounts of pot, occasional bone (including more pig remains), daub, occasional burnt stone and charcoal flecks.

The lower Ouse (southern Cambridgeshire) would appear to share more similarities with the southern half of the region than with the north East Anglia. As I have shown, sites in the lower part of the valley have more varied ceramic assemblages and appear to have a preference for pork. This lower valley zone also contains two burials which represent the most northerly distribution of the ‘Aylesford-Swarling’ burial rite, a style of interment which characterises the burials of the chalkland and coastal zones. These burials reflect the broader differences in the upper and lower Ouse, in terms of pottery, food and of course burial rites. The Snailwell cremation (Site 12) was accompanied by three amphorae (Spanish), a cream-coloured wine jug and a heap of shattered vessels (Lethbridge 1954). These vessels included four jugs, a butt beaker of grey ware, an oval beaker of smoked red ware, resembling the wares of Castor on the Nene, but imported from Gaul; a terra rubra cup and a terra nigra bowl. Beneath all the other vessels lay a bronze bowl. A

75

Evidence for the accumulation of rubbish from possible large-scale consumption was found at a site in Ely (Site 11). A midden, located to the north of the MIA enclosure, measured c. 17m by 13m and yielded a large quantity

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

complete skeleton of a young pig and that of a fowl were also present. At the west end of the wooden construction were four shattered pots. These were a terra rubra platter, a terra nigra bowl, a native bowl and a native tazza bowl. Further along the west face laid the bones of a sirloin of beef and two ham bones. At Hinxton (Site 8) eight cremations and three inhumation burials were recovered (Hill et al. 1999). Pottery was a component of all the cremation graves and metalwork accompanied three. Of the two with the greatest number of vessels, Cremations 1 and 3 (nine and three pots respectively), neither included metal objects. Cremation 2 was accompanied by a ‘packed’ group of personal ornaments and toiletry equipment and the central ring burials contained cuts of meat.

Food EIA MIA

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

Borough Fen

Maxey Fengate Maxey

Conquest

Locations

Fengate

MIA/LIA

LIA

Vessels

Borough Fen

Fengate

Orton Longueville Orton Longueville

Orton Longueville

Table 25. Feasting sites in River Nene distribution zone Food

EIA

Vessels

Location

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

1-Settlement

Riverine Distribution – Nene

MIA

This area is sparsely populated throughout the Iron Age, which is more a product of the environmental conditions of that period rather than as a result of a lack of archaeological investigation. The area’s settlement pattern is of similar character to the Ouse Valley: a mixture of open settlement and enclosure (Tables 25 and 26). There is a general increase in occupation during the later Iron Age, but it is not as marked as areas to the south. The sites of both Maxey and Borough Fen are interesting feasting examples because they are located in areas apparently devoid of habitation. Borough Fen is defined as a fort, a class of monuments found infrequently within the Fens and therefore it is proposed that due to its location and structural details, the Borough Fen ringwork had more of a strategic function (Malim and McKenna 1993).

LIA

2-Enclosures

1-Settlement

Conquest

1-Enclosure

1-Enclosure

1-Enclosure

MIA/LIA

1-Enclosure 1-Settlement

1-Enclosure

Table 26. Site types of feasting sites in the River Nene distribution area

Riverine Distribution – Little Ouse/ Lark The exact nature of the settlement pattern for south Norfolk and Suffolk is still uncertain, but it is clear that settlements are numerous, in some areas occurring at intervals of under a kilometre. The settlements, however, have left few surface traces, other than scatters of pottery sherds, sometimes covering large areas. Evidence from excavation suggests a preponderance of open villages and farmsteads, or ones only bounded by ditches of fieldboundary size. Fortified sites are very rare prompting Bradley (1993: 8) to argue that in East Anglia large monuments draw attention to themselves because they are so unusual. Although sometimes treated separately, both hillforts/ring works and the large square enclosures found in Norfolk and Suffolk have more in common than previously thought (Hill 1999: 196). Both types of site are distinguished by large, fixed, earthwork enclosures in a social landscape dominated by unenclosed ‘wandering’ sites (Hill 1999: 196), thus demonstrating more formal organisation of space than that shown by surrounding domestic settlements. The predominance of enclosure recognition in region over open settlement is highlighted in the feasting data for this area (Tables 27 and 28).

The enclosed settlement at Orton Longueville (Site 10) produced an interesting first century AD deposit. Around AD 125 to 150/175, a huge dump of pottery was placed in the enclosure ditch (Mackreth 2001). The deposit consisted of large sherds with fresh breaks joining to form a substantial number of complete or near complete vessels. A large number of the vessels were thrown away intact, suggesting that the criterion for their disposal was not their usefulness but whether they were deemed worthy of the effort needed to remove them from the site. There was a predominance of coarse kitchen and storage wares over finer tablewares. Since the pottery involved dated to one of the latest recognisable phases of occupation activity on site, it would appear to represent deliberate clearance of household goods prior to abandonment of the site or it could represent a final feast before leaving the site. There is a large quantity of storage jars, as well as bowls, flagons and beakers. Nearby at Fengate (Site 3), evidence of distinct zones for the preparation and consumption was identified. Structure 54 produced enormous quantities of coarseware and not one sherd of fine, burnished tableware (Pryor 1984: 214). Structure 20 produced large quantities of fine pottery and little coarseware.

76

The major rectangular formal enclosures near Thetford would appear to be located away from (and out of sight of) what were probably the main areas of settlement and cultivation, in the Thet valley. The Fison Way enclosure (Site 64) was built in an area of open heath which would have afforded only marginal grazing. It would have been visible from a considerable distance, but not from the nearby

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

valley sides and floor (Gregory 1991: 191-2). The doubleditched square enclosure at Barnham, which lay on the crest of a Breckland hill, had very little evidence for internal structures. Of significance were the fragments of horse jaws placed in the outer ditch and numerous ‘special deposits’ of horse bones. Both the Barnham site (Site 76), and the larger Fison Way site, may have been marginal to the major day-to-day activities of the Thetford settlement complex. Sited in areas of heathland, both were perhaps only visited irregularly, possibly at different time of they year. Food

Vessels

Locations

Aggrandisers

However, what this area lacks in terms of imported ceramics, it makes up for in isolated finds of metal vessels – a feature of the archaeological record which is in stark contrast to the southern distribution zones. Hockwold-cum-Wilton (Site 67) has produced a hoard of LIA/early Roman metal vessels, but a wicker-line storage pit was also identified which contained a large portion of the rear end of a cow and quantities of first century BC pottery (Salway 1967). In a depression (C3) a hoard of first century AD Samian was discovered. At Elvedon (Site 69) three brown globular urns were found with the remains of a two-handled bronzeplated wooden tankard and cremated bones. The tankard consisted of a framework of wooden staves covered by thin metal plates and adorned with medallions. It had two bronze handles. An early first century AD hoard of bronze vessels was found at Brandon (Site 73) which consisted of a large bronze cauldron with iron handles. The cauldron held a wine strainer, an inscribed skillet and situla fittings. Icklingham (Site 71) produced a further bronze cauldron as well as two ceramic and pewter plates (Liversidge 1959). In addition, there was a pewter hoard of around twenty-five vessels. This pattern is repeated at Lakenheath (Site 72) where a

Prestige Items

EIA

Barnham

MIA

Fison Way, Thetford

Fison Way

Fison Way

Elvedon

MIA/LIA

Fison Way, Thetford

Fison Way

Fison Way

Beck Row, Mildenhall

Fison Way, Thetford

Fison Way

Fison Way

Beck Row, Mildenhall

LIA

Iron Age is unclear. However, during the Roman period it became a temple site. This site is clearly of importance, providing a context for the metalworking and coining in Phase II, but despite requiring the mobilisation and largescale consumption of both material and human resources in its construction, it is impoverished in terms of domestic activity and imported finewares, particularly amphorae.

Elvedon

Hockwoldcum-Wilton

Elvedon Brandon

Conquest

Fison Way, Thetford

Fison Way

Barnham

Hockwoldcum-Wilton

Fison Way

Icklingham Lakenheath Brandon Beck Row, Mildenhall

Table 27. Feasting sites in the Rivers Little Ouse and Lark distribution zone Food

Vessels

Locations

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

EIA

1-Enclosure

1-Isolated Find

MIA

1-Enclosure

1-Enclosure

1-Enclosure

1-Isolated Find

MIA/LIA

1-Enclosure

1-Enclosure

1-Enclosure

1-Settlement

LIA

1-Enclosure

1-Enclosure 1-Settlement

Conquest

2-Enclosures

1-Enclosure 1-Settlement

1-Settlement 2-Isolated Finds 1-Enclosure

2-Isolated Finds 2-Settlements

pewter hoard of four vessels was discovered along with a handle of a bucket, a knife and two vases. A find from Beck Row, Mildenhall, complements the absence of amphorae in the region and supports the argument for a preference of indigenous forms of alcohol over imported types. This site produced a bronze strainer spout in the form of a fish and although found in a first century AD context, it is considered to be workmanship of the LIA instead (Sealey 2004).

Table 28. Site types of feasting sites in the Little Ouse/Lark distribution zone

Large deposits of ceramic vessels were noted at Fison Way, such as Gully 672 which contained a high number of large, fresh sherds from four vessels, one of handmade Iron Age type and three wheel-turned Early Roman. It is thought to be a domestic rubbish deposit, but there are no structures in the vicinity to which it can be related. Gully 2270 of Enclosure 17 contained a large group of Early Roman vessels with a low proportion of Iron Age. The former included terra nigra and forms of Gallo-Belgic origin. The slightly exotic nature of this assemblage is emphasised by the discovery of an oak leaf of sheet bronze, which might have votive connections, and there is the possibility of ritual activity associated with the enclosure.

Riverine Distribution - Gipping As mentioned in the Little Ouse distribution, there is a notable lack of hillforts in Suffolk and the majority of evidence points to settlements with either boundary ditches of fieldditch size, or with no boundary ditches at all. There is also a growing body of evidence from fieldwalking to suggest that some of these open settlements were of considerable extent (Martin 1999: 51). It is therefore interesting to note the few

77

Fison Way has a similar layout to a continental Viereckschanze, but the function of Fison Way during the

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Riverine Distribution – Bure/Yare

feasting sites located in this distribution zone are enclosed settlements (see Tables 29 and 30).

The settlement record of Norfolk is dominated by open sites, which were not enclosed by large ditches (Tables 31 and 32). As a result, areas of Iron Age occupation are difficult to locate by aerial photography, and when located, the edges of such a settlement are difficult to define. Indeed, a field survey around the site at Silfield, Wymondham (Site 62) suggests that activity took place across an area probably in excess of 25,000 square metres (Ashwin 1996: 274). It would seem likely that given their size, these sites represent shifting settlements, possibly akin to ‘villages’, with the rebuilding of structures over time taking place in the vicinity rather than directly on top of previous buildings (Hill 1999: 190).

Although forts are generally uncommon in eastern England, they are particularly rare in Suffolk (Gregory and Rogerson 1992: 71-2). The site of Burgh (Site 70) represents one possibility. It is a roughly rectangular enclosure covering about seven hectares surrounded by a double bank and ditch. The finds from the enclosure suggest a wealthy LIA settlement, possibly a minor oppidum, with imported pottery from both Camulodunum and Gaul (Martin 1988). Pit 0004 contained a human skull with a large stone partially covering the face, above this were layers of charcoal, animal bone and pottery, a large amount of burnt clay fragments and handmade pot and domestic refuse. However, the presence of the skull and the apparently deliberate inclusion of an area of marshland into the circuit of the enclosure on the southwest side may hint at a religious dimension to the site.

Forts are not a common feature of the Iron Age landscape in Norfolk, with only five possible example falling into this category: Warham, Narborough, Holkham, Thetford (previously mentioned in the Little Ouse distribution zone) and South Creake. Rather than hilltop positions, the forts in this region are located close to rivers, potentially at crossing areas, except for Holkham which is located on a promontory overlooking the sea (Davies et al. 1991). These enclosures are concentrated in the west of the county and do not appear to have been constructed in the eastern half of the county.

Feasting evidence in a domestic context is evident at Barham (Site 75, Suffolk HER). A small pit within the ringwork was found to contain a high proportion of fineware pottery sherds and some animal bones, while at the rear of the ring, five small pits/postholes contained substantial numbers of potsherds, including a complete base (LBA/EIA). F18, just within entrance, contained numerous sherds of pottery, including fragments of Darmsden style fine wares as well as small amount of animal bone. F74 contained the complete base of a coarse flint tempered pot. Substantial numbers of sherds were also found in F48, 63, 65 and 69 - mostly coarse flint tempered sherds, but also some fragments of Darmsden-type fine flint tempered and burnished wares. Large quantities of pottery and animal bones were noted too at Claydon (Site 68). Food

Vessels

EIA

Barham

MIA

Barham

Locations

Aggrandisers

In addition to the hillforts there are a number of rectangular enclosures that are in the north and the west of the county, a distribution that reflects the restricted location of ‘hillforts’ (Hutcheson 2004: 6). The site at Thornham (Site 65), which was strongly defended or enclosed, appears, on the basis of the pottery assemblage, to date to the mid-first century AD (Gregory 1986). Cutting U produced sherds of a terra nigra platter and body sherds of a wheel-made jar were found associated with a concentration of oyster shells in the loam beneath the rampart. In Cutting V, there were three wheel-made vessels in association with animal bone and charcoal. In the ditch of Cutting V (layer 8) there was part of a carinated bowl of mid-first century type, while in the top of that layer was a rubbish dump, a concentration of Roman brick fragments, more than 2700 oyster shells and sherds from at least twenty-two vessels of a second century date.

Prestige Items

MIA/LIA LIA Conquest

Claydon

Barham

Burgh Claydon

Through metal-detecting and field-walking dense scatters of Iron Age material have been found across the landscape, and as a result, there are a number of sites dated to the Iron Age that are largely known from metal-detected finds (Hutcheson 2004: 7). A density of material is known from Woodcock Hill, Saham Toney (Site 66) (Brown 1986). A great deal of the material recovered, comprising mainly coins and brooches, was broken and found in an area that may have been waterlogged in the later Iron Age. It has been suggested that this site may have been a focus of cult or ritual activity rather than settlement (Davies 1996: 80; Davies 1999: 35; Haselgrove 1997: 66). Quidney Farm (Site 61) at Saham Toney further supports this argument for there was a large

Table 29. Feasting sites in the River Gipping distribution zone Food

Vessels

EIA

1-Enclosure

MIA

1-Enclosure

Locations

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

MIA/LIA LIA

1-Enclosure 1-Settlement

Conquest

1-Settlement

1-Enclosure

78

Table 30. Site types for feasting sites in the River Gipping distribution zone

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

amount of evidence for a range of coin types, and coin moulds and a large number of high-status metal objects and horsefittings (Bates 2000). The early presence of pottery imported from continental Europe adds weight to the interpretation as does the apparently unenclosed nature of the site.

identified at Ingoldisthorpe. This was in the form of a boar.

Summary These distributions show regional distinctions in the archaeological record (see Figures 30-34, Appendix B). The coastal region contains a number of examples for food and vessel deposits and they span the entire period under consideration. The existence of aggrandisers is unsurprisingly evident in this area, considering this region lies within the traditional Aylesford-Swarling burial rite region. Few examples of prestige items have been identified in this region. The chalkland distribution, much like that of the coastal region, has a number of food and vessel examples. There does appear to be a particular concentration of food in the LIA and Conquest periods. Once again rich burials appear in this region and there is little evidence for prestige items. As we begin to move to the north of the study area, there is a subtle shift in the

Metal detecting also produced a quantity of material from Caistor St Edmund (Site 58), the site of the Roman civitas capital. A group of pits in the immediate vicinity of roundhouse 5123 was associated with the structure’s use (Gurney 1986b). Plant macrofossil remains suggest that this part of the site was once a focus for cereal-processing activity. Pit 1067 contained 70 sherds of Iron Age pottery and pit 1335 was rich in charcoal. Near the roundhouse, pits 2425 and 5126 were filled by refuse deposits featuring charcoal, burnt flint, flecks of burnt bone and pottery. Pit 5126 had 1.57kg of pottery from its upper fill and a loomweight and charcoal in the lower fill. There was an abundance of charred cereal remains.

Food

Vessels

Locations

Prestige Items

Aggrandisers

EIA MIA

Silfield

MIA/LIA

LIA

Caistor St Edmund

Quidney Farm, Saham Toney

Ashmanhaugh

Hunstanton

Quidney Farm, Saham Toney

Ingoldisthorpe Snettisham Woodcock Hill, Saham Toney

Conquest

Caistor St Edmund

Woodcock Hill, Saham Toney

Thornham

Table 31. Feasting sites in the Rivers Bure and Yare distribution zone Food

Vessels

Locations

Aggrandisers

Prestige Items

EIA MIA

1-Unenclosed Settlement

MIA/LIA

LIA

1-Enclosure 1-Settlement

Conquest

1-Enclosure

1-Enclosure

1-Quidney Farm, Saham Toney (unknown)

3-Isolated Finds 1-Woodcock Hill, Saham Toney (unknown)

1-Quidney Farm, Saham Toney (unknown)

1-Woodcock Hill, Saham Toney (unknown

types of evidence for feasting. The Ouse distribution has a spread of examples from both food and special locations, but there are no examples of vessel deposits or prestige items. The Nene valley only has examples of food and vessels, but as we move to the northeast of the study area, the change in evidence is more apparent. The Little Ouse/ Lark region contains more evidence for prestige items and there are few sites in general in this area. The Gipping distribution is small in number and just has evidence for LIA food and vessels. The Bure/Yare area has more prestige

Table 32. Site types for feasting sites in the Bure and Yare distribution zone

79

This region is also notable for its metal and coin hoards (see previous discussion on general metal consumption), most notably centred around Snettisham (Site 63). There are examples of items of prestige and etiquette associated with feasting, particularly the consumption of alcohol. At Ashmanhaugh a strainer spout was discovered, which was of a zoomorphic form and a bronze strainer handle was

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

items and only a few examples of locations and food.

provides the context in which to understand the location of the principal Roman town in the region, Caistor, far away from the earlier foci around Thetford and Snettisham.

There is a clear difference in the types of archaeological evidence appearing in the north and the south of the region. Southern East Anglia has a lot of examples for food, vessels and aggrandisers, which is in stark contrast to northern East Anglia where there are more examples of prestige items than the south. The numbers of food and vessel deposits are also fewer in the northern region, but there are a number of factors which could explain these differences. Firstly, the nature of archaeological discovery in both regions. As mentioned above, compared with the south, areas such as northern Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk have witnessed nothing on the same scale as southern Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Essex in terms of modern urban expansion. As a result, the north-east of the region has not been subject to the same intensity of archaeological investigation that has been carried out in the south. Secondly, preservation of archaeological material plays a role too. Some soils in the northern areas are acidic and therefore the preservation of faunal remains, and to a certain extent pottery, will be severely compromised.

In looking at these distribution zones in greater detail it is clear that there were a number of different consumption strategies within the region: the ‘cooking’ and consumption of metal contrasting the cooking and consumption of food and vessels. Two general zones can be distinguished: the northern area consisting of north Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and the southern area made up of Essex, Hertfordshire and southern Cambridgeshire. The northern zone is dominated by open settlement, metal and coin hoards, an absence of imported finewares in the LIA as well as a continuation of MIA ceramic styles into the later Iron Age. The southern zone in contrast has evidence for new settlement types in the LIA (oppida) defence systems, a wide pottery repertoire and rich burials. The general distribution of these deposits of pig remains correlates with a distribution of new pottery and settlement types, suggesting new modes of consumption and potentially new arenas for ‘commensal politics’.

The nature of the archaeological record differs significantly throughout the region. The pottery chronology for East Anglia highlights this aptly. Many of the northern areas continue to use MIA pottery in the LIA and early Roman period and there would appear to be very little evidence for the presence of amphorae and imported wares within this region. The south has plentiful evidence for the use of new food and drink vessels and of course the importation of new vessel forms and types. These differences need not necessarily reflect a ‘backwardness’ on the part of northern East Anglia, but instead clearly highlights differences in consumption and the ways in which food and drink (and prestige items) were consumed.

At the end of the Iron Age, eating and drinking habits were changing for people. This is demonstrated by the appearance of new objects and foodstuffs. Food (and drink) is socially defined and its consumption maintains life and social relationships. It also signifies identity, power, authority, domination and resistance. It is often assumed that the ‘barbarians’ of northern Europe would automatically wish to emulate the ‘civilised cultures’ of the Mediterranean whenever they had the benefit of coming into contact with it, and that the gradual absorption of Mediterranean goods, practices and beliefs is a natural and unavoidable process. However, as shown in south-east Britain and particularly East Anglia, the pattern of cultural borrowing was not general emulation, but rather highly limited, specific and coherent. East Anglia clearly illustrates this point, with only certain forms of new eating and drinking paraphernalia being utilised within certain areas of this region.

The expansion of settlement during the pre-Roman Iron Age there is a general feature of this period. Southeast Norfolk, with its heavy soils, had little permanent settlement in the LBA and EIA. Large-scale woodland clearance, intensive utilisation and extensive settlement only occurred during the course of the LIA. A similar process of settlement expansion, and intensification of land exploitation, can be seen in parts of the Fens (Hall and Coles 1994) and Suffolk (Martin 1988). In south Hertfordshire, MIA pottery and sites are fewer in number than sites with ‘Belgic’ pottery. It is possible that much of Hertfordshire, like eastern Norfolk, had little permanent settlement in the earlier parts of the LIA. It may not be a coincidence that this formerly empty area then adopted new burial rites, new food ways, and novel settlement forms. Classic ‘oppida’-type sites seem to emerge in previously marginal parts of the Iron Age landscape, and areas into which settlement expanded in this period often became locations for economic specialisation and, probably, social innovation (Haselgrove 1989; Haselgrove and Millet 1997; Hill 1995a; Sharples 1990). Eastern Norfolk may be one such area, and this

Conclusion The later Iron Age period witnessed an expansion of population into previously uninhabited areas. This movement would have brought together a myriad of people from a variety of social, political and economic backgrounds. A situation, such as this, would require a renegotiation of relations and the creation of new identities. A feast, given its importance in commensal politics, provided the occasion for individuals and groups to re-establish a social discourse. In order to manipulate successfully the outcome of these events, ‘material interferences’ took place in the form of new ceramics from or influenced by the Mediterranean and offered alongside a new form of alcohol, wine. As Wobst (2000) notes, humans artefactually interfere where they cannot or choose 80

Chapter Five - From Raw to Cooked

not to accomplish change by other means. In acquiring this social role, artefacts are designed to influence how people interact, thus bringing about change in how people evaluate themselves and others. The introduction of these new ceramics into the context of feasting was a proactive move by individuals or groups to manage or alter the social vacuum created by population movement of the later Iron Age. These items served several functions; a sense of indebtedness was created between host and guest, and it allowed hosts to distinguish themselves from other potential hosts or even attendees this in turn could have led to an element of competition between these individuals who demanded new vessels and drinks in order to out-perform each other and create further social debts. In striving to alter their own positions within society and achieving personal goals, their actions potentially had the power to alter the structure of society at large. It is interesting to note where these new ceramic forms and alcoholic beverages associated with commensality are found in the archaeological record. They are found on the new settlement types of this period – oppida, and as part of grave goods assemblages in the newly emerging burial rite – cremations. Both these features are themselves located in these newly inhabited areas of south eastern Britain, especially the southern region of East Anglia, and are thought to be connected with the rise in complexity and the emergence of powerful individuals. Each of these features is interconnected – all creating a knock-on effect of change, which I believe was articulated through the mechanism of feasting. Of course feasting was not the only avenue/outlet for aggrandisers and as the archaeology of northern East Anglia aptly demonstrates consumption can take many forms and the peoples of this region chose to carry out their commensal politics through the consumption of precious metals deposited in hoards.

81

Feasting would have occurred throughout the Iron Age as a means to maintain, alter or establish a variety of relationships within society. During the later Iron Age the movement of people and the prospect of the Roman invasion turned feasting into a powerful mode of commensality. People now had to redefine themselves in these new situations and a feast provided the opportunity for people to gather, create identities and alliances – something particularly important given the imminent of arrival of the Roman army. The consequences of these events are changes in material culture and more importantly changes in the political structure of society and the emergence of aggrandisers, all of which in turn affected one another.

Chapter Six Detailed Case Studies Introduction

by multiple households (often anonymously) and tend to be relatively non-competitive in nature. Compared to situations in which sponsors compete to enhance their prestige by contributing more to a feast than other sponsors, the inherent anonymity of, and lack of direct competition for, prestige in many intra-community integrative feasts tends to limit the quantity of resources mobilised. In contrast, when feasts involve more than one community, cooperative effort on the part of village coresidents often facilitates the financing of larger and more elaborate feasts than is possible in intra-village contexts. It is in the context of inter-community (or large-scale) feasts that the prestige of aggrandisers becomes greatly enhanced relative to their followers (Clarke and Blake 1994; Hayden 1995; Kelly 1991; Spencer 1994).

This chapter considers a number of sites in greater detail. These sites have been chosen because they effectively illustrate the deeper themes that I am approaching and exhibit multiple indicators for feasting (as proposed by Hayden 2001). The sites have been selected to highlight the variability and regionality of this particular activity and to demonstrate how commensal politics can take many forms within a regional context. The following case studies have been chosen in order to emphasise, on a wider-scale, the regionality of such an event, and on the micro-scale, inter-site differences with regards to settlement type and location. I have chosen sites which highlight the differential nature and scale of feasting and the particular points in a life cycle that they may mark. I show how this may be recognised in the archaeological record and interpreted by the archaeologist in order to understand the processes of social, economic and political change occurring during the Iron Age.

While feasting may be an effective means for enhancing prestige, and for incurring debt obligations on the part of aspiring leaders or ‘aggrandisers’, hosting a feast also may be an obligation that places the host in considerable debt to family members or others who supported the feast with commodities or effort. Moreover, not all feasts are created equal. While feasts operate to foster both solidarity and competition at some level, in many contexts feasts primarily promote solidarity, while in others competition and prestige enhancement are emphasised. The contexts of feasting that provide the greatest potential for enhancing social differentiation are those in which the sources of financing are extensive, participation is multi-communal (or involves substantial segments of very large communities), the frequency and timing are not highly structured by a ritual cycle, and the resources used are themselves highly valued, rare, and prestigious (Potter 2000: 475).

Communal feasts can range in scale from those in which a single household sponsors a feast for bilateral relatives or other households to those hosted by entire villages and offered to members of multiple communities. The scale of most communal feasts ranks somewhere between these two extremes (Potter 2000: 473). To a large extent, the means through which a feast is financed, and ultimately the purpose of the feast, determines its scale. The greater the scale of the feast, the greater the potential for prestige enhancement on the part of sponsors. Moreover, using feasting as a recurrent social practice to enhance prestige usually requires financing on a larger scale than that of the single household or lineage (Young 1985).

Feasts can vary by type, celebrating a range of cycles including life transition cycles (birth, maturity, death), time cycles (calendrical, annual or longer cycles), and political cycles (transfers of power from one ruler to the next, cycles of conflict in stylised warfare). Each of these feasting categories is associated with specific formalised behaviours and material correlates depending on whether the event being celebrated was a life transition, time, or political cycle (Table 33). Life transition cycles are more marked in the archaeological record. As Table 33 shows this can be the construction of new settlements or building, perhaps brought on by the expansion of a family or the movement of people into new areas (as witnessed in the later Iron Age). The end of the life cycle could be marked by the death of an individual or the abandonment of a settlement or structure. Food and drink are ‘embodied’ forms of material culture, that is, a class of material objects produced specifically for immediate destruction, but destruction

Scale also may relate to whether feasts are primarily ‘intra-communal’ or ‘inter-communal’. Hayden (1995), for instance, delineates within-group feasts, which he terms ‘solidarity feasts’ and between-group feasts, which are either ‘reciprocal’ or ‘competitive’ feasts. Reciprocal feasts function primarily to create alliances and promote cooperation among groups, while competitive feasts are hosted primarily to enhance the prestige, and political and economic support, of an aggrandiser and his/her followers or to negotiate and reaffirm extra-community political ties and agreements (Hayden 1995: 27, 31). Many within-group feasts have the principal effect of facilitating social integration or redistributing food among households within the village (Brandt 1994; Ford 1972; Poyer 1991). Feasts of this type are usually financed 83

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

through consumption by ingestion into the human body. However, these events also produce new beginnings and new cycles for the deceased’s family/community or those moving to new areas. Objects are also involved in life cycles and in East Anglia, their demise is noted through their consumption and destruction in hoards, whereby they are removed from society and their value destroyed.

something which is not marked archaeologically and can perhaps only be inferred through evidence such as burials (i.e. Welwyn type graves). Warfare is recognisable through the presence of mass graves, but it is the buildup to such events where feasting played a role. Feasts were a mechanism through which to acquire and maintain relations with allies, e.g. alliance feasts. Periods of political instability, such as the imminent arrival of Rome to Britain, was a time when this form of feast was carried out in order to maintain camaraderie and community spirit during times of foreseeable political, economic and social change.

Time cycles are difficult to identify in the archaeological record. The annual agricultural cycle is an obvious example, but finding points in that cycle which were celebrated by feasting events is hard without a substantial body of archaeological evidence. If feasting deposits included a large faunal assemblage, it may be possible to establish the time of year in which the event took place provided there was a suitable cohort range with which to interpret that assemblage. For example, large number of neonates may suggest a spring event, older remains could suggest a winter date. Similarly, with floral assemblages such as grain or cereal, unless weeds are found in the deposit which are indicative of a particular point in the agricultural cycle or season, e.g. those associated with harvests, or winter, it may not be possible to identify a specific point in a cycle in which these events take place.

Case Studies I have identified a number of similar feasting contexts in which my data appears and as well as a number of purposes for which these consumption activities were held. As stated in Chapter One, the aims of my research were to consider:

Food consumption acquires such an immense significance and power in societies because it involves the human body; it is an expression of human embodiment (Hamilakis 1998). Power processes and mechanisms operate through the consuming body, such as in the case of feasting with its immense political and social consequences. The sensory feelings and emotions generated and exchanged in contexts such as funerary feasts or other social gatherings and celebrations, would have constituted the political economy of the body and of bodily memory on the basis of which power dynamics, competition and negotiation of social roles operated (Hamilakis 1999: 49). Given the diverse and powerful meanings related to the embodied experience of food, it is hardly surprising that food is constantly used in the generation, maintenance, legitimation and deconstruction of authority and power. Life Transition Cycles Life

Death

•

The structure and symbolism of the feast

•

The specific events that are marked by archaeologically visible feasts and whether this changes over time and space

•

How feasts were organised

•

Who was holding the feasts and for whom. Who was doing the consuming and who was acquiring the items for feasting. How many people attended these events (if this is possible to extrapolate from the archaeological record)

•

How feasts were involved in life cycles, both temporally and spatially

Time Cycles

Political Cycles

Construction - settlement, buildings

Settlement or structure

Agriculture

Transfers of power from one ruler to the next

Movement of populations - start of new life cycles

Individual - funeral also for the living and the start of a new life cycle

Movement of populations start of new life cycles

Cycles of conflict in stylised warfare

Expansion of family expansion of settlement

Objects - metal and coin hoards destroys their value and takes them out of a life cycle

Periods of instability - arrival of Romans

The case studies that are presented here provide examples of how I have answered my original aims and objectives. They highlight the variety of feasts which took place within East Anglia, why they took place and how they manifest themselves within the archaeological record. I have chosen to highlight sites which exemplify the various feasting

Table 33. Points of a life cycle which can be marked by a feast

84

There are points in a political cycle which can be inferred and interpreted from the archaeological data. For example, the transfer of power from one person to another is

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

contexts that I have identified, those being work-party and alliance building, funerary and diacritical. In considering the variety of forms which feasting takes, one can understand the role of feasting and how it was used, manipulated and perceived. It also provides the opportunity to understand how this activity took form both spatially and temporally. It also allows to see if a particular form of feasting was favoured by certain communities within, if feasting genres altered over time according to changing social, political and economic circumstances, and/or different feasts were used within certain social, political or economic contexts.

The life cycle should not be viewed only in humanistic terms – we should also consider the life cycle of a monument or settlement, because ultimately these will affect the life history of a landscape, which in turn affects those who inhabit and experience them. The human life cycle itself is given meaning through material culture. The cyclical use and reuse of monuments and materials are intrinsic to perceptions of time, ageing and social memory (Gosden 1994). The remodelling and structuring of settlements would be a major moment in an individual or group’s life. I have identified a number of sites, which can be classed as ‘work-party’ feasts. Although these feasts are small in number, they do appear to favour southern East Anglia (Tables 34 and 35), but this is partly due to including specific burials under this category. I believe that the funerary feast, as well as being intimately involved in the ceremony, could also be a reward for the construction of a burial mound, funerary shaft or enclosure. Those examples which are not burials are notable as important locations within the landscape (Gosbecks and Thetford). Both these sites are associated with a complex series of earthworks and would have required a large labour force to construct them. I will focus in more detail on the site of Fison Way at Thetford.

Work-Party Feasts As I highlighted in Chapter Five, a notable feature of the later Iron Age is the construction of monumental ditches or defence systems and large enclosed sites. These earthworks would have required a large work force to be gathered in order to construct them and in return for their labour, they would have been treated to food and/or drink, in the form of a feast or ‘work-party’ feast (Dietler 1996, 2001; Dietler and Herbich 2001). As Dietler and Herbich (2001) note, there are two forms of work feast: voluntary and obligatory. People are drawn to the voluntary work feast purely on the reputation of the host for providing lavish feasts. The obligatory form exists where there is institutionalised central authority, such as chiefs. In these cases, people are drawn to participate because a ruler or public institution has the moral authority to require their presence as a form of labour tribute (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 244). These events may be ad hoc events and mounted for specific projects and vary in size and scale. They can also be intimately involved within individual and community lifecycles, such as the communal construction of a house/building (e.g. Amish barn raising), funeral monuments, the continual renewal and maintenance of the settlement, ditches or defences or during the harvest. Food

Vessels

Coastal

Location 1

Chalkland Little Ouse

1

1

Aggrandisers

Prestige

Fison Way, Thetford, Norfolk As previously discussed in Chapter Five, Thetford, with its multiple enclosures, is the closest example of a Viereckschanze in Britain. The present town of Thetford lies at the confluence of the Rivers Thet and Little Ouse. Gallows Hill, where the site is situated, forms an isolated block of high ground and commands a position over the best river crossings. From its location, on the south end of the chalk ridge overlooking the river crossings at Thetford, the site has an immediate strategic importance.

Site Type

2

2 Burials 1 Enclosure

1

1 Burial

1

1 Enclosure

Total Sites=5

Table 34. Distribution of work-party feasts and the associated feasting indicator

Site Name

Region

Site Type

Feasting Indicator

Stanway

Coastal

Burial

Aggrandiser

Lexden

Coastal

Burial

Aggrandiser

Gosbecks

Coastal

Enclosed Settlement/ Oppidum

Location

Welwyn Garden City

Chalkland

Burial/Cemetery

Aggrandiser

Fison, Way, Thetford

Little Ouse/Lark

Enclosure

Location, Vessel, Food

85

Table 35. Examples of work-party feasts in East Anglia

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

In Phases I to III (Iron Age to early Roman) there is a distinct scarcity, not only for agricultural production, but also for domestic occupation. Evidence is limited to localised hearths and small pits, which were used for the disposal of the remains of fires. In contrast, there is evidence for industrial activity, such as the production of decorated metalwork and coin blanks, small-scale iron smithing and the storage and grinding of wheat and barley. Environmental evidence (Murphy 1991b) indicates that grain was generally imported in a semicleaned state, and that there was no processing of grain on site. The environmental evidence also suggests that grazing would have been possible but the absence of preserved bone prevents this from being tested. Whether animal products were imported like the grain is uncertain. The site’s importance as a communal gathering place it evident through the archaeological data, which suggests that throughout its Iron Age and early Roman life, the site was not a prime producer of animal/cereal products but was a consumer site (Gregory 1991: 191).

their inhabitants. Building sequences and other changes in the use of settlement space can be understood within a framework that explores how the demographic, social and economic circumstances of a site’s occupants changed over time. However, the life cycle of the settlement was not only related to that of its occupants in practical terms: each was also a symbolic representation of the other. Depositional acts, or in this case feasting, may have been carried out at critical points in the life cycle of a settlement, its structures and its inhabitants. Enclosure 1a, a large roughly square enclosure, appears to have been constructed primarily to contain a single circular building. The surrounding ditches and banks were probably intended to contain and define rather than to defend. Building 2a provided the focal point and was clearly integral to the plan of the enclosure, with its doorway aligned on the entrance. Despite its timber construction, Building 2 could be interpreted as a Romano-Celtic temple. There is an absence of large numbers of votive objects, but this need not be viewed as negative evidence for a number of temples within Norfolk are devoid too of such items. Of six certain Norfolk temples, two at Hockwold (Gurney 1986a: 49-92) three at Caistor and one at Crownthorpe (Gurney 1986b), only the two former produced votive objects, the others being recognised entirely by their structural remains.

In terms of monumentality and physical presence within the landscape, Phase I (dating from fourth century BC) at Fison Way is not dominated by any single structure, with occupation concentrated in the south part of the site and moving to the north of the excavated area during Phase Ib (see Gregory 1991: Figs. 8-9). There appears to be functional distinctions across the area occupied in Phase I, e.g. metal-working debris in Enclosure 28 and Ditch 4876, in the south of the site. There are differences in the concentration of pottery assemblages with gritty fabrics dominating Enclosure 6 to the south, and those with sandy fabrics to the north. There are also marked differences between the relatively simple, and probably larger enclosures in the sandy area, and the complex pattern of smaller more fragmented enclosures to the south, all of which would suggest some functional differentiations (Gregory 1991: 192).

Enclosures to the north and north-west appear to be contemporaneous and display evidence for the working of copper-alloy objects and silver coins (ditch of Enclosure 23). The remaining enclosures are thought to represent inhumation graves, despite the absence of human bones. To the south of Enclosure 1a is an enclosure of similar proportions (26). It contained a great deal of open space and the only contemporary feature is hollow 2442, which contained soot and potboilers. Given the apparent similarities between Enclosures 1a and 26, it is likely that they were closely related in function and that the activities within Enclosure 26 served 1a in some way (Gregory 1991: 126).

Phase II is of most interest because the site witnesses continuous re-development over a period of twenty years (c. AD 40 to 60). During the last decade there were a total of ten or twelve stages of work, this would mean at least one modification a year (see Gregory 1991: Figs. 37, 83). Some of these modifications were major, the construction of Enclosure 1a for example, and would have required a large labour force in order to complete them in a reasonable period, while others would involve the destruction of earlier features which may have been only a year or months old (Gregory 1991: 193-4). This implies an organised programme of work, which would require some central control and direction. With this in mind, work-party feasts may have provided the incentive for these periods of rapid change.

During the late AD 50s, Enclosure 1a was replaced by 1b. This new enclosure stood in isolation as opposed to its predecessor surrounded by funerary satellites (see Gregory 1991: Figs. 37, 83, Plates LVIII and LIX). The new enlarged structure contained not one, but five circular structures. Building 2 was accompanied by two similar structures to its north and south (Buildings 1 and 3), which were in turn associated with two circular walled precincts (Buildings 4 and 5), with walks through them toward the circular buildings behind. Murray (1995) concluded that Viereckschanzen were feasting arenas through an analysis of the material culture. There is a striking difference in the proportions of coarse and fine pottery between the Viereckschanzen and settlements. At the Viereckschanzen, finely made ceramics comprise an average of only 18 per cent of the assemblage,

86

Brück (1999) has explored how the life cycles of Middle Bronze Age settlements were intimately related at both a practical and metaphorical level to the life cycle of

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

while coarse ware dominates at nearly 80 per cent. In contrast, fine ware on settlements is usually more common, accounting for an average of 47 percent of the assemblage, while coarse ceramics comprise an average of 36 per cent (Murray 1990: 131). This is interesting considering that during the conquest period at Fison Way, despite requiring the mobilisation and large-scale consumption of both material and human resources in its construction, it is impoverished in terms of imported finewares. Four sherds of Samian were found in Phase II contexts: a Dressel 29 from Enclosure 14, a Dressel 17 from Enclosure 26 and two platters from the outer ditch of Enclosure 1a. Terra nigra and terra rubra were no more common than the Samian ware, with six vessels represented.

food preparation intended for mass consumption as these sites. This is further enhanced by the evidence for bulk storage of grain and its semi-clean state on arrival at the site. Murray also noted a relationship between Viereckschanzen and funerary monuments (1995: 136). At Fison Way, a cemetery is thought to have been constructed outside the Phase II enclosure. This is tentative given the absence of bone due to acidic soil conditions, but the relationship is interesting in light of Murray’s observations. Viereckschanzen made reference to the past through the manipulation of a landscape that already had structure, creating new meaning perhaps by appealing to the ancestors, highlighting a possible common heritage in order to motivate people to pull together, or showing ancestral inheritance to power and the right to rule. Holding feasts within close proximity of earlier cemeteries may have been an attempt to maintain and reinforce existing relationships.

Murray (1995) proposed that the lack of ceramic storage vessels suggested that food was not kept within the enclosures for extended periods of time, unless they were stored in organic containers which did not survive. The prevalence of cooking and coarse serving utensils indicated that food preparation and consumption were important activities at the Viereckschanzen. During Phases II and III at Fison Way, grog-tempered wares (from Hertfordshire) were used alongside local fabrics. The presence of grogtempered wares increases over time (one percent of the total pottery in Phase I deposits, eleven percent in Phase II and twenty one percent in Phase III). Much of this grogtempered ware comes from large combed jars, which remain in use over a longer period of time than other vessel types, although bowls are more common in Phase I and II.

The site at Fison Way may represent a site of ancestral veneration and used at various times throughout the year to hold feasts. These feasts would have helped to create and maintain alliances within the wider-community. Although the cemetery was destroyed in the later phases of the site, it would have held importance to a generation who knew of its location and this knowledge could have been used to legitimise and lay claim to various social, political and economic roles, e.g. labour mobilisation. The amount of labour that would have been required for the numerous reconstructions would have been immense. The presence of quantities of semi-clean grain and faunal remains (if they were preserved) could suggest a workparty feast – a particular form of the ‘empowering feast’ mode of commensal politics, as proposed by Dietler (1996, 2001), where commensal hospitality is used to orchestrate voluntary collective labour (see Chapter Five for detailed discussion). This could partially explain the lack of fine wares at the site. Whoever was able to organise construction on such a large-scale would surely not require to further highlight their status without the provision of fine wares for the rewarding feast.

During Phases II and III, wheel-made vessels are more abundant. With the exception of the small jar, the forms represented in grog-tempered ware are absent from the wheel-turned fabric assemblage (jars and bowls). It would appear that some forms continued to be made in grogtempered ware then dying out, while others underwent a change to new fabrics and flourished, e.g. micaceous biconical bowls, butt beakers and Gallo-Belgic copies. There is an absence of butt beakers and Gallo-Belgic shapes. A comprehensive understanding of the consuming nature of the site at Fison Way, is compromised slightly by the acidity of the soil which has affected the preservation of faunal remains. In terms of floral remains, it is interesting to note that despite the lack of domestic activity, the site was receiving semi-clean grain and in quantities that would seem to represent more than site’s actual subsistence requirements; some carbonised grain was even found in Building 2. The predominance of barley grains and the absence of light cereal chaff implies that the assemblages consist largely of semi-clean grain prepared for bulk storage (Murphy 1991b: 178).

Dietler (2001) argues that at work-feasts, reciprocal labour obligations may be very weak, but the lavishness of the hospitality expected is quite significant. This form of work event for labour to mobilised on a much larger scale and for projects to be undertaken that would not be possible with work exchanges (such as the multiple ditch constructions at Fison Way). Work feasts are a more effective way of recruiting workers from a wider social radius and they are attracted to the scale of hospitality (quantity and quality of food and drink offered, as well as the reputation of the host for providing these things) rather than having a close social relationship with the host (Dietler and Herbich 2001: 243).

The absence of fine wares may be more a factor of function than of economics. In the context of limited storage capability and a general predominance of cooking vessels, the ubiquity of coarse serving ware may imply large-scale

87

It must be remembered that Fison Way was located within a region that displayed different consumption patterns, particularly in terms of imported pottery and foodstuffs.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

The apparently ‘high-status’ activities in Phases I and II, minting and the manufacture of decorated metalwork, together with the extraordinary investment of resources involved in the construction of the Phase III enclosure, led to an initial hypothesis of a tribal centre (Gregory 1991: 197). There is a distinct absence of domestic activity and the scarcity of imported luxury goods, particularly amphorae. However, as previously discussed (Chapter Five), the regional variation of pottery assemblages during the later Iron Age could represent variation in consumption patterns and a conscious choice to retain indigenous forms of ceramics. It cannot be assumed that without the fine wares, the feasts that were offered were not lavish. The fact that so many modifications were completed in such a sort space of time suggests that the host was able to continuously attract a large work force.

occupied but open to access in the appropriate conditions and at the right times (Whittle and Pollard 1999: 383-4). It is the concerns of life, the life cycle and death which are presented, worked and celebrated at the enclosure. There is an overwhelming sense of activity of people and animals coming, doing things, engaging with each other. One of the richest hoard areas is the edge of the Breckland and the valley running throughout it, and overlooking this valley stands the site at Fison Way. Of the sites in the area which produce moulds for coin blanks (Fison Way, Woodcock Hall, Saham Toney and Needham) the two former are in this same area (Gregory 1991: 201). Memories behind the site, and the histories of things used and deposited, drew the past into the present, and offered the cyclicity of time for contemplation.

Discussion

The bringing together of people at intervals, in smaller or larger groups is important, especially in serving social needs among a scattered population. Research carried out at Windmill Hill (Whittle et al. 1999) is particularly informative and raises interesting points which may be applicable to my research. At the enclosure there are recurrent patterns concerning the use of the different parts of the enclosure. Meanings were created, remembered, reworked, perhaps contested and kept alive but also altered by repetition (Whittle and Pollard 1999: 381).

Work-party feasts are not used to celebrate a particular cycle and in the case of Iron Age East Anglia, they were a source of labour mobilisation for the construction of structures, settlements (life transition cycles) or funerary monuments (end of life cycle). The ability to attract labour for such activities would suggest that they are involved in political cycles too (Table 36). Life Transition Cycles

The enclosure might have had one set of direct meanings: it was that place as that time where those people built and gathered. It might have been involved with very specific kinds of rites. Some or much of what was done there might not have been thought about consciously, being perhaps experienced ‘affectively’ (cf. Bloch 1995; Roscoe 1995), or may not have been thought about separately from the routines of everyday life (Whittle and Pollard 1999: 381). Particular things that were built or dug, or were eaten or otherwise consumed, middened, stored and deposited, may have stood metonymically for larger wholes, and metaphorically for larger ideas. The site as a whole may have stood for, in the sense of being one arena where they were played out, experienced and commemorated, a set of ideas and values fundamental to the people involved (Whittle and Pollard 1999: 381).

Time Cycles

Political Cycles

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

2

0

3

Chalkland

1

1

0

1

Little Ouse

1

1

0

1

Bure/Yare

0

0

0

0

Gipping

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

5

4

0

5

Life

Death

Nene

0

Ouse

0

Coastal

Table 36. Work-party feasts and points of a cycle they may mark

The site at Fison Way, Thetford witnessed a considerable amount of re-structuring that was undertaken over the course of a decade and would have involved a large workforce. With these changes, the site experienced a continuous re-birth and change, altering both the site’s life history and that of those who used the site and embodied these changes over this period of time. Feasting was a mechanism with which to gather a work force in order to carry out large construction efforts, but it was also an important communal consumption activity which could be used to mark critical points in the life cycle of a settlement, its structures and its inhabitants. Where settlements are occupied for a single generation, the life cycle of a settlement relates closely to the life cycle of its inhabitants (Brück 1999: 149). Households expand and contract as children are born, young members marry and move away, or as elderly parents come to live with their adult offspring.

88

The act of enclosure (certainly in the case of Thetford) was a repetitive process, harking back to the past and creating anew as well as rebuilding and adding to what has gone before. A place obtains significance not just in its location; it gained importance due to the quantities of material involved and accumulated and thus a history. The continuity of gatherings helps to enhance the special character of the place, with people returning to it. On one level, it may be regarded metonymically as an especially significant part of the seasonal, annual and lifetime occupation or settlement ranges of those who used it, and at another level it may come to stand metaphorically for their existence as a whole: always there, rooted in one place, not permanently

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

A household’s economic circumstances may likewise change. New structures were built and old ones fell out of use as the material needs of household groups changed as members were born, died or moved away.

Food

Vessels

Location

Aggrandisers

Prestige

the purpose they served differed in terms of the life cycle. Site Name

Site Type

Nene

2

2

2

0

0

3 Enclosures 1 Settlement

Ouse

6

1

3

0

0

4 Enclosures 2 Settlements 1 Hillfort

Coastal

4

7

1

0

0

5 1 3 1

Unenclosed Hillfort Enclosures Settlement

0

5 3 1 3

Settlements Enclosures Unenclosed Oppida

0

2 Enclosures 1 Settlement

Chalkland

Little Ouse

10

2

7

2

2

1

0

0

Bure/Yare

3

1

0

0

0

1 Settlement 1 Unenclosed 2 Enclosures

Gipping

2

1

0

0

0

1 Settlement 2 Enclosures

Total Sites = 45

Table 37. Distribution of alliance feasts and the associated feasting indicator

Alliance Building Feasts Alliance or cooperation feasts can take a variety of forms and be held for a number of reasons. Hayden (2001: 38) highlights four types of feasts, each with a particular purpose. These are solidarity feasts (occurring within groups), reciprocal feasts (taking place between groups), political support feasts (to obtain political supporters) and promotional feasts (to display success and attract labour or economic support). Solidarity feasts, no matter what their size, should entail minimal departures from standard daily foods or material items, whereas competitive and promotional feasts should represent major departures with consequent pressures to develop and change both food and material technologies (Hayden 2001: 38).

89

This form of feast dominates the examples identified in the region of East Anglia. The site type does not play an important role in the form of feasting which takes place, although there are a few examples appearing on oppida (Tables 37 and 38). This would suggest that alliancebuilding feasts are a strategy which was employed across all levels of society and forms of settlement. These feasts are not restricted to a particular geographical region of East Anglia, although there is a predominance of examples in the western part of East Anglia. This is likely to represent a general overrepresentation of feasting sites in this area rather than a distinct pattern. Sites are in a variety of landscapes, e.g. Haddenham in its wetland environment. I have chosen to highlight two sites: Ardleigh and Woodham Walter. Both have similar disposal contexts, but

Region

Site Type

Feasting Indicator

Borough Fen

Nene

Enclosed Settlement

Addenbrookes

Ouse

Settlement

Food

Fengate

Nene

Settlement

Vessels

Haddenham

Ouse

Enclosed Settlement

Vessels, Food

Maxey

Nene

Enclosed Settlement

Food

Orton Longueville

Nene

Enclosed Settlement

Food, Vessels

Prickwillow Rd, Ely

Ouse

Enclosed Settlement

Food

Trumpington

Facilities, Location

Ouse

Settlement

Food, Location

Upper Delphs, Haddenham

Ouse

Enclosed Settlement

Food, Location

Wandlebury

Ouse

Hillfort

Food

Wardy Hill

Ouse

Enclosed Settlement

Location

Ardleigh

Coastal

Unenclosed Settlement

Vessels, Prestige

Asheldham Camp

Coastal

Hillfort

Food

Birchangar

Chalkland

Settlement

Food, Vessels

Fox Hall Farm

Coastal

Unenclosed Settlement

Vessels

Gosbecks

Coastal

Enclosed Settlement

Location

Howell’s Farm

Coastal

Unenclosed Settlement

Vessels

Kelvedon, Doucecroft

Coastal

Enclosed Settlement

Vessels, Food

Linford

Coastal

Unenclosed Settlement

Food

Maldon, Beacon Green

Coastal

Unenclosed Settlement

Vessels

Slough House Farm

Coastal

Settlement

Vessels

Stansted ACS

Chalkland

Enclosed Settlement

Food, Location

Stansted DCS

Chalkland

Enclosed Settlement

Vessels

Stansted SCS

Chalkland

Settlement

Food, Vessels

Wendens Ambo

Chalkland

Unenclosed Settlement

Vessels

Woodham Walter

Coastal

Enclosed Settlement

Vessels, Food

Aldwick

Chalkland

Settlement

Food

Fison Way, Thetford

Little Ouse/ Lark

Enclosure

Food, Vessels, Location

Baldock

Chalkland

Oppidum

Food

Hunstanton

Bure/Yare

Settlement

Food

Foxholes Farm

Chalkland

Enclosure

Food, Vessels

Quidney Farm, Saham Toney

Bure/Yare

Enclosure

Location

Gorhambury

Chalkland

Enclosure

Food, Vessels

Silfield

Bure/Yare

Unenclosed Settlement

Food

PuckeridgeBraughing

Chalkland

Oppidum

Food, Vessels, Location

Thornham

Bure/Yare

Enclosure

Vessels

Skeleton Green

Chalkland

Oppidum

Food, Vessels

Hockwold

Little Ouse/ Lark

Settlement

Vessels

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Site Name

Region

Site Type

I. Phase III is dated to c. AD 55 based on terra rubra noted in one of the layers. This ware is rare or absent on military sites founded after c. AD 50 (Sealey 1999a: 33).

Feasting Indicator

Upper Millfield Wood

Chalkland

Settlement

Food

Claydon

Gipping

Settlement

Food

Caistor St Edmund

Bure/Yare

Enclosure

Food

Burgh

Gipping

Enclosure

Food

Barham

Gipping

Enclosure

Vessels

Barnham

Little Ouse/ Lark

Enclosure

Food

Datchworth

Chalkland

The primary fill contained locally-made jars and a pedestal urn, as well as the remains of four spouted strainer bowls (see Brown 1999, Fig. 82). A fifth spout was identified during excavations in 1957 and located 50m south of the pit and inside the boundary ditch (for details of the strainers see Appendix Two). The pit infill contained the hand-made pottery cauldron. Circular holes in the rim indicate that the cauldron would have been suspended. The cordon is decorated with circular stab marks which have been suggested to represent an attempt to copy the domeshaped rivet heads on metal versions (Sealey 1999b: 117). This shell-tempered ware is a speciality of south Essex and these vessels were occasionally traded to the north of the county, Ardleigh an example of one of these instances. Further finds included a carinated bowl (Essex form) as well as a sherd from a beaker, which is a local copy of terra rubra. The recut of the pit contained a number of vessel types. There was a decorated butt beaker, a locallymade storage jar, a Gallo-Belgic pedestal cup and a sherd of terra rubra. In another layer there was a lop-sided Braughing jar, a grooved butt beaker and a globular jar.

Food

Table 37. Examples of alliance feasts in East Anglia

Ardleigh, Essex Ardleigh lies approximately 7km north-east of Colchester situated at the head of the Salary Brook tributary. The Iron Age site is dominated by an enclosed roundhouse, with evidence of houses, their ancillary structures and storage pits almost entirely lacking within the excavated areas at Ardleigh (Brown 1999: 162). This substantial single roundhouse dates to the MIA and is further enhanced by the rectangular enclosure tightly drawn around its circular gully and marked by a deep ditch with a single entrance. Aerial photographs reveal that the enclosed roundhouse is sited some distance from the main cropmark complex of ditched enclosures and trackways (see Brown 1999, Fig. 4). This isolation is reinforced by the surrounding enclosure ditch, with its single narrow entrance further constricted by two flanking gullies (Brown 1999: 177). Such separation may represent a deliberate attempt by the occupants to isolate themselves from direct contact with their surroundings.

All these finds would appear to represent items associated with the consumption of alcohol and it could be proposed that they form an indigenous drinking set and were deposited following a feast. The spouted strainer bowls are local products thought to derive from two different metal prototypes; a rounded and a carinated form. Two metal prototypes of the carinated form come from early Roman metalwork hoards; Brandon (Suffolk) (Grew 1980: 376) and Crownthorpe (Norfolk) (Henig 1995: 35, pl. 17). Despite the apparent lack of metal prototypes for these ceramic forms, it is worth noting the differential survival rates of these materials and therefore it is more common for ceramics to survive when one considers the possibility of recycling of the metalwork.

LIA burials were recovered from just within the northeast corner of the enclosure and more burials lay just outside the south-east corner. At Ardleigh, the peripheral location of burials, often placed on or close to boundaries, is matched by the location of the Cauldron Pit just outside the large Bronze Age ditch (1912), which appears to have served as a boundary to the LIA settlement. It is this particular feature that I wish to focus on.

Strainer bowls appear to be a purely British product with no known parallels in the Roman world. As previously mentioned (Chapter Five) the bronze vessel from Welwyn was originally an imported Roman bowl, which had been transformed into a spouted strainer by a local metalworker. During the first century AD bronze strainer bowls with zoomorphic spouts appeared. Fish head spouts have been found at Felmersham (Beds.) (Watson 1949, pl.5a-b, 41-2; Kennett 1970; Megaw 1970: 162, no. 276), Ingoldisthorpe (Norfolk) and Beck Row (Suffolk). At King Harry Lane, heat-distorted fragments from a bronze perforated panel, presumably from a strainer bowl, were found in a cremation grave dated to AD 1 to 40 (Stead and Rigby 1989: 11, no. 6, 354, 358, fig 157). Bronze vessels seem to disappear from the archaeological record around AD 60, perhaps due to new forms of drinking vessels being adopted. However, the social and cultural

The ‘cauldron pit’ is some 6m outside the boundary ditch of the LIA and early Roman settlement. Three phases were assigned to this feature (see Erith and Hollbert 1974): the first consists of layers N to J which show signs of intense burning and were rich in LIA pottery of Belgic type, some of which showed signs of burning. The assemblage was apparently more or less contemporaneous, with no hint of earlier residual material (Sealey 1999a: 33) and appears to have been consigned to the pit not long after its first breakage. The second phase is the backfill of the pit and this was followed by a final phase which represents the recut of the pit. Due to the present of local copies of girth beakers and jar dated to the conquest period, the deposit is dated to c. AD 45 (Sealey 1999a). The presence of co-joining sherds in layers attributed to Phases I and II suggests that backfilling occurred immediately after Phase 90

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

practice to which they belonged was maintained through the production of pottery copies.

among the inhabitants of the site. Evidence from strainer finds suggests that they still enjoyed a drink, but did not feel the need to acquire the taste for wine. The appearance of ears of barley on coins from this region, could represent the enjoyment of indigenous forms of alcohol. Drinking itself was the activity which created and maintained alliances and it could be supposed that the actual form of alcohol made little difference to the expected outcome of the event. The conscious choice to maintain indigenous forms of drinking and alcohol could represent attempts to maintain a social structure that was potentially being threatened by the arrival of the Roman army. In fact, as noted, the one context in which these items were involved in the consumption of wine was a rich burial near what has been traditionally referred to as a seat of power, Verlamion. Ardleigh was an enclosure which according to the archaeological evidence, deliberately attempted to isolate and exclude itself from the surrounding landscape and maintaining its own values (be they political, social or economic) is reflected in the nature of its consumption.

Bronze spouted strainer bowls of Late Iron Age and early Roman date have been thought of as wine strainers. There is little direct association of strainer bowls and wine amphorae in Britain. Although Welwyn’s strainer bowl was associated with five wine amphorae, this appears to be an isolated incident; possibly an attempt to treat imported wine in the same way as local drinks, something that would seem not have been repeated elsewhere. At Stanway, a rich grave dated to c. AD 50 contained a bronze strainer bowl (Crummy 1997a: 67; 1997b: 5-7). Although accompanied by an amphora, this was a Beltrán salazon from Spain, which would have held salted fish or fish sauce as opposed to wine. Study of the residues from the bronze spouted strainer bowl indicated the presence of wormwood, a plant native to Britain and used in historical times to flavour ale and other drinks. It is clear that there is a connection between strainers and cauldrons and within Britain there are four instances of this association – Ardleigh, Brandon, Santon and Felmersham. In the Brandon hoard the cauldron was inverted over the strainer bowl and other finds, at Santon a smaller vessel contained the associated hoard (Smith 1909: 146-8) and the Felmersham has since been lost, but was reported as the time of discovery (Kuhlicke 1969).

Woodham Walter, Essex This site is located to the south of the River Chelmer and its flood plain and is 6.5km due west of the head of the Blackwater estuary. During the MPRIA a small rectangular enclosure was constructed and continued in use into the LPRIA. During the LPRIA the sub-rectangular enclosure was superseded by a much larger rectangular enclosure, which prior to its abandonment in the first century AD, underwent several constructional phases (see Buckley and Hedges 1987b: Fig. 2). It is Phase III of the site (LPRIA) which is of most interest, particularly the enclosure ditch (CF101) for it produced about 80 Belgic-Roman vessels from just a 6m excavated section of the ditch (see Buckley and Hedges 1987b, Plate VIII). The sherds were mainly large and unabraded and represent a manufacture date of c. AD 40 to 60. This section of the ditch contrasts markedly with the modest volume of pottery recovered from the adjacent 6m lengths of CF100 and CF102.

New structures were built and old ones fell out of use as the material needs of household groups changed as members were born, died or moved away. Individual life cycles also relate to the descent group and the settlement may act as a partial representation of this continuation. Feasts may therefore occur at times of political struggle – inter- or intragroup struggles or discontent and political instability within society as a whole, i.e. the arrival of the Roman army. The arrival of the Roman army would have been a major event in everyone’s lifecycle, but the longerterm effects would not be known on certain generations. The deposit at Ardleigh is of significance due the timing of its disposal around the time. At Farningham (Kent), occupation of the farmstead enclosure ended with its abandonment in c. AD 50. One of the latest pits had a spread of at least 43 broken pots – many of which were restored to complete profiles. Similar deposits are also apparent at Orton Longueville (Site 10) and Woodham Walter (Site 40), as mentioned in Chapter Five. Although the Cauldron pit has similarities with these sites, the settlement at Ardleigh was not abandoned at the time of the deposit and therefore should not be viewed as a ‘rite of termination’ as proposed for the latter sites.

Ten round-shouldered jars were identified in Fabric A (medium fineware). These particular jars are characterised by having a tightly rounded shoulder, a well-defined neck and out-turned lip. This is a very common type (Cam form 222). Five further thin-walled jars with out-curved rims were identified. These belonged to the series Cam form218. There were also sherds from a colander bowl, a small round-bodied bowl and a beaker. Two jars were identified in Fabric B, a slightly coarser fabric than Fabric A. Two jugs were also noted of Cam form 221 and another one of Cam form 239. Fabric C (very coarse) produced another jar and a further thirteen jugs of Cam form 260. In Fabric D (medium-grey) there was a jug, platter and a small ovoid beaker. Imitations in this fabric of Gallo-Belgic wares included two two-

91

The evidence suggests that the deposit represents a drinking feast, perhaps occurring during the years of the Roman conquest and therefore society was particularly unstable. The holding of a feast would have been a represented a conscious effort to create alliance and community ‘spirit’

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

handled flagons, a wide-mouthed beaker, a platter and a butt-beaker. A terra rubra butt beaker was also noted. Six more jars were also identified in this deposit; two in Fabric E (black), one in Fabric H (fine medium grey) and three in miscellaneous fabrics. A number of vessels in Roman fabrics are included in this deposit. There were two jugs (one narrow-necked the other a storage jar), a sherd from a bead-rim pie dish, sherds from at least four flagons, six of more sherds from one or more amphorae of South Spanish fabric (possibly Dressel form 20) and a rim from a piece of Southern Gaulish Samian ware.

exchanges and ancestral ceremonies (Fowler 2004: 155). To focus upon conviviality and ‘aesthetics of community’ sheds considerable light upon social, economic and political life. The archaeological material from Ardleigh highlights how drinks are social tools for the integration of communities and for the fulfilment of social obligations. Drinking is a social act: it takes place where people interact, and it helps to establish and define relationships among them, but it is also a political and economic tool. It helps in establishing the relations of reciprocal obligation that bind host and guest and, much like feasting, can be competitively manipulated for prestige, economic advantage, and political power. It serves to promote social solidarity through its role in facilitating social interaction in the context of informal social gatherings. Feast drinking might occur at events such as social or family occasions, rites of transition, thanksgiving offerings relating to crops and the harvest, after the construction of a house, during ritual offerings dedicated to gods or ancestors or at the elections of chieftains. Therefore drink is a social lubricant in both formal and informal feasting contexts, simultaneously facilitating social interaction and reinforcing institutionalised status distinctions within a society (Abercrombie 1998). By hosting feasts awash with drink, an individual or group can create a sense of indebtedness among the attendees, thus maintaining or creating status within society.

This assemblage represents a homogenous group of domestic wares of the mid-first century AD. The functional composition of the group is as follows: 65 per cent jars of various kinds, 25 per cent tablewares and 10 per cent special purpose wares. Half of the jars show evidence of burning or soot and were clearly used as cooking pots, although some of the examples are unlikely to have been made with that use in view. Of the tablewares – platters, beakers and flagons – two-thirds may be described as medium fine, and the remainder as fine. The special purpose vessels comprise two jars, each with a central hole in the base, and are of uncertain use, a miniature jar, a colander, two lids for cooking pots and an oil amphora (Rodwell 1987: 38). The amount of wear on the rims and bases of some of the vessels shows that they are likely to have been in use for a few years, at least. Generally, this group may be seen as representing a typical collection of domestic kitchen and tablewares. Sherds were large and represented fresh breaks to about 80 pots; most of which had profiles that could be restored in their entirety (see Buckley and Hedges 1987b, Figures 24-28). The wares present were dated to c. AD 40 to 60 and it is believed that they would have been broken in the AD 50s (Buckley and Hedges 1987b: 14; Rodwell 1987: 30-5, 38-9). The assemblage had been burnt and charcoal and burnt grains were present in the context (Buckley and Hedges 1987b).

Life Transition Cycles

Time Cycles

Political Cycles

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

2

0

1

Chalkland

14

0

1

1

Little Ouse

3

0

0

1

Bure/Yare

5

0

0

0

Gipping

3

0

0

0

TOTAL

45

2

1

3

Life

Death

Nene

4

Ouse

7

Coastal

Table 39. Alliance feasts and points of a cycle they may mark

This deposit is thought to represent ‘closure’ and marks the abandonment of the site (Buckley and Hedges 1987b). Due to the size and freshness of the breakages it is possible that a feast marked the abandonment of the site. The assemblage would suggest a large number of people were present and that a large amount of food (and/or drink) was prepared and eventually consumed.

Alliance feasts are clearly linked with life transition cycles and although evenly spread throughout the region, it is the chalkland, coastal and Ouse zones which witness more acts of feasting during the earlier phases of the life cycle (Table 39). This form of feasting is not used to mark the end of the life cycle, although as I have previously noted, alliance and funerary feasts are intimately linked due to the need to renegotiate social relations and structure when a void is created by the death of a member of a community. Woodham Walter represents the end of a particular life cycle for some; a feast occurred to celebrate and remember the abandonment or ‘death’ of the settlement. Although this marks the end of one cycle, it is the start of a new one for others. Much like workparty feasts, alliance feasts can occur at critical points in the life cycle of a settlement, its structures and its inhabitants. Ardleigh and Woodham Walter have similar archaeological traces, but the contexts in which these feasts manifest

Discussion

92

The archaeology of personhood operates through the study of personal transactions, relationships, interactions and transformations. Personhood gives a shape to how identities that shift continually throughout life are mediated through the small interactions between a few people, and in large community events, through sharing, cooking and eating food, through death and decomposition and through mortuary

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

themselves and the events for which they occur differ.

Site Name

Political cycles may be marked by this form of feast due to the very nature and expected outcome of holding an alliance feast. However, as suggested, it is difficult to identify this specifically in the archaeological record and therefore it can only be inferred from the data available. The events at Ardleigh occur during a politically unstable period, the imminent arrival of the Roman army, and this is of particular significance given the proximity of the site to Camulodunum. The drinking feast could have served two purposes: to maintain group and community solidarity and to attract further allies. Alliance feasts could also mark time cycles, but in the case it may be the movement of a population into a new area and the creation of new settlements, social and political structure. This again is difficult to substantiate and can only be suggested through the increase in settlement in uninhabited during the later Iron Age.

Funerary Feasts Perhaps the most archaeologically visible part of the life cycle is death and is clearly marked by feasting activities. In many traditional cultures, funeral feasts constitute the single most important and costly event in the history of a family. Families frequently use all of their available resources to host extremely lavish funeral feasts and many families even borrow as much their credit will allow, thus driving them into debt for years after the funerals. Not only are enormous amounts of time and resources spent for no apparent material benefit, but some families actually become destitute in their obsession to hold impressive feasts. Moreover, all this is done for deceased individuals who are incapable of repaying these efforts or expressing appreciation.

Region

Feasting Indicator

Site Type

Hinxton

Ouse

Cemetery

Aggrandisers

Snailwell

Ouse

Burial

Aggrandisers

Ardleigh

Coastal

Burial

Aggrandisers

Birchangar

Chalkland

Burial

Aggrandisers

Elms Farm

Coastal

Burial

Vessels

Lexden

Coastal

Burial

Aggrandisers

Maldon Hall Farm

Coastal

Cemetery

Aggrandisers

North Shoebury

Coastal

Cemetery

Aggrandisers

Stansted DFS

Chalkland

Burial

Aggrandisers

Stanway

Coastal

Cemetery

Aggrandisers

West Mersea

Coastal

Burial

Aggrandisers

Baldock

Chalkland

Burial

Aggrandisers

Folly Lane

Chalkland

Cemetery

Aggrandisers

Harpenden

Chalkland

Burial

Aggrandisers

Hertford Heath

Chalkland

Burial

Aggrandisers

King Harry Lane

Chalkland

Cemetery

Aggrandisers

Knebworth

Chalkland

Burial

Aggrandisers

St Stephens

Chalkland

Burial

Aggrandisers

Verulamium

Chalkland

Burial

Aggrandisers

Welwyn Garden City

Chalkland

Cemetery

Aggrandisers

Table 40. Examples of funerary feasts in East Anglia

Funerals are arenas for creating socio-economic and political alliances via implicit gifts, favours, services or support and their consequent debts. They are also extensively used for information display promoting the past success, as well as the present state of health and vitality of specific families and their support groups. Because family fortunes can rise and fall precipitously in transegalitarian societies, it is essential to revalidate one’s political and economic status at fairly regular intervals and at a range of different levels. Funerals are the most inclusive of large numbers of people that families want to impress.

Ostentatious feasts, such as those at funerals, could be interpreted as synonyms for economic and political ‘success’. In transegalitarian communities, proven success is probably the major criteria (after close kinship) used for establishing important relationships between pairs of individuals, families, lineages, clans and communities. Proven success translates into desirability and reliability. Favourable relationships on a number of levels, from individuals to communities, are critical for survival, security and sexual reproduction.

Funeral feasts are located primarily in southern East Anglia (Table 40), a feature already noted in Chapter Five. I focus on two sites, each of which differ in size from each other and are associated with different settlement types. I have chosen not to discuss the rich chieftain burials of St Albans and Colchester in order to highlight the variety in funerary of feasts during the later Iron Age and how the role of the feast was articulated throughout society.

Stansted DFS and DCS cremations

Since those that typically come to funerals are kin, affines, allies or potential allies/affines, funerals constitute an ideal context to reaffirm relationships of alliance and support, and to try to cultivate even more advantageous relationships. Moreover, deaths in various families within these support or alliance groups happen frequently enough so that these relationships can be affirmed on a fairly regular basis with each family taking their turn several times per generation.

93

Stansted lies on the east side of a bolder clay plateau, between the Rivers Roding and Stort, and is bisected by the Pincey Brook (Figure 35). An extensive LIA and Roman cemetery was situated on the western side of the airport. It was of such as a size that the excavators identified three separate sites (DCS, DFS and SCS, Figure 36). The majority of the burials were found on DFS and DCS. A group of six burials (Cremations 1-6) was located in the eastern area of DCS. In the centre of the DCS area a group of three burials

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

(7, 19 and 33) contained minimal surviving evidence, mostly consisting of small quantities of pottery and cremated bone. Approximately 60m further to the south-south-west of DCS a group of burials was clustered around an earlier ditch. A total of eight burials were recovered from this area (20-4, 29-31). A short distance to the south of this group were two more cremation burials containing a large number of grave goods (25 and 26). On DFS fourteen burials were excavated (8-18, 27-8 and 32). In the area to the north-east of the latter group lay two further, isolated burials (34 and 35). Two additional groups of burials were identified further to the north at SCS. One of these comprised three burials (36-8) and the second consisted of five burials (39-43) (Havis and Brooks 2004: 189).

a carinated cup and a butt beaker. A further pre-Flavian cremation (Cremation 13-DFS 400) had seven pottery vessels placed within the grave (two platters, everted-rim beaker, two miniature necked jars, terra rubra pedestal beaker and a terra nigra carinated cup). The remains of a chicken skeleton were recovered from the burial, the skull being within one of the small cups (see Havis and Brooks 2004: Figs. 131, 135).

Figure 35. Plan showing excavated areas at Stansted (after Havis and Brooks 2004, Fig. 5)

side of a young male pig skull, which had been cleaved in half down the centre. The complete skeleton of a chicken was also present (see Havis and Brooks 2004: Figs. 139, 140). A similar burial was also discovered (Cremation 17DFS 313) dating to the same period. Here the cremated bone was contained within a wooden casket which had metal fittings. Inside, as well as the cremated remains, was a toiletry set. Two pottery vessels were recovered (an everted-rim beaker and flagon), but more may have been removed by a later ditch. The right side of a young female pig skull, cleft in half, was recovered, along with the bones representing the right side of a chicken (Figure 49).

Cremation 15 (DFS 555) was a later first century interment and was covered by a layer of charcoal thought to represent a series of burnt planks. Beneath these planks, four pottery vessels were found, two of the Samian platters, the others a two-handled flagon and an everted-rim beaker. On the northern side of the cremation were the remains of the right

94

Cremation 9 (DFS 345) (pre-Flavian) was situated in the centre of the DFS excavation area. Ten pottery vessels were found including two flagons, three platters, two terra nigra cups, a butt beaker, a narrow-necked jar and a globular jar. Two of the platters also contained the remains of meat offerings. The majority of the cremated bone lay separately from the pots (Figure 48). Cremation 12 (DFS 505), again pre-Flavian, contained the remains of five pottery vessels along with the partial skeleton of a neonatal pig and a single chicken bone. The vessels included three platters,

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

bowl, an urn and a cup), a ‘dinner service’ of eight Samian vessels, and other pottery containers including a colourcoated beaker and a carrot amphora. An iron knife with a bone handle was found associated with the remains of the rear leg of a pig.

Figure 36. The Late Iron Age/Roman cemetery (after Havis and Brooks 2004, Fig. 129)

Although strictly outside of my period of research, a burial from the Duckend site is very interesting (Cremation 25DCS 247). The cremated remains of a rich burial were contained within a wooden box (see Havis and Brooks 2004: Fig 145). The cremated bone lay in the centre of the burial on a pewter tray, with the grave goods arranged it. These were five copper alloy vessels (a jug, an amphora, two skillets and a bowl), five glass vessels (two bottles, a

95

The LIA cremations (Group A) draw on a quite restricted range of vessel classes, mostly jars, compared with the other groups (Wallace 2004: 240) (Table 41). The most common combinations among the other large groups are platter and beaker in Group B (pre-Flavian), and jar and

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

flagon, jar and cup and jar and miniature vessel in Group C (later first century/early second century). A metallic ‘libation set’ was found in cremation 25 (DCS 247) of Group D (early-mid second century). It is only with the imported-dominated Groups B and D that multiple examples of vessel classes are common in individual cremations (Wallace 2004: 240). The burials of Group D stand out, not only because of the great number of objects given to the deceased, but also because it is only in this Group that anything approaching a crockery service can be found. Cremation 25 (DCS 247) contained a colour-coat beaker, four matching Samian cups, two matching dishes, another single cup and a single platter. Wallace (2004) suggests that rather than this representing merely a twelvepiece service, it is instead an extension of the provision seen amongst Group B burials for sets of vessels.

and 17, both from the right side of the skull. In Cremation 25, the articulated hind leg of a pig was found: the bones were situated adjacent to a bone-handled knife. Cremation 9 contained rib bones (species unidentified) which were placed on a platter. Complete chicken carcasses were recovered from Cremations 13 and 15; that from 13 was placed in the centre of the burial, with the skull inside one of the pottery vessels. Only the right side of the body is represented in Cremation 17, replicating the presence of the right side of the pig skull.

North Shoebury, Essex North Shoebury, located 4km north of Southend-onSea, has evidence for continuous use from the Middle Bronze Age right through to the early medieval period. A reorganisation of the landscape took place in the later Iron Age, when the settlement shifted location and the layout became orientated roughly north-south and east-west. During the first millennium BC, the coastline would have assumed something of its present form, with numerous tidal creeks and inlets, rendering much of the peninsula very accessible by watercraft, and producing a rich habitat for many types of shellfish in addition to marine fish.

A survey of published cremations with pre-Flavian imports in south-east and southern Britain shows that while all have North Gaulish vessels (butt-beakers, flagons and lagenae), Gallo-Belgic wares are almost entirely confined to those in a more restricted area: Hertfordshire/Essex. This is an area within the second of Timby’s two major zones with concentrations of imported terra nigra and terra rubra (1987, Fig.4). In the catalogue of Group B burials it can be seen that none of the imported vessels are of Samian ware. Within this region, South Gaulish Samian was present in quantity at Verulamium at this time, while it was observed to be very much less common than GalloBelgic wares in the King Harry Lane cemetery.

Group A

Group B

Pre-conquest cremations: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

Pre-Flavian: 8-13

Later first century BC cremations: 4, 5

-

Group C Later first century: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 Early second century: 16, 20, 22, 23

The cremation cemetery is consigned to Phase II.2 (c. 50 BC to AD 43). It consisted of three pits set in a line, equally spaced at 7m apart. Remains of narrow and shallow gullies, with a few LIA sherds within them, are seen as a small rectangular enclosure surrounding the central pit, which contained more vessel than the other two pits (see Wymer and Brown 1995, Fig. 28). The cemetery appears to have marked the eastern boundary of the Phase II.2 settlement, the area to the east being largely devoid of LIA features. There is no Gallo-Belgic or Roman presence in these groups, but in south Essex Gallo-Belgic imports are rare and copies are confined to the few most common forms (plain platters, butt beakers).

Group D Early mid-second century: 24-26

-

Table 41. Sequence of cremation groups (after Wallace 2004: 239, Table 57)

The central sub-rectangular pit contained five pottery vessels and one lid (see Wymer and Brown 1995, Plates VI-VIII). The cremated bone lay outside and under the pottery vessels. Animal bones included part of a cow metatarsal, some fragments a large ungulate and some of a small animal such as sheep or roe deer. At the bottom of the southern edge of the pit was the near complete, articulated spinal column of a pig. Two probable chicken vertebrae had been put beneath one of the pots as well. The pottery vessels included a cordoned pedestal urn, which was not an Essex form but a variety common in Kent, the second was a globular wide-mouthed barrel jar and the third a cordoned lid-seated bowl. There were two wide-mouthed rounded cup.

The appearance of Samian vessels in the burials of Group C is of interest. Very few of the pottery vessels accompanying the cremations were burnt. Most were put into the burial pit at a later stage in the mortuary ritual. A common feature of the Samian in Group D was their unworn footrings, similar to Verulamium (Niblett and Reeves 1990). In all these cases the Samian was new, or at least unused, when placed in the graves. Considering the site as a whole, Wallace (2004) shows that local wares were preferred for the jars while imports make a strong showing in all other categories save for the miniatures. Animal bones were recovered from several of the Stansted cremations, with pig and chicken being the dominant species. A neonatal pig was recovered from Cremation 12, with two cleaved skulls of young pigs from Cremations 15

96

A second sub-circular pit contained four pottery vessels. The majority of cremated human bone lay outside the vessels, to the east side of two pots. Some burnt animals

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

bones were included: vertebrae fragments and epiphyses and tooth of a small ungulate such as sheep. Another pot contained some chicken bones and at the base of the pit were the part-articulated and scattered remains of pig vertebrae. The vessels included a small plain carinated cup, a plain barrel jar, a pedestal urn and a plain carinated cup. The third pit contained three pottery vessels placed on the east side, with a pig skull on the west. There were two pedestal urns (one a cordoned squat wide-mouthed pedestal urn, the other plain) and a poorly-made small cup.

terms of Bloch and Parry (1982), the mixture of sacrifice, consumption and intoxication may emphasise vitality and regeneration in the face of the chaos and disorder threatened by death (see also Thompson 1988). The Huron ‘Feast of the Dead’ in southern Ontario involved a large gathering of many villages once every 8 to 10 years. For this gathering, people would disinter their dead from the past decade, deflesh them, burn the flesh and wash the bones. They would then bring the bones in bundles to a central place where the Feast of the Dead was to take place. Along much feasting and dancing over several days, a large pit was prepared, a scaffold built, and the bundles of bodies hung from the scaffold. From this scaffold the contents of the bundles were eventually emptied into the communal burial pit, the bones mixed up and buried. This ritual of communal burial was seen as reinforcing social ties and notions of identity among people of the same tribe and neighbouring regions (Trigger 1969: 108). Tooker (1967: 139-40) explains, ‘By means of this ceremony the Indians confirmed their friendships, saying that as the bones of their deceased relatives and friends were united in one place, so they would live together in the same unity and harmony’.

Discussion Food and drink were consumed by the living and placed with the dead to create memories and sustain relationships between the living and the dead. The consumption of food and drink provided an appropriate metaphor for communities disposing of the dead by cremation (see Oestigaard 2000). Food, drink and the human body were all ‘consumed’ during the sequence of cremation rituals. In both senses, ceramics associated with cremated remains and the consumption of food and drink promoted the transformation of identity and social memory in early Roman Britain (Williams 2004: 419, see Ekengren 2003 for a discussion of this matter during the Scandinavian Roman Iron Age). Social memories were created and communicated through a variety of media. These might include ritual actions, visual display and texts. Each of these media contains elements of ‘inscribing’ memories (memories inscribed onto places and objects through ritual and writing) but also as ‘incorporating’ memories (memories created and constituted through bodily practices by the participants and onlookers during rituals). Food and drink served in promoting the remembering and forgetting of the past through the tastes, smells, visual spectacle and metaphor of consumption.

Food and drink can form part of a broader sensory experience created during mortuary rituals with the aim of influencing remembrance. In many societies, different flavours, temperatures and the use of spices, as well as the aromas given off by food, can have important symbolic connotations linked to ritual stages at the funeral (Parry 1985). The experience of food through all the sense as well as its incorporation into the body is often seen metaphorically in the incorporation of the dead into memory (Battaglia 1990, 1992; Eves 1996; Foster 1990). Feasting and the sacrifice of vessels with food and drink would make the event memorable as well as evoke the remembrance of previous feasting events during earlier funerals.

In many cultures, rites of passage including funerals have carefully prescribed and proscribed culinary practices and the provision of specially killed animals, cooked foods and liquids in rituals of purification, veneration and transformation. Food and drink are often metaphorically connected to the social, cosmological and ontological transformation of the dead and mourners (see Hamilakis 1998; Foster 1990; Parry 1985). Moreover, practices surrounding the preparing, exchanging and consuming of food and drink can be important ‘incorporating practices’ – ways of remembering through the experience of the body’s senses (Connerton 1989; Küchler 2002). Just as the feasting and the sacrifice of food and drink can be central to the construction of social relations and the person’s social position during life, so upon death, food embodies the dead person into a new state of being and incorporates them into social memory (cf. Hamilakis 1998). The sharing and giving of food between the living and with the dead create a solidarity and group identity across the divide of death (Williams 2004: 422-3). Indeed, in the

There are parallels in the cooking of food at the funeral in the form of the feast and the ‘cooking’ of the deceased’s body through cremation. Parry (1985) discussed how the transformation of the dead in post-cremation rites in northern India is closely connected metaphorically to acts of feasting and consumption. In the post-cremation rituals, balls of rice are used to represent the deceased’s body and are consumed by the mourners to symbolise the incorporation of the dead into a new ancestral identity. Parry’s reading of the symbolism of this rite is that the dead are ‘eaten’ by the mourners. This symbolic consumption of the dead is taken more literally in other societies: certain Amazonian Indian societies mix cremated remains with the post-funerary meal and consume them as a means of restoring the vitality of the dead to the living (Chagnon 1983; see also Metcalf and Huntingdon 1991).

97

The aroma of food being cooked and consumed may have a powerful impact upon those attending funerals. Smell

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

has a direct and powerful effect on memory; odours can mask the decomposition of the corpse as well as create experiences that evoke past events, people and places in funerary contexts (Küchler 2002; Kus 1993). The textures of food and their containers may also be significant. The close physical proximity of food and drink to the corpse is a further sensual aspect of feasting and sacrifice. Substances associated with the body are often regarded as dangerous and polluting, but through touching and incorporating food intended for sharing with or sacrificing to the dead, and by handling and interring objects linked to the funerary feast, eating and drinking emphasise the intimate links with the corpse.

taste that proper consumption entails (Dietler 2001: 86). Site Name

Funerary feasts are understandably linked to the end of a life cycle (Table 42), but as I previously mentioned, these occasions can also be the start of new life cycles for relatives and the community in which the deceased was a member. In this respect they are intimately linked to alliance feasts. As noted in Chapter Five, funerary feasts are largely confined to southern East Anglia (also known as the Aylesford-Swarling burial rite region). Due to the richness of many of these graves, it is feasible to presume that funerary feasting was an important aspect of political cycles, events where the transfer of power from a deceased chief/leader was passed on to a successor. Life Transition Cycles

Region

Site Type

Feasting Indicator

Willingham Fen

Ouse

Settlement

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Kelvedon

Coastal

Enclosed Settlement

Vessels

Kelvedon (Doucecroft)

Coastal

Enclosed Settlement

Food, Vessels

Haddenham

Ouse

Enclosed Settlement

Food, Vessels

Elms Farm

Coastal

Enclosed Settlement

Food, Vessels

Lexden

Coastal

Burial

Aggrandisers

North Shoebury

Coastal

Unenclosed Settlement, Cemetery

Food, Aggrandisers

Sheepen

Coastal

Oppidum

Location

Slough House Farm

Coastal

Settlement

Vessels

Wardy Hill

Ouse

Enclosed Settlement

Location

Baldock

Chalkland

Oppidum

Food, Aggrandisers

Folly Lane

Chalkland

Cemetery

Aggrandisers, Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Foxholes Farm

Chalkland

Enclosure

Food, Vessels

Gorhambury

Chalkland

Enclosure

Food, Vessels

Skeleton Green

Chalkland

Oppidum

Food, Vessels

Verulamium

Chalkland

Single Burial

Aggrandisers

Welwyn Garden City

Chalkland

Cemetery

Aggrandisers

Ashmanhaugh

Bure/Yare

Isolated Find

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Ingoldisthorpe

Bure/Yare

Isolated Find

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Snettisham

Bure/Yare

Isolated Find

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Thornham

Bure/Yare

Enclosure

Vessels

Time Cycles

Political Cycles

0

0

0

2

0

0

7

7

0

3

Chalkland

11

11

0

8

Woodcock Hill

Bure/Yare

Settlement

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Little Ouse

0

0

0

0

Hockwold

Little Ouse/Lark

Settlement

Vessels

Bure/Yare

0

0

0

0

Elvedon

Little Ouse/Lark

Isolated Find

Gipping

0

0

0

0

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

TOTAL

19

20

0

11

Icklingham

Little Ouse/Lark

Isolated Find

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Lakenheath

Little Ouse/Lark

Isolated Find, Settlement

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Brandon

Little Ouse/Lark

Isolated Find

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Beck Row

Little Ouse/Lark

Settlement

Prestige Items, Items of Etiquette

Life

Death

Nene

0

Ouse

1

Coastal

Table 42. Funerary feasts and points of a cycle they may mark

Diacritical Feasting As noted in Chapter One, diacritical feasting involves the use of differentiated cuisine and styles of consumption to naturalise and reify concepts of ranked differences in the status of social orders or classes (Dietler 2001: 85). As this type of feasting relies upon style and taste for its symbolic force, it is subject to emulation by those aspiring to higher status. Diacritical stylistic distinctions may be based upon the use of rare, expensive or exotic foods or food ingredients. They may also use elaborate food-service vessels and implements or architectonically distinguished settings that serve to ‘frame’ élite consumption as a distinctive practice even when the food itself is not distinctive. However, they may be based upon differences in the complexity of the pattern of preparation and consumption of food and the specialised knowledge and

Table 43. Examples of diacritical feasts in East Anglia

98

Examples of this form of feasting in East Anglia are limited to burials, oppida, enclosures and isolated metal hoards (Tables 43 and 44). Their locations are divided into two zones: eastern/northern area of East Anglia (metal hoards) and southern East Anglia (settlement and cemeteries). These sites stand out due to the quality and quantity of the deposits and their location within the landscape. This section focuses on three sites: Baldock, Verulamium and Camulodunum. These sites have evidence for a variety of feasting forms and the nature of the sites means that material culture is diacritical in terms of its quality and the quantities in which it is found. For further examples see Appendix A.

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

Food Ouse

1

Vessels 1

Location 1

Aggrandisers 0

Prestige

Site Type

1

1 Settlement 2 Enclosures Burial Enclosures Unenclosed Cemetery Oppidum Settlement Burial Oppida Cemeteries Enclosures

Coastal

3

4

1

1

0

1 3 1 1 1 1

Chalkland

4

3

0

4

1

1 2 2 2

Little Ouse

0

1

0

0

5

3 Settlements 4 Isolated Finds

Bure/Yare

0

1

0

0

4

3 Isolated Finds 1 Enclosure 1 Settlement

complete absence of lambs suggests that they were not around at the time. The presence of animals with a dental composition which occurs in the range 18 to 24 months, suggests that this slaughter took place during the winter, which explains the absence of lambs.

Table 44. Distribution of diacritical feasts and the associated feasting indicator

Baldock Baldock lies on the chalk ridge of North Hertfordshire and the pre-Roman settlement probably owed its existence to its situation on the Icknield Way, and to the presence of springs, the source of the river Ivel, which flows north to join the Ouse (Stead and Rigby 1986). Roman Baldock originated in a road junction on the site of a spring line. To the southeast Baldock is overlooked by the Weston Hills, here cut by a valley leading up to a Clothall – a valley which leads to the major settlement of Braughing.

The sheep were apparently not jointed and dispersed, as was normally the case on this site. The evidence indicates that the flesh was removed from the bones, an unusual practice when preparing sheep meat. This suggests that it may have been intended for preserving – perhaps by salting, smoking or drying – and was to be packed to be as light and compact as possible. This deposit also contained the only significant collection of bird remains from any of the deposits. The twelve fowls were represented by both their skull and limb bones. There was clear evidence of butchery, so it was not a matter of destroying a diseased flock but of feeding a hungry crowd. This more likely represents the remains of a feast and in fact there is later evidence for a temple in the vicinity.

The main settlement starts at least by the middle of the first century BC and prominent feature is the ditch at the north-east end of Site B – a line which appears to dictate the orientation of other features and possibly forms a boundary. To the south is a further concentration of occupation and beyond this is one of the La Tène burials. Immediately adjoining the boundary ditch on the northeast side are a number of ditched plots including one small square with a central cremation. The funerary enclosures did not limit the area of settlement for beyond to the north east there were several gullies and pits to suggest quite dense occupation by the time of the Roman conquest.

Table 45 shows that just this single deposit would have produced c. 4400 lbs of meat. Of course, it is not certain that this represents a single deposit of food debris and it must be remembered that the entire (edible) carcass of the animals may not have been consumed. However, a substantial quantity of meat would have been available for consumption and therefore it would certainly have provided for several hundred hungry people, if not more. Within the main settlement, a well (B189) dated to the end of first century AD produced an interesting deposit. Bones from this are mainly cattle, sheep and pig and are mostly heavily charred. This burnt material comprises food bones from 8 cattle, 7 sheep and 2 pigs including a wild boar (Table 46). The great majority of the bone is heavily burnt, but none of the limb extremities – the metapodials and phalanges – of the cattle are burnt at all; it is the well-fleshed limbs that are charred. This would suggest that the animals were killed on the spot, the waste bones thrown into the well and the rest of the animals cooked over open fires, the remains being thrown back into the fire and subsequently the debris being tipped into the well (Chaplin and McCormick 1986: 410).

99

At c. AD 60, a flock of sheep was slaughtered and their remains buried in pit A19. It contained the bones of 98 sheep, five cattle, nine pigs and twelve fowls. The sheep bones were not fragmented and were largely intact. The age structure of the sheep was quite different from other deposits too. For the whole site, the MNI determined from different bones varies considerably. In Phase 1 this varies from 6 to 39, Phase 2 from 38 to 390 and Phase 3 from 11 to 118. In A12, the range is from the astragalus with 30 and the radius with 64 to 98 from the metatarsal. This would indicate that compared to the rest of the site very little of the carcasses were selectively dispersed (Chaplin and McCormick 1986: 410). There are four age cohorts present at the site as a whole, but only two of these are significantly represented in this deposit. There is an age group that would represent breeding stock and the almost

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

MNI

Estimated Dress Carcass Weight (lbs)

Total Weight Yield (lbs)

Cattle

5

300

1500

34

Sheep

98

25

2450

55.7

Pig TOTAL

% Yield

9

50

450

10.2

112

375

4400

-

Table 45. Approximate carcass yields from domestic stock in deposit A12 (after Chaplin and McCormick 1986: 412, Table 47) MNI

Estimated Dress Carass Weight (lbs)

Total Weight Yield (lbs)

% Yield

Cattle

8

300

2400

89.8

Sheep

7

25

175

6.5

Pig

2

50

100

3.7

17

375

2675

TOTAL

Table 46. Approximate carcass yields from domestic stock in deposit B189

the surface of the chalk. However, it was the finds to the west of the corn-drying kiln that were of most interest.

The lower limbs of the cattle are not charred, whilst the humerus, radius, femur, tibia and other part of the carcass are. This suggests that perhaps the animals were killed and cut up at one time for a specific purpose. The waste bones were immediately disposed of into the well, the carcasses cut up and the meat cooked. If the whole carcass had been spit-roasted it is unlikely that the bones would have become heavily charred and then fragmented. It is more likely it is the debris from small portions cooked and eaten and the bones thrown back into the fire (Chaplin and McCormick 1986: 411). This is not normal domestic debris and is more likely to represent the remains of consumption by a large body of people.

Six secondary urned cremation burials were identified, which surrounded a central burial made up of two separate pits. The first was the pit with the remains of the funeral pyre. Among the ashes were numerous fragments of burnt bronze possibly from a brooch or jewellery. There appeared to be a bronze rim of another vessel, and possibly another bronze-bound bucket. Fragments from iron chainmail were also identified. Included in the pyre debris were animal remains of horse, cattle, sheep, pig and fowl. The horse fragments were teeth and foot bones, perhaps representing the remains of a hide (similar to the bear skins used at Welwyn and the other Baldock burial). The cattle bones were teeth and foot bones and the seven fragments of pig came from the right tibia and ulna and teeth (these remains are not associated with the carcass from the second pit). The burnt sheep fragments came from the fibula and radius, whereas the unburnt bones were from the head and teeth. When the later corndryer was removed, unburnt remains from the burial were discovered. The second pit contained the food and drink. There were two sides of pork and half a third animal. Adjacent to this and next to the remains of a pottery urn, was the rim of a small wooden vessel with bronze and iron fittings. This central burial is dated to c. 20 BC to AD 30.

Baldock has also produced a number of cremations with particularly rich grave goods and food offerings. The first rich cremation to be discovered was in 1968 (Stead and Rigby 1986). This burial consisted of two iron firedogs, a large bronze cauldron, a pair of imported shallow bronze dishes from northern Europe, a pair of wooden buckets with bronze attachments and a Dressel 1A amphora. Along the western edge of the burial pit was a length of pig vertebrae, in a position which would allow the entire skeleton to have been within the grave. As well as the side of pork, there were three phalanges of a brown bear. It is thought the body was wrapped in a bear skin (a similar occurrence was noted at Welwyn Garden City).

Verulamium, St Albans

Further excavations in 1980 at Upper Walls Common revealed a square ditched enclosure (Burleigh 1982). A simple entrance was discovered on the south-east side of the enclosure and within it the enclosure there were a few signs of buildings. In the centre were the remains of Roman kiln and the enclosure had few other internal features apart from the badly ploughed-damaged remains of several LIA cremation burials. Most of these were on the west side down the slope and all that survived of most of the burials were the bases of pottery vessels resting on 100

Traditionally viewed as one of the tribal centres of the area and a ‘seat of power’, the site of Verulamium and its immediate surroundings have produced a number of interesting features, which go some way towards understanding the role of feasting in social mechanisms. Both Verulamium and Camulodunum (see below) contain some of the wealthiest burials of this period, be they individual tumuli or part of the emerging cemeteries (for examples see Appendix A), as well as significant settlement archaeology. These are also two areas where there are a

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

number of dykes and ditch systems (see Chapter Five for a more detailed discussion of this matter).

family celebrations to large-scale feasts. In the north west corner of Enclosure A was Building 13, again dating to the LIA. Pottery from the feature was in two distinct horizons. The primary level (1679) contained a large quantity of native pottery from at least 36 vessels, an imported terra nigra platter and an imported GalloBelgic butt-beaker. Other vessels included two bowls, ten fine jars, one coarse jar, one cup, three platters, one carinated cup/bowl, one girth beaker, one barrel buttbeaker and a pedestal base. In a secondary level (1678) was a fine-ware beaker.

The settlement at Gorhambury began in the LIA and lies about ¾ mile north-west of Verulamium. The villa itself overlooks the River Ver to the east and occupies a narrow spur of land running west-east sloping down into the river valley. On either side of the villa, to the north and south, the terrain dips fairly sharply into the valleys. The southern valley separates the site from the higher plateau occupied by Prae Wood which extends towards the western margins of the Roman city of Verulamium. A rectangular ditched enclosure with an entrance on its eastern side was enlarged at various times and contained an aisled barn which continued as the site for an aisled house until the third century. Further Iron Age buildings within a secondary enclosure included a circular house constructed over a massive nine-post granary. A sequence of buildings was constructed on the same spot including an early first-century timber house, the embryonic villa, which was later destroyed. Further timber buildings were followed in c. AD 100 by a small but luxurious masonry villa and remained in use until the middle of the fourth century AD. Immediately to the north-east of the enclosure lies a dyke system (Devils Dyke, New Dyke and White Dyke). The erratic nature of the dyke system and the apparent lack of linear earthworks connecting the smaller dykes in Prae Wood rules out their being solely defensive and part of an overall work – more likely they delineate property. The scale of the dyke points to the coordinated and collective labour if a group and therefore the relation of the farmstead to the land delineated by the dykes (provision of a causeway and the axial arrangement) highlights the importance of the site and the status of the family who occupied it. However, as I have shown in Chapter Five, dykes could have been constructed to act as ceremonial ritual routeways to feasting sites.

A ditch (74), part of Enclosure B and dated to c. AD 62100 had a particularly rich fill. Layer 77 contained very large quantities of Flavian and earlier pottery as well as imported finewares. This was a layer of occupation material, possibly derived from Building 21. Apart from a wide variety of Roman coarseware forms and first century imported fine wares, there was a range of Roman pottery, probably the work of local potters. The deposit is dated no later than c. AD 75. The Iron Age material included the remains from eight jars, eight bowls, a cup, three platters, a shallow bowl, two butt beakers and a lid. Coarsewares were also present and these included a terra nigra and terra rubra butt beaker, Gallo-Belgic butt beaker, Lyons ware cup and beakers, mica-dusted beakers, North Gaul eggshell-ware cups and Pompeian red ware dishes. The deposit also contained stamped first century fine wares. The Verulamium landscape is also dominated by a number of rich burials, e.g. Folly Lane and King Harry Lane (see Appendix A for more details). A rich cremation burial was in a sub-rectangular pit and dated to the earl/mid first century AD (Niblett and Reeves 1990). The burial was that of an adult whose cremated remains were contained in a large glass jar in the centre of the north side of the burial pit. In addition to the cremation jar, there were three subsidiary glass vessels – a large unguent flask and two glass bottles. The burials also contained four pottery lamps and probably imported from Gaul, and twenty scattered gaming counters. The grave is dated by the thirteen complete stamped Samian vessels from La Graufesenque which were found arranged in the south-west sector of the grave. The group consisted of four medium-sized and four small cups of form Dressel 27, four medium-sized dishes of from Dressel 18 and one large dish of form DR.18R. Most of the footrings were unworn and some of the vessels retained traces of kiln grit on the side of their bases, suggesting that the vessels were new, or at any rate unused at the time of burial (Niblett and Reeves 1990). The stamps on the vessels suggest a date of c. AD 80 to 85. Coarseware consisted of a small poppyhead beaker and the lower part of a flagon in local Verulamium region fabric. Lying against the north wall of the grave was a pair of iron strigils, held together by an iron hook. A bronze bowl lay in the centre of the grave with decorative handles in the form of either dolphins’ or birds’ heads with long

Building 8 (LIA in date) contained a cess pit (622). The pit contained Belgic wares and fine wares. The coarseware pottery groups contained mostly Belgic vessels. Finewares included a Lyons ware roughcast beaker and two GalloBelgic rims of unusual form. There was a coin of Cunobelin and another of Republican date and mineralised seeds of coriander, fig, lentil, field pea, sloe, bullace, ribes species, blackberry and grape (Neal et al. 1990: 28). The cesspit included seeds of a number of edible plants. All could have grown locally though it seems likely that fig seeds arrived in imported dried fruit. The fruit species indicate a fairly varied diet including some more exotic species such as grape and fig. Small number of pulses and the absence of grain from the sample suggest that these were thoroughly ground during food processing; this may also explain the low number of food flavouring seeds. These could be classed as luxury foods, i.e. foods that are unusual or desirable because of their foreign origin (van der Veen 2003: 406). The consumption of luxury foods often take place on special occasions, from small-scale

1

10

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

beaks, flanking a central female head. The workmanship suggests a Gaulish or Italian origin. Near the east wall of the grave was an iron tripod, perhaps originally serving as a folding chair. It could of course have been intended to support the bronze bowl, which was found lying adjacent to it. Both objects could have formed part of the equipment for a dinner party or drinking party.

and 4) contained mortuary chambers. In all, there were five enclosures laid out as two rows, one of three and the other of two, although only four were funerary enclosures. The burials date from the late first century BC to c. AD 60. Each chamber had been placed symmetrically in a large enclosure which was up to 80m across and demarcated by a ditch. There is some evidence that each chamber was covered by an earth mound (Crummy 1997a: 23). One of the biggest chambers in Enclosure 3 contained fragments of at least 24 vessels, each single one imported. These were the remains of a service, i.e. a set of bowls, cups and plates, with some being of the same design but of differing sizes so that could be stored as nested sets. A secondary ‘warrior’ burial was identified which contained a gaming board, shield boss, iron spearhead and a rare amber-coloured glass bowl from Italy. There was also a shallow copper-alloy pan with a ram’s head shaped handle and a copper-alloy jug. Its handle had a lion’s head at the top and a lion’s paw at the base. There was also a pottery dinner service, amphora, beaker, flagon and cup, all of which had been imported into Britain.

Camulodunum, Colchester As with Verulamium, Camulodunum too is considered a local ‘capital’ and seat of power. Two major areas of activity have been recognised here, both of them outside the Roman and modern town: at Sheepen an industrial complex lay on the bank of the River Colne, while at Gosbecks there was a farmstead, presumed to be the abode of the ‘king’. At Sheepen excavations revealed an industrial area where a range of products was manufactured for use in the legionary fortress and subsequent colonia at Colchester (Niblett 1985). There is little or no evidence to suggest that any of the features on the site predated the Roman conquest of AD 43, in spite of the large quantities of pre-conquest finds surviving as rubbish in later features. Many features contained imported material and the amphorae collection indicates that the site was supplied from a wide variety of sources.

Enclosure 4 contained a chamber and a sub-enclosure. The burial in the chamber was again accompanied by at least 20 vessels, all appearing to be part of a nested dinner service. A secondary ‘gaming’ or ‘doctor’s’ grave was discovered in Enclosure 5. Thirteen medical instruments were noted including two iron scalpels, a saw, two blunt hooks, a sharp hook, two pairs of forceps, three handled needles, a scope probe, and a copper-alloy instrument of as yet unidentified function. A gaming board and counters was placed in the grave with the doctor’s bones scattered over the righthand side of the board and some of the instruments lying to the left and in the centre. An amphora stood upright in the grave, resting on one corner, perhaps indicating that it may have contained some of its original contents when buried. There was also a dinner service of plates and cups made in northern Gaul, a Samian bowl from southern Gaul and a flagon. A copper-alloy pan imported from Italy was also present and it appears to have been tinned all over so that it would have looked silvery in colour. A copper-alloy straining bowl was also part of the grave goods. Study of the residues in a bronze spouted strainer bowl from c. AD 50 grave at Stanway (Essex) indicated the presence of wormwood, a plant native to Britain and used in historical times to flavour ale and other drinks. The presence of this plant is significant, particularly in light of the favouring of wine as the drink of choice. This evidence would suggest that beer was still drunk by many.

The Gosbecks site has a complex history of use stretching from the pre-Roman Iron Age through to the fourth century AD. In the first or second century BC the site was enclosed by the Heath Farm Dyke; as it expanded in the decades before the conquest further dykes were constructed, the most westerly being the Grymes Dyke (Hawkes and Crummy 1995). The site consisted of an enclosed central settlement area surrounded by field systems to which it was linked by a complex network of trackways. An early feature of the site was a religious sanctuary. This pre-Roman settlement has been interpreted as the civitas capital, or tribal centre, of the native Belgic Trinovantes. More specifically it has been seen as the major royal site of Cunobelin, the tribal leader who is recorded as having led local opposition to the Roman conquest (Crummy 1997a). Under Roman influence, Gosbecks developed into a small town with major public buildings arranged on a gridded street plan. To the west of Gosbecks is the Stanway burial site. The site consisted of five large ditched enclosures set out side by side as two groups (Crummy 1993, 1997c; Hawkes and Crummy 1995). The first group (Enclosures 1 and 2) appears to have originated in the MIA as a farmstead. The earlier enclosure (Enclosure 2) contained some pits suggesting occupation in the second and third centuries BC. However, probably during the late first century BC, the larger of the two enclosures (Enclosure 1) came to be used as a burial place. Around fifty years later, a row of three enclosures was constructed, two of which (Enclosures 3

Discussion This type of feasting relies upon style and taste for its symbolic force and as a result it is subject to emulation by those aspiring to higher status. Emulation could take place through representational means, which may focus

2

10

Chapter Six - Detailed Case Studies

on either (or both) the mimetic development of styles of action (manners, tastes) or the use and consumption of objects (food, service vessels) that are materialised signs of a particular social identity (Dietler 2001: 86). This can result in the gradual spread through a society of foods and food practices and possibly exemplified in the variety of site types in East Anglia which display evidence for this form of feasting. Hayden (1998, 2003) has proposed that as leaders use some luxury foods in feasting to enhance or maintain their social position in the community, it is in their self-interest to reduce the cost of these foods where possible. While this is initially beneficial to them, it changes the status of such foods in the long run and thus their value in prestigious displays.

transition cycles as well) and in southern East Anglia it is the quantities and use of special foods and vessels. The deposition of metal hoards can also be involved in temporal cycles for they mark points in time and although not physically apparent in the landscape, their location could be important and remembered by a number of generations. Diacritical feasting events play important roles in life transition cycles and are used only slightly more in situations associated with the living than death. The differences in archaeological data for northern and southern East Anglia are similar to those noted with those feasts held as part of political cycles, indicating that diacritical feasting took many forms in East Anglia and did not necessarily acquire the display, consumption and destruction of large quantities of luxury foods and vessels (as witnessed in northern East Anglia where rich metal hoards were ‘consumed’).

Examples of diacritical feasting fall into two distinct areas: newly established settlement types of the later Iron Age (oppida and enclosures) in southern East Anglia and deposits of metal vessels associated with eating and drinking in northern East Anglia. The three sites highlighted in this chapter are oppida and gained importance towards the later parts of the Iron Age. They are associated with particularly rich burials and ditch systems and in the case of St Albans and Colchester, are considered ‘centres of power’. There are examples where there are indications that both indigenous forms of eating and drinking are used alongside new forms of vessels and food/drink, e.g. Stanway’s strainer and residues of wormwood. Luxury foods are intimately linked to feasting, and this form in particular, therefore it not surprising to find remains of figs and grapes at the relatively high status site of Gorhambury. The consumption of luxury goods is regarded as a means of advertising and displaying social status, as conspicuous consumption: that is, the lavish consumption of goods with a view to enhancing one’s prestige (van der Veen 2003: 408). The focus is not on the inherent characteristic of what is consumed, but on the signal it gives to those who cannot consume it. The paraphernalia surrounding their consumption (presentation, table manners etc) are developed not to enhance the enjoyment of the food, but to enhance the message of exclusivity (van der Veen 2003: 415).

Life Transition Cycles

Time Cycles

Political Cycles

0

0

0

1

1

1

7

3

0

4

Chalkland

7

4

0

4

Little Ouse

6

6

0

5

Bure/Yare

2

4

3

4

Gipping

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

24

18

4

18

Life

Death

Nene

0

Ouse

2

Coastal

Table 47. Diacritical feasts and points of a cycle they may mark

The presence of Mediterranean imports in Britain during the later Iron Age and early Roman period raises several interesting questions. First, who was consuming the imports? Were they individuals of Mediterranean origin or local élites? The former may have regarded such foods as social necessities, in contrast to the latter, who would have used such foods as a means of acquiring social identity. This touches on the process of romanisation of the indigenous population in the regions occupied by Rome, a study of food in relation to this phenomenon is insightful. Bakels and Jacomet (2003) studied imports in Central Europe during the Roman period. Those imports that could be successfully grown in northern Europe (such as walnut, garlic, dill, celery, apples, pears, cherries) did become part of the local cuisine and continued to be used after the withdrawal of the Roman army from the region, while those imports that could not (such as olive, pine nut, almond, pomegranate) disappeared. This suggests that the élite that desired and could afford these imports ceased to exist with the end of Roman occupation, while foods that were desirable but no longer exotic (they were now grown locally, and now no longer very expensive) did become accepted and ultimately widely used (van der Veen 2003: 419). I hope my research has gone some way to challenge this concept of Romanisation (see Chapter Seven) and

In terms of the life cycle, these feasts could feasibly mark any point of the cycle (Table 47). The most obvious examples are those which mark the end of an individuals’ life cycle – death. Diacritical feasts are sumptuous and are about displaying status and it could be suggested that these feasts were used to significantly alter an individuals’ or groups’ life cycle, although the effects of these activities may not have been felt immediately. Diacritical feasts, by their very nature and expected outcomes, are unsurprisingly used to mark particular points in political cycles. For example, they may be used maintain social and political status as well as be used to contest existing structures. Feasts which mark political cycles are present throughout East Anglia, but have different archaeological indicators: northern East Anglia witnessed the destruction of metal vessels and coins in hoards (involved with life

3

10

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

show that feasting, in its many forms, has the power to challenge, maintain and alter.

An important concept to consider with respect to feasting is how it maps itself in terms of space and time. Both of these factors work on various scales and through an understanding if each of these levels of interpretation, one can achieve a fully comprehensive understanding and knowledge of how feasting is manipulated and used both temporally and spatially. In the worlds which humans create, time and space are shaped and structured through repeated actions which have particular special extent and temporal rhythm. Social life is made up of a dense network of practices spread across the landscape, each with a series of tempos deriving from the qualities of materials which enjoin a certain sequence to events, and from the successive deployment of embodied skills (Gosden 1997: 304). Limited sets of temporalities flow together and conjoin into larger, broader temporal forms which manifest themselves at a scale beyond that of a human lifetime (i.e. the long term) (Gosden 1997: 304). Long term structures provide the unseen background into which individuals are socialised and are felt rather than consciously known (Gosden 1997: 304).

Conclusion All of these case studies emphasise the diversity of feasting. It is clear that a single feast can play a multitude of purposes and is able to categorise these consumption activities in a way that is not as clear-cut as it first appears. For example, a funerary feast can in turn be about creating and maintaining alliances, making a diacritical statement about the deceased and/or living and labour may have been required to construct the funerary monument, and thus rewarded with a feast. Many of these sites have evidence for a number of roles played by feasting and therefore it is not possible to merely characterise them as a particular type of feasting activity. These examples highlight that feasting occurs on a variety of sites and is not restricted to a particular settlement type. Diacritical forms of feasting predominate on large sites, which partake in trade and are therefore more likely to come into contact with items which could be used in this type of event. Diacritical feasts are also distinctly clustered in two areas of East Anglia: the southern (Essex/ Hertfordshire) and northern (Norfolk/Suffolk) regions. The archaeological record for each of these regions are also distinct, particularly in the north where the consumption of metal vessels predominates as opposed to the consumption of food and drink in the south.

On the macroscale, over time, feasting becomes more visible and functional. This is expressed through the construction of ceremonial areas, temples and dykes. In liminal areas where feasting takes place, the population may need to be guided, thus ceremonial routes (or dykes) were constructed to channel people to feasting locales (this subject is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Five). People who are experiencing feasting are not conscious of long term trends, such as the construction of feasting within the landscape or the outcomes of particular decisions which may not have an immediate impact on a generation. Rather, people would only experience their own lifecycle (microscale). That is to say a family, kin group or community would experience life cycles in terms of birth, rites of passage, marriage and death. By envisaging feasting within these cycles, one can move beyond the interpretations offered by Dietler and Hayden, and understand how feasting is used and experienced within the memorable lifecycles of participants. Although this chapter has attempted to identify particular forms of feasting, it is clear that each form of feasting is interlinked and it is difficult to identify archaeological data that are purely representative of only one form of feasting.

Alliance feasts do not favour any particular site type and clearly these feasts took place for all forms of purposes, be they large or small, inter- or intra-site activities. This form of feast is numerous throughout East Anglia and this is not surprising given the fact that alliance building and maintenance is not restricted to particular sites or areas. As I have mentioned, networking can take place at different scales, e.g. a meal with your kin is merely about reinforcing family bonds, whereas feasts to acquire allies or elect a chief would produce a different feasting signature in the archaeological record (see detailed discussion on site formation processes in Chapter Four). Much like alliance feasts, work-party feasts can take many forms and are intimately linked with the former type of feasts, as well as funerals. For Hertz (1960: 76-7) there are two phases to mortuary rites, firstly the disaggregation of the individual (the deceased) from the collectivity, and secondly the reestablishment of society, requiring the reallocation of the roles the deceased occupied. Some work-party feasts would require reciprocal relationships to be drawn on (perhaps acquired through alliance feasts) in order to construct funerary monuments. Work-party feasts could take place on the inter- or intra-site scale, from the construction of a roundhouse in a community or family to the building of a site like Fison Way at Thetford. 104

Chapter Seven Discussion and Conclusion My research has successfully investigated the recognition of the feast in the archaeological record and the role it played in later Iron Age society. Through a detailed analysis of data from East Anglia I have been able to consider the structure and symbolism of the feast (Chapters Five and Six), as well as the specific events that are marked by archaeologically visible feasts (work-party, alliance, funerary and diacritical) and the role they played over time and space. I believe my research has been able to explain why, in the later Iron Age, there were marked increases in material, social and political changes, by approaching the archaeological data from the perspective of feasting.

site, e.g. work-party, alliance, funerary of diacritical, one can estimate the likely attendance based on the role of the feast and ethonographic information. What has been interesting and important in terms of moving beyond the theoretical approaches of Dietler and Hayden, has been the consideration of how feasting is involved in life cycles, both temporally and spatially. Feasts are opportunities and occasions which can mark particular points of the life cycle and feasting activities could be used at specific points within an individual’s or group’s life cycle (Table 48). As I noted in Chapter Six, feasts can vary by type, celebrating a range of cycles including life transition cycles, time cycles and political cycles. Associated with each of these cycles are a number of material factors, depending on the cycle being celebrated: life transition, time or political.

In some respects, it has been difficult to identify how the feasts were organised, although it has been possible to infer from the data who may have held the feasts and why and potentially who was doing the consuming and acquiring the items for feasting (especially important in the case of diacritical feasting). Private rituals are believed to be celebrated at the individual or family level as a communication with the gods or family ancestors. These emphasised individual sacrifices and the use of the sacred and were usually celebrations of individual transitions and seasonal calendrical cycles (Emery 2004: 104). Public rituals could be used to legitimate social hierarchy, sanctify interregional exchange or manage extremes in resources through redistribution (Emery 2004: 104). These rituals may include groups within a community or the entire community. Public exclusionary rituals were likely celebrated within extended families, class or occupational groups and emphasised solidarity within the group and exclusion of outsiders. The contexts for these celebrations were ceremonial or uncommon communal locations. They celebrated life or annual life cycles, but they also emphasised competition between groups as competitive feasting or displays of material wealth (Emery 2004: 104). On the other hand public inclusionary rituals were community based and celebrated annual or calendrical cycles or political cycles to emphasise the solidarity of the community and legitimate social order and hierarchy (Emery 2004: 105). These were often associated with large scale feasting.

It is difficult from an archaeological point of view, to be able to recognise all stages of a life cycle. For example, certain transitional stages such as birth or marriage can only be inferred. Particular life stages, apart from death, are hard to distinguish. Biographies of people are unusual archaeologically, for a person’s biography only starts, for archaeologists when they are dead and buried, and archaeology works back from there. An archaeologist can perhaps only be able to identify ad hoc crisis events, such as conflict, invasion, family commitment, group solidarity etc. The passage of an individual life may be linked with daily, seasonal or annual cycles, with natural and personal time scales fully integrating the life cycle of the wider social community (Gilchrist 2000: 326). In broader terms, feasts could be used to mark other cycles, which are experienced throughout a person or group’s life cycle, e.g. agricultural cycles. Hayden has argued that the intensification of agriculture was in response to increasingly competitive feasting strategies (1995, 1996), but it should also be noted that harvest is also an opportunity to reap the rewards and feast on one’s labour. My research in East Anglia has not produced any firm evidence for the consumption of food and drink as part of the agricultural cycle, although the produce consumed at the sites in East Anglia certainly have been obtained for that specific event and for a particular purpose.

Throughout my research it has been difficult to propose how many people may have attended these feasting events because in some cases the archaeological data are not substantial enough to predict this factor accurately. However, at Baldock the meat yield from faunal remains was calculated and an estimate was able to be provided, although it would seem that far more meat was on offer than could have feasibly have been eaten even by a large communal gathering. Of course, if one can identify the types of feast that may have taken place at a particular

The life cycles of monuments or settlements need to be taken into consideration because ultimately these will affect the life history of a landscape, which in turn affects those who inhabit and experience them. The human lifecycle itself is given meaning through material culture. The cyclical use and reuse of monuments and materials are intrinsic to perceptions of time, ageing and social memory 105

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

(Gosden 1994). The remodelling and structuring of settlements would be a major moment in an individual or group’s life. As shown in Chapter Six, the site at Thetford underwent a considerable amount of re-structuring over the course of a decade. It would have involved a large workforce and in a sense the site was experiencing a continuous re-birth and change, altering both the site’s life history and that of those who used the site and embodied these changes over this period of time. Life Transition Cycles Life

intermittently over several years until all rites are completed, when it is said that ‘the head of the deceased is finished’ (Eves 1998: 229). For the Lelet, their death instantiates a process of disaggregation or decomposition in which the nurturance received during life is returned. Exchanges such as ‘finishing the food’ function as acts of severance, and involve the expunging of outstanding debts the deceased has accumulated both in more formalised exchange cycles, such as those occurring at feasts, as well as in everyday acts

Time Cycles

Political Cycles

Death

Construction - settlement, buildings

Settlement or structure

Agriculture

Transfers of power from one rule to the next

Movement of populations - start of new life cycles

Individual - funeral also for the living and the start of a new life cycle

Movement of populations - start of new life cycles

Cycles of conflict in stylised warfare

Expansion of family expansion of settlement

Objects - metal and coin hoards destroys their value and takes them out of a life cycle

Periods of instability arrival of Romans

of nurturance, which are ‘killed’. ‘Finishing the dead’ is a form of social ‘forgetting’ in which the relationships with the deceased are severed, and perhaps most importantly, new ones with the living are set in motion (Eves 1998: 246). Feasting is about far more than memorialising the dead. It is also about forgetting the dead and remembering the living through the creation of fame for the host or patron and his clan in the present, as well as the future (Eves 1998: 263).

Table 48. Points of a life cycle which can be marked by a feast

The life cycle of the settlement is not only related to that of its occupants in practical terms: each is also a symbolic representation of the other. Acts, such as feasting, may have been carried out at critical points in the life cycle of a settlement, its structures and its inhabitants. The life cycle of a settlement relates closely to the life cycle of its inhabitants. Households expand and contract as children are born, young members marry and move away, or as elderly parents come to live with their adult offspring. New structures were built and old ones fell out of use as the material needs of household groups changed as members were born, died or moved away. Feasts may therefore occur at times of political struggle – inter- or intragroup struggles or discontent and political instability within society as a whole, i.e. the arrival of the Roman army. The arrival of the Roman army would have been a major event in everyone’s life cycle, but the longer-term effects would not be known on certain generations.

Although feasting may mark the end of the deceased’s lifecycle, it could merely be the start and re-birth of the living’s, for as the Melanesian examples highlight, the funeral is a time for the living to ‘forget’ and ‘kill’ the memory of the deceased and reorganise the social, economic and political structure. Related to this concept of the end of lifecycles and interlocking and interconnecting with funerals, is the death of a settlement. The ‘death’ of a roundhouse seems to have been a significant event and may have been linked to the death of its owner(s). In my research, a number of examples are noted where the abandonment of the site is marked by a feast, e.g. Orton Longueville (Mackreth 2001), Woodham Walter (Buckley and Hedges 1987b). However, the feast would also have been to celebrate beginning anew.

Perhaps the most archaeologically visible part of the life cycle is death and is clearly marked by feasting activities. It is sometimes difficult to understand death and the treatment of the deceased during the Iron Age, for the archaeological record would suggest that few people were buried. Unfortunately, the focus tends to be on those rich burials in the southern part of East Anglia or chariot burials in Yorkshire, i.e. the more visibly pronounced burial rites. During the EIA, certainly in the case of East Anglia, people appear to be unfazed by the marking of death, as noted by the lack of burial evidence for the earlier Iron Age in the archaeological record. By the later Iron Age, there is a move towards marking death in a more visible fashion, e.g. cremation cemeteries, grave goods.

Feasting clearly served multiple functions and these differentiations in use and purpose varied in spatial terms throughout East Anglia. Table 49 illustrates that the act of feasting is used predominantly in contexts which mark processes and occasions experienced during the life cycle. Although present throughout the region, the coastal and chalkland zones dominate this pattern, however this may reflect the nature and activity of archaeological research in these areas. On the whole, there is an even spread of evidence in East Anglia to suggest feasting was used at important life transitional events. Feasts associated with the end of a cycle are notable in the coastal and chalkland zones, especially when concerned with the ending of a

In certain Melanesian societies, the cycle of mortuary rites and feasts begins when a person dies and continues

6

10

Chapter Seven - Discussion and Conclusion

human’s life cycle. However, Little Ouse/Lark region witnesses death of a different kind, that of the destruction of value and the consumption of metal in the form of coin hoards and vessels associated with eating and drinking. Life Transition Cycles Life

Death

Time Cycles

Political Cycles

Nene

4

0

0

0

Ouse

10

3

1

1

Coastal

26

14

0

11

Chalkland

33

16

1

14

Little Ouse

10

7

0

7

Bure/Yare

7

4

3

4

Gipping

3

0

0

0

TOTAL

93

44

5

37

of power’ (traditionally noted as tribal centres), but rather taking place on the margins of populations centres or areas which are densely occupied (Figures 37-38, Appendix B). Examples of these include ports of trade, such as Braughing, Puckeridge, Heybridge or sites apparently located in inhospitable landscapes, e.g. Haddenham and Wardy Hill (located on a former fen island). As I noted in Chapter Five, feasting locations are not in significantly populated areas, suggesting that they served as places to bring communities together over much large distances rather than just the immediate area. This can explain why so many of my feasting sites focus on water sources, transport and communication routes (see Chapter Five for a detailed discussion). It is in these marginal areas where populations and communities can meet and come together. Feasting provides the opportunity to develop and reinforce existing alliances and create new ones through marriage alliances, further perpetuating the idea of a strong and intertwined relationship between feasting and life cycles.

Table 49. Distribution of feasting in East Anglia and points of cycles that they may mark

The representation of time cycles through the holding of feasts is underrepresented. However, longer term trends such as population movement, are closely linked with life and political cycles. Settlement expansion into previously under utilised areas or marginal areas is a key feature of the later Iron Age. Movement of populations would mean the breaking of some life cycles and the beginning of new ones elsewhere. In southern East Anglia there was very little permanent settlement at the start of the later period, but towards the end of first century BC it contained different styles of pottery, coinage, cremation burials and new types of settlements. Marginal parts of the landscape and areas into which settlement expanded are often locations for social innovation. Movement into areas with previously little permanent occupation may have allowed greater freedom to escape from deeply sedimented practices and their related structures of authority; the creation of new social practices and categories of action and things as an active strategy of challenge (Barrett 1991b). A change such as this would have been a major break in anyone’s life cycle, especially to the younger generations who were inevitably involved in these processes of change and development. This movement into new areas would have generated a need to create new identities in order to bring together peoples from diverging backgrounds and negotiate socio-political and economic relations. Feasting provides the arena in which to generate these new relations and allow individuals and groups to establish their position within this new social context. Feasts can bring together a group of people, but they also offer the potential for manipulation by individuals or groups attempting to alter or make statements about their relative position within that ‘new’ social order as it is perceived and presented. These events provided individuals with the opportunity to create, maintain and even contest positions of power and authority.

As I noted in Chapter Five, Wobst (2000) referred to human artefacts as ‘material interferences’ or as ‘material intentions to change’. The movement into ‘virgin’ territory where no boundaries or restrictions were already set in place would have been enticing to a number of people. However, the arrival of peoples from differing backgrounds would have created a social vacuum. New relations between these various individuals would have to be renegotiated. Material ‘interferences’ were required to tackle and alleviate the situation. The appearance of new forms of material culture associated with eating and drinking would suggest that feasting provided the arena in which to carry out the ‘interferences’ or ‘commensal politics’ required in order to establish fresh relationships, be they social, political or economic. These negotiations may have taken place on the micro level, e.g. family and kin relations, or on the macro scale, such as individuals or groups wishing to establish themselves in society. Feasting provided the occasion with which to tackle the social tension or void created by the movement of peoples into this area. As a result these political consumption events allowed particular individuals to emerge who, in order to maintain their position, sourced new feasting paraphernalia (hence the emergence of new material culture in southern East Anglia). This continuous pursuit for power affected changes and structures of society and transformed the social, political and economic landscape. Hence why in southern East Anglia one witnesses the emergence of new settlement types in new areas, coinage, the construction of defence systems through work-party feasts, a wider pottery repertoire and rich burials accompanied with feasting paraphernalia. This correlates with my research where I found that the western half of the region was dominated by evidence for food and the southeastern zones had high numbers of vessel deposits. It is interesting to note that many of these new site types (Baldock, Braughing) have large numbers of pig remains and new forms of pottery

My research has shown that feasting is not occurring primarily in what might be referred to as ‘centres or seats

7

10

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

and foodstuffs and drink. These new ceramic forms and alcoholic beverages are found on the new settlement types of this period (oppida) and as part of grave assemblages in the newly emerging burial rite (cremations).

individuals and groups to re-establish a social discourse. In order to successfully manipulate the outcome of these events, ‘material interferences’ took place in the form of new ceramics from or influenced by the Mediterranean and offered alongside a new form of alcohol, wine. The introduction of these new ceramics into the context of feasting was a pro-active move by individuals or groups to manage or alter the social vacuum created by population movement of the later Iron Age.

In Northern East Anglia there was little differentiation or categorisation in the ceramics of this period as well little evidence for the importation of certain goods, such as wine. The Dressel 1 wine amphorae common in neighbouring areas are hardly ever found here. The area is characterised by open settlement, an absence of imported finewares in the LIA and a continuation of MIA ceramic styles into the later Iron Age. My work has shown that feasting does not take similar forms and that it does not necessarily bring universal change to material culture, or rather people do not feel the need to acquire new forms of pottery and foodstuffs to bring about change as and when required by an individual, group or community. As I showed in Chapter Six, the site at Thetford was able to acquire the mobilisation and large-scale consumption of both material and human resources in its construction, despite being impoverished in terms of imported finewares. Although concentrations of imported prestige items might reflect increasing wealth, the absence of such imports need not indicate a lack of prosperity. Clearly, the person(s) at Fison Way were able to attract such a substantial workforce on reputation alone as opposed to overt displays of new food and drink and serving vessels.

My research has important implications for understanding social change in later Iron Age Britain and more importantly for understanding these changes within the context of Iron Age Europe. As I have noted in Chapter Three, classical literature suggests that feasting is almost an everyday occurrence. However, my research shows that this is not the case in Iron Age East Anglia. Out of several hundreds of Iron Age sites, I only identified evidence for seventy-six individual cases of feasting in East Anglia. This suggests that a feast was a very selective activity, only used at certain times for specific purposes and at selective sites. My data have highlighted the variety of consumption strategies and that it is not possible to distinguish and identify the single function of a feast, as proposed by Dietler and Hayden (2001). Each feast will serve a multitude of functions and as a result, it is open to multiple interpretations by those who are attending a particular feast. The East Anglian archaeological record has highlighted that consumption took a variety of forms, even within this one particular region. This idea of regionality is further emphasised when my research is compared to the rest of Britain and highlights the importance of understanding feasting and its various manifestations and uses. For example, Wessex has produced evidence of late Bronze Age and earlier Iron Age feasting in the form of middens. Similar evidence has also been found at Llanmaes where a midden dating to the late Bronze and earlier Iron Age has produced metalwork, pottery and 10,000 fragments of animal bone. In contrast to Wessex, pig jaws and limb bones dominate the faunal assemblage at Llanmaes. In addition, the Llanmaes midden has also produced Roman sherds, which post-date the settlement by over 500 years, thus raising questions about the use of the site over time.

Of course feasting on food and drink was not the only mechanism for as the archaeology of northern East Anglia aptly demonstrates, consumption can take many forms and the peoples of this region chose to carry out their commensal politics through the consumption of precious metals deposited in hoards. Groups in northern East Anglia accommodated and transformed selected elements of the new ceramic traditions, but social discourse was carried out in a different field of consumption – the consumption of large amounts of precious metals and coins in hoards. Differing modes of destruction and discard are important ways through which social groups both define themselves and create social relations. The artefacts, like any animate life form, may be considered to contain ‘spirit’ and therefore its corporeal form is destroyed at the end of its use-life. Alternatively, the destruction of commodities acquired through exchange may be one means of gaining social prestige which may occur through a number of mechanisms, notably through the staging of feasts or as a votive deposition. Alternatively, the destruction and deposition of objects may be linked to the activities with which artefacts related, for instance to mortuary rituals (Jones 2002: 100).

Feasting, particularly in East Anglia, takes on a more subtle appearance in the archaeological record when considered within the context of Iron Age Europe. Within Europe, feasting is more prominent and potentially more ostentatious and would appear to be limited to a number of site types. My research indicates, contrary to classical literature, that alcohol was not a significant feature of feasting. Within East Anglia, there are few examples that have produced deposits that are primarily concerned with the consumption of alcohol. There are few sites, which have produced large quantities of wine amphorae, as witnessed in Gaul. It would appear that more emphasis was placed on eating rather than drinking.

The movement of population during the later Iron Age brought together a myriad of people from a variety of social, political and economic backgrounds. A situation, such as this, would require a renegotiation of relations and the creation of new identities. A feast, given its importance in commensal politics, provided the occasion for

8

10

Chapter Seven - Discussion and Conclusion

Figure 37. A map to highlight the differences between Late Iron Age feasting sites in areas of high and low population density

9

10

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Figure 38. A map to highlight the differences between Conquest feasting sites in areas of high and low population density

110

Chapter Seven - Discussion and Conclusion

My research has shown that feasting can occur on a variety of scales and in locations not necessarily associated with power or where one would expect large gatherings of people. This stands in marked contrast to the evidence from Gaul, where visibly distinct feasting deposits have been identified at large enclosures, religious sites and large centres of power (e.g. Gournay-sur-Aronde, AcyRomance and Puy de Courent). East Anglia has not produced deposits representative of these large scale acts of consumption and only further emphasise the selective nature of feasting. My work shows that feasting is an activity not just confined to large enclosures or centres of power and that it functions of a variety of scales. This has important ramifications for the study of feasting in Iron Europe, where much of the efforts have been directed towards these large enclosures and centres associated with religion and power, particularly in central and southern Gaul. At present, only a partial understanding of the social, economic and political implications is possible due to this limited focus in terms of site types and geographical location. Archaeological evidence from Belgic Gaul is yet to be studied within the context of feasting and represents an opportunity to fully comprehend the concept of regionality and how feasting is a key analytical tool in understanding social change during the Iron Age.

There were clearly regional differences and strategies to these modes of consumption. Although feasting is not a visually prominent feature of the East Anglia landscape, where feasting does take place there are important implications and knock-on effects, which create changes in social, political and economic structure. Feasting can be situated in two distinct landscapes of East Anglia: the political and social landscape. Examples of diacritical feasting or activities associated with the consumption of a large amount of human labour and eventually food and drink (through the construction of defence ditches or rich burials) were located in areas with high population densities, such as Verulamium or Camulodunum. The second landscape, social, featured types of feasts which were situated on the margins, near river or roads which cut across the landscape (Figures 37-38, Appendix B). Both of these landscapes and their associated consumption practices were impositions on the landscape, impositions which in fact had the effect of restructuring the environment in which people inhabited in order to produce a changing cultural landscape. Feasting in some cases is about creating lasting political bonds and these could have been expressed physically in the landscape through the construction of lasting monumental statements such as funerary monuments, large enclosures or defence and dyke systems. Feasts were held in a particular location in the landscape in order to make a physical and socio-political statement. Food, being one of the most powerful embodied mnemonic devices, can play a key role in the production of remembering events of importance, on both a personal and group level. When this is coupled with a location within a landscape that has been deliberately chosen for variety of reasons, be it social, political or economic, the mnemonic power of these events is increased. Thus the constructions and their associated feasts can be viewed as social, political and economic statements.

Through a detailed analysis of archaeological data from East Anglia, I have illustrated the role of feasting in social, economic and political contexts and considered how each of these contexts are intimately linked with both individual and group life cycles. In analysing the variety of contexts in which feasting is used and manipulated, I have been able to understand and explain why the later Iron Age witnesses marked increases in material, social and political change. The study of feasting has provided me with the opportunity to move beyond the ‘Romano-centric’ approach to the data of this period, and consider the more active roles played by individuals or groups (consciously or otherwise) in altering or maintaining their standing within society. The potentially competitive nature of feasting could have affected the structure of society as a whole and this in turn resulted in marked changes in the social, political and economic makeup of later Iron Age Britain, especially East Anglia.

The passage of an individual life may be linked with daily, seasonal or annual cycles, with natural and personal time scale fully integrating the life cycle of the wider social community (Gilchrist 2000:326). In turn feasting may have been employed within these cycles and used to mark particular parts of these. Within East Anglia different areas witness different manifestations of feasts, each of which may represent different points of the life cycle. In certain areas feasts mark the end of the life cycle (funerals, abandonment of sites, destruction of material culture), on other occasions alliance feasts can be used to celebrate marriages and other transitional events. However, it is clear, much like life, time and political cycles, feasts are interwoven and interlinked and it becomes difficult to differentiate and identify archaeological data as one particular form of feast. Feasts are usually polysemic in their meanings and functions and, like most rituals, they play simultaneously to multiple audiences. As Cohen (1979) has noted, the most emotionally compelling and

111

By analysing the remains and signatures of feasting, I have been able to show that there were a variety of new modes of consumption, be they the embodying of food and drink, memory or metal. My research shows that during the later Iron Age, particularly in East Anglia, one witnesses the emergence of new arenas for ‘commensal politics’ beyond what have been referred to as ‘traditional seats of power’. Food and drink, and the material culture and etiquette of their consumption, can signify a variety of social distinctions, identities and values. In any one context, multiple identities and values may be contested or affirmed. Social, economic and political negotiation in the context of feasting takes a variety of forms and occurs in differing locations for a number of reasons and purposes.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

effective political symbols are precisely those which are not overtly political but rather tend to have an ambiguous ‘bivocality’ melding intense personal experience of existential identity issues with broader structures of power. Funerary rituals are an example of this kind of fusion. As I highlighted in Chapters Six and Seven, alliance feasts can overlap with funerary, diacritical and work-party feasts. It is hard to distinguish between particular forms of feasting because each feast will probably serve several purposes, e.g. a funeral feast, as well as a celebration of the deceased, it also requires alliance among the community to reorganise social structure. In certain cases feasts are about creating diacritical distinctions amongst the mourners, e.g. as illustrated by Junker (1999, 2001) and Parker Pearson (1999) where distinctions between the realms of the living and the dead appear to have been inscribed in the choice of species and selection of body parts of the animals that occasionally accompanied the dead.

the broader issues social interaction, such as the dialectics of power (Hamilakis 1999: 41). Food and drink were effective means of uniting and dividing people. To what extent the consumption of food and drink was a catalyst for social change, rather than just one of several media used by human agents to promote strategies of individual or collective advancement, is more difficult to assess and arguably depends greatly on the scale at which one seeks to understand social process. On a broad temporal and geographical scale, some sharp contrasts seem evident between societies in which large-scale commensality was marked by lavishness of provision, and those in which elaborately diacritical feasting took place. Feasting would have occurred throughout the Iron Age as a means to maintain, alter or establish a variety of relationships within society. During the later Iron Age the movement of people and the prospect of the Roman invasion turned feasting into a powerful mode of commensality. People now had to redefine themselves in these new situations and a feast provided the opportunity for people to gather, create identities and alliances – something particularly important given the imminence of arrival of the Roman army. The consequences of these events are changes in material culture and more importantly changes in the political structure of society and the emergence of aggrandisers, all of which in turn affected one another.

Feasts present a unique occasion to celebrate together and experience a commonality, all the while asserting the distinctions of social identity that are increasingly dividing that commonality. Feasts provide common social experiential references in time and space for an increasingly dispersed, segmented and hierarchically arranged social body. Feasts create and intensify the microcosm of social and political and economic complexity that agriculturalists, producers, kin and neighbours must grow accustomed to under conditions of intensifying social complexity and power consolidations (Gero 2003: 287). Like other critical practices that help forge new social relations, one learns these lessons with the body, underscored in sensuous ways. The exaggeratedly physical qualities of feasting, of eating to surfeit, and drinking to – and sometimes past-inebriation, coincide with the importance of the body’s feeling one’s social position to know it better. Like sex, which is also apparently used for ritual enactments of social relations in some contexts (Gero 2004), feasting requires participants to place themselves near and among certain people while keeping a distance from, or a specific physical attitude towards, other. Thus, establishing a new social order, or modifying social relations, is not for minds alone, not merely something to be mentally re-formulated, but rather something that must be undertaken in the flesh, experienced in person, and practised under various social circumstances.

One needs to recognise that inter-cultural consumption of objects or practices, the process which instigated the encounter with the Mediterranean and Roman Gaul, is not a phenomenon that takes place at the level of cultures or abstract structures. It is an active process of creative transformation and manipulation played out by individuals and social groups with a variety of competing interests and strategies of action embedded in local political relations, cultural perceptions and cosmologies. Focusing on the process of consumption can provide a useful and sensitive means of penetrating indigenous agency and experience in the encounter. I am certain that feasting has the potential to reveal significant new insights into social processes and relations in Iron Age society. It is important to identify the nature of feasts and to explain how and why they appeared in certain socio-economic contexts. I would suggest that the appearance of new artefacts associated with eating and drinking should not be interpreted as a consequence of Romanisation, but should instead be viewed as tools for communication and manipulation, particularly within the context of feasting. Feasting provided the opportunity for individuals or groups to augment their existing power and prestige or create new relationships. Individuals and groups actively sourced new ways to consume food and drink in order act as ‘interferences’ in the changing social, political and economic climates of the later Iron Age. These new ideas and objects could then be manipulated and displayed through feasting; the new arena for power politics.

The power of feasting and drinking parties, which is acquired through the elements of communal consumption, honest, or pretended generosity, embodied pleasure and intoxication, transform, mask and legitimise other less pleasant and more serious forms of power (Bourdieu 1977: 411). They are effective mechanisms not only for accumulating material wealth, but, most importantly, of transforming material wealth into power. They may offer a key to the explanation of the development of power in a number of societies (Hamilakis 1999: 40-1). It is by paying attention to the everyday practices of human bodily encounters with the world that we can understand some of 112

Appendix A Feasting Sites in East Anglia

113

114

Cambs

Cambs

Cambs

Addenbrooke’s Site, Cambridge

Borough Fen

Fengate

Haddenham (HAD IV)

1

2

3

4

Cambs

Cambs

Haddenham (HAD V)

Haddenham (HAD VI)

5

6

Cambs

County

Site Name

Site No.

Food

Food

Vessels

MIA

MIA

MIA

EIA, MIA/LIA, LIA

MIA, MIA/LIA

Facilities, Locations

Vessels

LIA, Conquest

Date

Food

Indicator

Enclosed Settlement

Enclosed Settlement

Enclosed Settlement

Settlement

Enclosed Settlement

Settlement

Site Type

1980s

1980s

1980s

1980s

1980s

2004

Date of Discovery

Evans and Hodder 2005; Evans and Serjeantson 1988

Evans and Hodder 2005; Evans and Serjeantson 1988

The site of HAD IV is thought to represent an Iron Age shrine. One complete vessel was deposited as part of a large deposit of pottery (with a broken oven plate and bone) in the base of the southwestern terminal of the outer enclosure ditch (F60). Large parts of seven vessels, plus the complete vessel are present in this deposit, including three constricted vessels, a slack shouldered vessel, an everted rim open bowl and a very large tub. The deposit also contains five medium-to-large sherds of fabric Q106. Parts of the same vessel are also present in the primary fill of the southeastern terminal of the inner enclosure (938) which contain small parts of another five vessels. A restricted range of vessel types is represented and noticeably lack the globular and shouldered bowls found at HAD V. The large deposits of ‘fresh’ material and sherd links that characterise these assemblages are very different to the ‘normal’ depositional history represented at HAD V. A single deposit of pottery dating to the Phase I was found in Pit F82. It contained five vessels. Most of the pottery from HAD IV appears to come from large deposits of fresh material from a limited range of medium to large sized cooking and storage vessels. F82 consisted of large parts from at least five different vessels. The five vessels in this group were all unburnished, most were scored and represented a ‘set’ of plain cooking and storage vessels consisting of two small vessels, two medium vessels and one large vessel. The two smallest were certainly used for cooking.

Aerial photographs indicated that ditch F100 continued northwest from the HADV enclosure to meet the southwestern corner of a matching sub-square enclosure (HAD VI). Three phases were apparent: after an initial period of ploughing, possibly outside the main field boundary system (I), an enclosure was built on the edge of this system (II). Within the enclosure there was at least one structure (Building 1). Alluvial deposits gradually silted and buried the site, causing its abandonment (III). An earlier sub-square enclosure was also revealed and these two enclosures are referred to as A and B. Nearly 13% of identified bones are from pigs and this is significantly higher than HAD V. Beaver is also absent from the site and this too is in marked contrast to HAD V. The contrast with HAD V is important, suggesting a deliberate selection of pigs as animals to keep and eat. Further, the absence of beavers and birds can only indicate deliberate avoidance of the wild animals which were so abundant at the nearby settlement. There is a clear contrast in the regime of animal exploitation and food consumption between this pair of related sites.

Pryor 1984

Fengate does not appear to offer support for the distinction made between fine ‘table’ wares and coarse, scored ‘kitchen’ wares. Structure 54, certainly a house, produced enormous quantities of coarseware and not one sherd of fine, burnished tableware. Structure 20 produced large quantities of fine pottery and little coarseware. Could this represent preference for certain forms of pottery or different functions for these two structures – preparation vs. consumption?

Evans and Hodder 2005; Evans and Serjeantson 1988

Malim and McKenna 1993

In the northern ditch of this MIA fort were large sherds of pottery and a complete horse skull believed to represent deliberate deposition. Forts are found infrequently within the Fens and therefore it is proposed that due to its location and structural details, the Borough Fen ringwork had more of a strategic function.

Within the MIA double-ditched enclosure were three circular buildings. The central ‘living’ house is substantially larger than its two flanking ‘huts’, and the presence of a series of ovens in the eastern most structure would suggest that it might have been a cooking hut. A large formal hearth dominates the limited floor area of this building, and the nature and quantity of artefacts found within the perimeter (coarse-ware pot, pot boilers and shell (egg shell fragments), it is suggested that is a cooking or storage building. The central building is thought to be mainly for residential purposes. The layout of the interior and the degree of planning, which is evident in its construction, would suggest that it was a household unit of a relatively high social status. A large number of bird shells were also recovered from a MIA building and are thought to represent seasonal egg collection. Within this assemblage were the remains of a skeleton of a crane, pelican wing bones and fish and eel bones.

Evans et al. 2004

References

Two probable and two possible round houses or circular buildings are represented in the north-west part of the site by curved gullies. Structures 5 and 6 may represent a paired unit and both contained large quantities of material. Structure 5 contained 730g of pottery, 340g of bone, whilst St. 6 produced 1843g of pottery and only 8g of bone.

Detail

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

115

Cambs

Haddenham (Snow’s Farm)

7

Cambs

Orton Longueville

Orton Longueville

Cambs

Maxey

9

10

Cambs

Hinxton

8

Cambs

County

Site Name

Site No.

Vessels

Food

Food

Existence of Aggrandisers

Location

Indicator

Conquest

LIA, Conquest

MIA, LIA

LIA

LIA, Conquest

Date

Enclosed Settlement 1974

1974

1980s/1990s

Enclosed Settlement

Enclosed Settlement

1994

1980s

Date of Discovery

Cemetery

Enclosed Settlement

Site Type

Hill et al. 1999

Simpson 1985

Mackreth 2001

Mackreth 2001

Structure 19, F572/3 (dating to the MIA) contained the top vent of a beehive oven dumped into a shallow, partially-filled pit, pottery, few animal bones and burnt stones. A well (F559) contained a quantity of animal bone, pottery and decayed wood. Dating to the LIA, the gully associated with Structure 25 contained large quantities of domestic rubbish. In the north part of the site was a pit (F24), which dates to Phase 2a of the occupation (c. 70/80 BC-c. AD 125). The pit was filled with a dark loamy soil with an abundant admixture of carbonised grain. Spelt wheat dominated the deposit. A few spelt chaff fragments were found, but grains heavily outnumbered these. This suggests that the crop had been fairly thoroughly cleaned before it was charred. Around AD 125 to 150/175, a huge dump of pottery was placed in the enclosure ditch. The deposit consisted of large sherds with fresh breaks joining to form a substantial number of complete or near complete vessels. A large number of the vessels were thrown away intact, suggesting that the criterion for their disposal was not their usefulness but whether they were deemed worthy of the effort need to remove them from the site. There was a predominance of coarse kitchen and storage wares over finer tablewares. Since the pottery involved dated to one of the latest recognisable phases of occupation activity on site, it would appear to represent deliberate clearance of household goods prior to abandonment of the site or it could represent a final feast before leaving the site. There is a large quantity of storage jars, as well as bowls, flagons and beakers.

Evans and Hodder 2005

References

This site was a cremation cemetery with ring-ditch surrounded interments. Eight cremations and three inhumation burials were recovered. Prior to intenment the remains had been sorted with bone separated from pyre debris. The cremated bones had been discretely deposited in the base of the pits and all were unurned; the accompanying pots being placed upright beside the burnt remains. Pottery was a component of all the cremation graves and metalwork accompanied three. Of the two with the greatest number of vessels, Cremations 1 and 3 (nine and three pots respectively), neither included metal objects. Cremation 2 was accompanied by a ‘packed’ group of personal ornaments and toiletry equipment and also a castfitting obviously derived from a complex object. Central ring burials contained cuts of meat.

The Snow’s Farm complex included a series of Romano-British shrines with tight sequences of votive animal deposits. Phase I at the shrine site was represented by the construction of an octagonal Romano-British shrine and associated buildings on the flank of the barrow and its enclosure in a rectilinear ditch system in the second century AD. In total 2,639 sherds of Romano-British pottery (37.7kg) and 32, 933 animal bones are attributable to the site’s shrine usage. Although there is nothing remarkable about these quantities themselves, the amount of bone in comparison to the pottery is very high and occurs at a ratio of 12.5:1. These amounts could attest to mass deposition (and possibly consumption) of animal remains at the shrine and thus is reflective of the practices that were carried out there, e.g. feasting. Dating to Phase I, the fill of a small pit (787) contained cattle, pig and sheep/goat bones. Cattle were only represented by a single cervical vertebra. At least two pigs were noted on the basis of the elements represented; these included a mandible, hindlimbs and foot bones. Sheep bones included head, trunk, forelimb, hindlimb and foot elements. At least three sheep occurred in the deposit; a scapula has been chopped and proximal humerus had both chops and dismembering cuts suggesting that butchery in the form of dismembering forelimbs was taking place. During Phase I.II there was an interesting deposit comprising sheep skeletons and partial limbs from at least seven individuals. These were associated with pottery vessels and were located in the northwest corner of the main compound in pits (636) and (673). Five individuals were represented by partially complete skeletons, and two individuals by just head and trunk elements. Where extra elements occurred supplementary to the core group of skeletons they were predominantly from the forelimb, hindlimb and feet. Dismembering cut marks were observed on one of the proximal metacarpals in (673) confirming that some of the foot deposits had probably been added separately to the skeletons. In the floor of the building were a number of sheep/goat mandibles with hooves laid out on either side were found and in the mouths of two were coins. In the northwest compound were a series of shallow pits containing four complete sheep/goat skeletons each of which were accompanied by a pot. This may represent animal sacrifice, but the finds highlight the importance of the site and its potential as a communal religious focus. At Snow’s Farm shrine, while sheep clearly predominate as the chosen animal for ritual activity, other domestic species were also deployed (cattle, pig and horse). Though a range of domestic fowl and exotic birds were also deposited, aside from boar, game animals were not. The inclusion of smaller birds (e.g. coot, duck and domestic fowl) could represent a familial feast or sacrifice.

Detail

Appendix A - Feasting Sites in East Anglia

116

Evans 1984 1857

In a hole, approximately a 2ft 6in square, were three pewter plates stacked together. Underneath in the same hole were animal bones, including 2 cattle skulls, 2 sheep jaws, horn core, vertebrae and scapula (all cattle). There were also Roman potsherds, including colour-coated wares and mortaria.

Settlement

Conquest

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Cambs

Willingham Fen

16

Evans 2003

1991

Enclosed Settlement

MIA/LIA, LIA, Conquest

Location

Cambs

Wardy Hill, Coveney

This is a defended enclosure complex and was probably strategically located to command a causeway crossing the Cove. Both wheel- and hand-made pottery is evident and assemblages include imports, e.g. two samian vessels, a handful of early Roman sherds and two La Tène-style decorated vessels. There was also a decorated metal piece from either a small wooden bucket or tankard. One of the structures (St.1) was later used as a midden and contained a large amount of faunal remains. The pottery assemblage is important because it is missing the specialised drinking or serving from such as beakers, cups, flagons and platters (except the samian examples).

15

French 2003b; French and Gdaniec 1996

EIA, LIA

Food

Cambs

Wandlebury

14

In Varley’s field, pits were excavated outside the ringwork. Two of these pits contained fills of charred grain. One had the articulated torso of a sheep placed on the base of the pit with the head beside it. Two other pits contained large quantities of wood ash and most of the pits contained relatively large amounts of animal bone.

Settlement

1950s, 1990s

Hinman 2004

Over 600 pits were identified at the Trumpington Park and Ride site. A significant number of the pits were found to contain selected and placed arrangements of both human and animal remains. During the excavation it became increasingly apparent that associations between human remains, animal remains and specific items such as loom weights, bone needles, and awls were being repeated within separate pits. Furthermore the fill sequences of many pits appeared to contain recognisable elements suggesting deliberate and structured approaches to infilling. At times these fill sequences seemed to have been related to the nature of the artefactual remains deposited therein. This structured repetition of selection and placement patterns suggested that objects were specially chosen for their symbolic value and that some form of ceremonial activity was taking place on the site throughout the Iron Age. The remains of about 60 individuals were recovered, mainly neonates / infants, as well as over 14000 sherds of pottery and over 240kg of animal bone which included a wide range of domestic and wild species. Pit 247 has bones placed on its base. These included partial skulls of several cattle and a red deer. A pair of cattle jaw bones were placed in a ‘S’ pattern, another pair with ends opposed, other bones placed in a cross pattern and a single neck vertebra from a cow placed on the ‘nose’ of the central cow skull. In the centre of pit 2624, two pigs were placed on top of one another. They were covered by a very dark, blackish brown sandy silt, with frequent charcoal and occasional pot. This has been interpreted as the remains of cookery waste. The upper fill contained moderate amounts of pot, occasional bone (including more pig remains), daub, occasional burnt stone and charcoal flecks. In the enclosure ditch there was a small dump of burnt refuse including cereals and seeds of grasses and grassland plants.

Hillfort

Lethbridge 1954

The main floor space of this burial was taken up by a wooden construction, which had lain east and west along the major axis of the pit. The cremation lay right in the middle of this structure and the discolouration of the soil suggests it had been placed there while still very hot. Grave goods included possible horse fittings as well as an iron shield boss. There were three amphorae (Spanish), a cream-coloured wine jug and a heap of shattered vessels. These vessels included four jugs, a butt beaker of grey ware, an oval beaker of smoked red ware, resembling the wares of Castor on the Nene, but imported from Gaul; a terra rubra cup and a terra nigra bowl. Beneath all the other vessels lay a bronze bowl. A complete skeleton of a young pig and that of a fowl were also present. At the west end of the wooden construction were four shattered pots. These were a terra rubra platter, a terra nigra bowl, a native bowl and a native tazza bowl. Further along the west face laid the bones of a sirloin of beef and two ham bones.

Hinman 2004

Atkins and Mudd 2003

This site was characterised by a densely intercutting series of enclosure and boundary ditches spanning a period from at least c. 300 BC until around AD 400. To the northern side of a MIA enclosure was a midden. It comprised an irregular area measuring c. 17m by 13m and about 10% was excavated. The gradual slope of the natural subsoil implies there was a natural depression north of the enclosure which was used for rubbish disposal. It was up to 0.41m deep, with two similar fills. The upper was a very dark brown sandy loam with charcoal inclusions, while the lower was a mid greyish brown sandy loam with less charcoal. It yielded a large quantity of pottery and animal bone, but few other finds except a small amount (186g) of fuel ash residue. There were 195 sherds (3917g) of pottery (25% of the entire Iron Age assemblage by number and 32% by weight). A lot were fairly unabraded and many are reasonably large sherds. A few sherds of the 1st century AD are present. Pottery from the midden included ovoid or round shouldered jars both plain and decorated.

These pits spanned the whole of the Iron Age and there was also a series of sub-rectangular enclosures, mortuary enclosure and possible foci/shrines.

2000-2001

References

Detail

2000-2001

Settlement

LIA

LIA

Location

Food

Cambs

Cambs

1952

1999-2000

Enclosed Settlement

Burial

Date of Discovery

Site Type

Trumpington Park & Ride

Trumpington Park & Ride

LIA, Conquest

Existence of Aggrandisers

Cambs

Snailwell

12

13

MIA, LIA

Date

Food

Indicator

Cambs

County

Prickwillow Rd, Ely

Site Name

11

Site No.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

117

Essex

Asheldham Camp

Birchangar

18

19

Essex

Essex

Ardleigh

Essex

County

Essex

Ardleigh

Site Name

Ardleigh

17

Site No.

Food

Settlement

MIA, LIA, Conquest

Unenclosed Settlement

1970, 1992

1893, 1985

1979-80

1950s

1979-80

Unenclosed Settlement

Burial

Date of Discovery

Site Type

Hillfort

Date

MIA

LIA

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Food

LIA

LIA

Existence of Aggrandisers

Vessels

Indicator

Brown 1999; Sealey 1999a, 1999b, 1999c

Bedwin 1991

Medlycott 1994

Several trenches were excavated in 1985 and a feature from Trench F revealed a pit (62). The pit contained two sharply contrasting fills. The black lower fill (63) consisted largely of charred material (an estimated 40kg), made up of charred grain and charcoal, some of the latter in large lumps, clearly derived from worked wood. There were fragments of oak charcoal from planks, stake tips and the staves perhaps from a small barrel. Within this fill were about 40 large unabraded sherds from a single, thick-walled storage jar in a heavily flint-gritted fabric, of MIA date. The upper fill was a fine, sandy deposit, free of charred material, but containing an almost complete MIA bowl in sandy fabric. The purpose of these pits is unknown; the sandy subsoil was so loose and friable that it weathered away as soon as it was exposed. It seems unlikely that these could have been storage pits, unless lined. Murphy (1991) suggests that a grain storage area was located within the vicinity, with grain being kept in pottery and wooden vessels. The material which survived in carbonised form appears to have derived from the later stages of crop processing and consumption. Pit F1 contained quantities of cow, sheep and pig bones, although the upper fills were considerably more bone-rich than the lower ones. The sequence of deposits in these pits is unusual and is though to perhaps represent a compost heap, made up of alternated layers of decaying organic matter and a covering layer of re-deposited natural placed so as to keep the smell and flies down. These layers would then be periodically dug out and used as fertiliser, resulting in the complex systems of cuts and re-cuts visible in the sections.

Brown 1999

Brown 1999; Sealey 1999a, 1999b, 1999c

References

See Vessel description

Ploughing revealed three cremation burials accompanied by ‘Belgic’ pottery south of Frating Road. The largest of the burials contained five vessels, the cremated bone was placed between rather than within the pots. The second burial consisted of a pair of pots, the third burial was again a pair of pots. To the north nearer Frating Road, three further burials were recovered. The first consisted of a pair of pots, one of which contained burnt bone. The second was represented by another pair of pots, one a butt beaker, burnt bone was placed between them. The third burial comprised a single butt beaker containing burnt bone. All of these burials appear to demarcate the LIA settlement.

The Cauldron Pit, a LIA feature which lay just beyond the western boundary of the LIA/Roman settlement, contained copies in pottery of bronze vessels. These included strainer bowls and a cauldron. The primary fill contained a Braughing jar, a form common in Hertfordshire and introduced into the Essex area. There was also a beaker dated to c. AD 10-AD 50 and these are local copies of Gallo-Belgic girth beakers. Four strainer bowls were identified in this feature, with a fifth discovered by the plough in 1957, along with sherds of Roman greyware. These Belgic fabric pottery bowls stood on a low footring and had a perforated panel along the shoulder of the vessel. They are of two basic forms, distinguished by their profile; one is carinated (Cam 323) the other (Cam 322) rounded. These derive from quite different metal prototypes (Sealey 1999: 119). Their Belgic fabric does not differ from the other native pottery of the pit and therefore it is reasonable to assume that they are local products too. Similar pottery versions are known from Sheepen (Hawkes and Hull 1947: fig. 50, no. 8, 273-4; Niblett 1985: fig.33, microfiche 1:D3-4). There are two complete bronze spouted strainer bowls which have a carinated biconical form close to the pottery version. These are from Early Roman metalwork hoards: Brandon (Suffolk) (Grew 1980: 376) and Crownthorpe (Norfolk) (Henig 1995: 35, pl. 17). Along with these strainers were a classic Essex pedestal urn of first century AD date and jar of a south Essex form which emerged at the time of the Roman invasion and lasted until the Flavian period and beyond. The south Essex form is invariably shell-tempered and the grog of this Ardleigh vessel shows it to be a local copy. The pit infill contained the handmade pottery cauldron with a cordon clumsily decorated with circular stab marks. These are thought to represent the dome-shaped rivet heads on a metal version. The fabric is grey with a rough and vesicular surface and despite the original temper in the original pot not apparent on the surface, it is clear that this is another shell-tempered ware example of the Essex Iron Age and Early Roman period. A carinated bowl was also found with the cauldron as well as a sherd from local copy of terra rubra beaker. The recut of the pit contained a butt beaker which has no parallels in Camulodunum forms and no close imported prototype can be found for these local copies, variants of which are present at King Harry Lane c. AD 1-60, and at Colchester Sheepen before AD 43. There was also a storage jar of Belgic fabric, a Gallo-Belgic pedestal cup and a sherd of terra rubra in a fine off-white fabric. A further layer of this recut contained a lop-sided Braughing jar, a grooved butt beaker and a globular jar.

Detail

Appendix A - Feasting Sites in East Anglia

118

20

19

Site No.

Elms Farm, Heybridge

Elms Farm, Heybridge

Birchangar

Birchangar

Site Name

Essex

Essex

Essex

Essex

County

Vessels

Food

Esistence of Aggrandisers

Vessels

Indicator

LIA, Conquest

LIA, Conquest

LIA, Conquest

MIA, LIA, Conquest

Date

Enclosed Settlement

Enclosed Settlement

Burial

Settlement

Site Type

1970s onwards

1970s onwards

1970, 1992

1970, 1992

Date of Discovery References

Medlycott 1994

Medlycott 1994

Atkinson 1995; Atkinson and Preston 1998, forthcoming

Atkinson 1995; Atkinson and Preston 1998, forthcoming

Detail The MIA pottery includes a range of cooking/storage jars, fine bowls and occasional small cups (Brown 1994: 34). The majority of the pottery was recovered from pits (F1, 39, 40, 118, 119 and 120). The pottery was not uniformly distributed throughout the pit fills. The majority of pottery from F1 was derived from the central fills (27-33), the largest quantity from 29 (29% by sherd count, 43% by weight of the total pottery from F1) and very little from the upper layer (26). Not pottery was recovered from the lower fills. Pit complexes F39 and F41 have an even more striking pattern of depositions; large quantities of MIA potter from the latest cuts and relatively little pottery of EIA date from the earlier cuts (Brown 1994: 35-6). A similar pattern occurs in F40, with a considerable amount of MIA pottery from the upper fills and nothing from the lower. Pit 42 contained a cremation group consisting of eight vessels of a mid Claudian date. Two imports were recovered; a butt beaker in North Gaulish fine white sandy ware and an ovoid beaker in terra rubra, both dated to the Claudian period. There were two vessels in King Harry Lane (KHL) silty ware: a two-handled flagon and a platter, the latter possibly of local manufacture in Hertfordshire. Two local Essex wares were present; two vessels in fine Romanising grey ware (beaker or small jar with a pedestal foot and bellshaped cup) and two vessels in grog-tempered ware (platter and conical cup with a foot ring). These are local copies of Gallo-Belgic imports. The cremation vessels have parallels with a number of sites in Cambridgeshire, Essex and Hertfordshire (most notably Camulodunum and King Harry Lane). However, the assemblage is unusual in that although a relatively large number of vessels were found, none of them were samian. This is similar to the cremation cemetery at King Harry Lane which produced over 700 vessels of which only 6 were samian (Horsley 1994: 41). The cremation also included four copper-alloy brooches. Interestingly, five unburnt pig bones accompanied the burial. There was the skull (without mandibles), the right scapula, humerus, radius and ulna. Although the latter four could not be described as articulated, they were roughly aligned, and suggest that most of the right foreleg (without metapodials and phalanges) was deposited in the grave. Cremation burials of a similar date from Stansted Airport (Site DFS), 1.25km to the east, also contained pig skulls (Havis and Brooks 2004). It is postulated that Heybridge had a dual function as a point of collection and supply of agricultural produce to regional centres and as a service centre for the local community. Near to the temple of this ‘town’ was the marketplace, or at least an extensive area of metalled surfacing which covered much of the central part of the town. Within the vicinity of this marketplace were the remains of large greyware storage jars standing on their sides and embedded in the compacted gravel. These were originally complete, with some still containing large burnt stones and charcoal. In most cases it appeared that a fire had been made inside them, as if they had been used for cooking. It was suggested that their use could have been similar to ‘tandoori ovens’. It is possible to view all of these features in the context of the market-place with its stalls and areas of possible food preparation around a communal well. The fills of the water-logged well yielded a good assemblage of ceramics and animal bone, largely scapulae, each of which bore a single hole indicating that it represented the remain of a joint of meat once suspended from a hook. An interesting collection of pottery was found in an oval pit towards the eastern side of the site (Area M). The assemblage included a range of early examples of imported finewares, along with grog-tempered beakers and jars. There are at least five platters, all different and in three different fabrics. The first is a Central Gaulish micaceous terra nigra for Cam 1. Three platters are in terra rubra and the fifth is from Campania. Sherds from a Central Gaulish flagon were also recovered along with a mortarium. There are pieces of at least seven beakers and at least one import, probably Central Gaul. The remaining vessels were locally made, mainly jars, but there is a bowl which would have had a lid however this was not present. All of the sherds join to form exactly half of the vessel (Atkinson pers.comm.). The latter was of a form popular in the Roman army and is therefore found predominantly in post-conquest contexts. Also present were parts of three Italian Dressel Ib wine amphorae imported from the Campania. Most of the pottery had been burnt to varying degrees. The fill of the pit was not apparently dark and contained little obvious charcoal or burnt bone, so although most of the pottery recovered had been burnt, it seems that sorting and collection had taken place before deposition in the pit (Atkinson pers.comm.). The assemblage is dated to the very end of the first century BC or the very beginning of the first century AD. Analysis of this deposit would suggest that it represents cremation pyre debris. Although the pottery had been burnt, none of it was sooted, which reinforces the idea that a high, furnace-like temperatire must have been involved. However, no signs of human remains were recognised within the fill of the pit to suggest that the feature’s primary use was that of a grave. The building of a stake-built structure within the part-infilled pit does suggest that it had a significance that required marking in some way – perhaps a small shrine. This deposit may represent a variant burial practice where the goods accompanied the corpse on the pyre but were not then included alongside the cremated remains within the grave. The deposit appears to have been a product of a selective process off the pyre site remains. The absence of significant quantities of charcoal and ash suggest there was no shovelling of material into the pit.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

119

Kelvedon

24

26

25

Essex

Howell’s Farm, Great Totham

23

Lexden

Kelvedon, Doucecroft Site

Kelvedon, Doucecroft Site

Essex

Gosbecks

22

Essex

Essex

Essex

Essex

Essex

Fox Hall Farm, Southend

21

County

Site Name

Site No.

MIA, LIA, Conquest

LIA, Conquest

Existence of Aggrandisers

MIA, LIA, Conquest

LIA, Conquest

MIA/LIA

LIA, Conquest

Conquest

Date

Food

Vessels

Vessels

Vessels

Location

Vessels

Indicator

Burial

Enclosed Settlement

1924

1982, 1985-6

1982, 1985-6

1968-1973

Enclosed Settlement

Enclosed Settlement

1990

1842

1992

Date of Discovery

Unenclosed Settlement

Enclosure

Unenclosed Settlement

Site Type

Laver 1927; Foster 1986

This rich burial is dated to c. 15-10BC and covered by a mound of around 70 feet in diameter and stands to a height of around five feet (Laver 1927). Originally it must have been higher and more clearly defined on the ground than it is now. The mound was thrown up over a large oval-shaped pit which contained the remains of a wide range of expensive personal and domestic objects. The deceased had been cremated and the remains placed in small heaps over the western half of the pit floor. Like the bones, most of the objects were carefully placed on the floor of the pit although some ended up in its backfill. The distribution of the objects on the pit floor suggests that they had been inside a large wooden burial chamber which has completely decayed. Grave goods included copper-alloy figurines of a cupid, boar, bull and griffin. There was also the remains of a suit of chain mail and jerkin, a folding stool and decorative fittings belonging to a number of pieces of furniture. There were 6 Dressel 1B amphorae (dating before c. 10 BC) and 13 Dressel 2-4 amphorae (c. 15 BC to 2nd C. AD). It is not known if any of these vessels had been placed intact in the grave since the fragments were in a part of the grave which had been disturbed in antiquity. One of the most significant items in this grave is a silver medallion, which was made by cutting out the head of Augustus from a cast copy of a Roman coin. This coin was struck between 18 and 16 BC and is therefore important in dating the burial. It also suggests that possibly the deceased and their mourners knew who was shown on the coin and were therefore not anti-Roman .

Rodwell 1988

Ditch F424 ran across Area B4 from north to south, curving slightly and cutting a pit F431 and an oven F435. The profile of the ditch indicated that it had been recut several times. On the western lip of the ditch at its northern end was a spread of large flint pebbles. The contents of the ditch included a large quantity of coarseware, terra rubra, terra nigra, an amphora fragment, part of the base of an Arrentine platter and two bronze brooches. Some 60 vessels are thought to have made up this assemblage with jars predominating, as well as beakers and a few examples of platters. The majority of vessels are wheelthrown. Early forms, with the exception of the combed jar, disappeared and were replaced by a large range of cordoned jars and butt beakers. Finewares included Arrentine, amphorae, cream flagons, terra rubra and terra nigra. The group as a whole has close affinities with material from Camulodunum, where much of it was probably made. There are however, idiosyncratic pieces like the handled butt beaker which is probably of local manufacture. A Tiberian date is given for this deposit.

Clark 1988

Wallis 1998b

The majority of the MIA pottery comes from a single deposit in ditch 96, with another quite large assemblage from gully 273. These deposits include large parts of a variety of vessels comprising both coarse storage/ cooking pots and fine vessels suitable for the service of food. The material from 96 and possibly 273 may represent deliberate deposition at the boundary of a particular area within the settlement.

Within Enclosure B of this site, a ditch (5032) was identified (Clarke 1988). The upper fill of the ditch was rich in charcoal and contained burnt pebbles. The primary fill comprised roughly equal quantities of MIA and Belgic sherds (36 in all), four fragments of vitrified material, an iron nail and three fragments of cattle bone. Artefacts in the overlying backfilled deposits were more numerous, comprising 25 sherds of MIA and 120 sherds of Belgic pottery, burnt material and animal bone fragments. In Enclosure A was a pit (5002) with an extremely charcoal-rich fill. Burning on the sides and bottom of the pit suggests it was used as a hearth. The fill produced 14 fragments of burnt clay and 10 of vitrified material, three fragments of pig bone and three sherds of grog-tempered ware of pre- or post-conquest date.

Crummy 1997a; Hawkes and Crummy 1995

The Gosbecks site has a complex history of use stretching from the pre-Roman Iron Age through to the fourth century AD. In the first or second century BC the site was enclosed by the Heath Farm Dyke; as it expanded in the decades before the conquest further dykes were constructed, the most westerly being the Grymes Dyke. The site thus enclosed had a central settlement area surrounded by field systems to which it was linked by a complex network of trackways. An early feature of the site was a religious sanctuary. This pre-Roman settlement has been interpreted as the civitas capital, or tribal centre, of the native Belgic Trinovantes. More specifically it has been seen as the major royal site of Cunobelin, the tribal leader who is recorded as having led local opposition to the Roman conquest. Gosbecks pre-Roman and Roman settlement area including the area of extensive cropmarks enclosed by the curving dykes following the Gosbecks contours. It was a major settlement and religious site for the native Trinovantes tribe during the Iron Age. Many of the cropmark features visible over the area have been interpreted as dating from this period and confirm the view of a major defended settlement site. Under Roman influence a small town with major public buildings arranged on a gridded street plan developed at Gosbecks.

Clark 1988

Ecclestone 1995

Although this site produced evidence predominantly for the earlier periods of the Iron Age, the feature of interest actually dates to the early to mid first century AD. This was a small pit (1124), in the centre of Area B and 86% of the Roman pottery assemblage came from this pit.

A ditch (5102) dated to the Conquest period contained a group of Belgic pottery and pre-Claudian sherds of pre c. AD 60. An early Roman ditch (5096) contained concentrations of Belgic pottery as well as part of a pre-Claudian butt-beaker. There were also some animal bone fragments too.

References

Detail

Appendix A - Feasting Sites in East Anglia

30

Essex

Maldon, Beacon Green

29

120

North Shoebury

Essex

Essex

Essex

Maldon Hall Farm

28

North Shoebury

Essex

County

Linford

Site Name

27

Site No.

Existence of Aggrandisers

Food

Date

LIA

EIA, MIA

EIA

LIA

Existence of Aggrandisers

Vessels

EIA

Food

Indicator

Wymer and Brown 1995

In Period II of the site (c. 300 BC-AD 50), the main settlement shifts to the west. During Phase II.2 (c. 50 BC-AD50), a cremation cemetery was established. The cemetery consisted of three pits set in a line, equally spaced at 7m apart (1161, 1232 and 1367). Remains of narrow and shallow gullies, with a few LIA sherds within them, are seen as a small rectangular enclosure surrounding the central pit (1232), which contained more vessels than the other two pits. The cemetery appears to have marked the eastern boundary of the phase II.2 settlement, the area to the east being largely devoid of LIA features. The central deposit (1232) was a sub-rectangular pit containing five pottery vessels and one lid (cordoned pedestal urn, globular widemouthed barrel jar, cordon lid-seated bowl, flanged lid, two wide-mouthed rounded cups. All local to Essex apart from the pedestal urn which is thought to have been manufactured in Kent). A quantity of cremated bone lay outside and under the pottery vessels. Animal bones included part of a cow metatarsal, some fragments of a large ungulate and some of a small animal such as sheep or roe deer. At the bottom of the southern edge of the pit was the near complete, articulated spinal column of a pig. A small pot had been placed on top of these bones and two probable chicken vertebrae were underneath another pot. Cremation pit 1367 was semi-circular and contained four pottery vessels (two plain carinated cups, plain barrel jar and a pedestal urn all of local manufacture). Some burnt animal remains were included: vertebrae fragments and epiphyses and tooth of a small ungulate such as sheep. One pot also contained some chicken bones. At the base of the pit were the part-articulated and scattered remains of pig vertebrae. The third cremation pit (1161) was sub-circular and contained three pottery vessels placed on the east side with a pig skull on the west. The vessels included two pedestal urns and a cup, all of local origin.

Cemetery

1981

Wymer and Brown 1995

1981 (Rescue 1970s)

Unenclosed Settlement

A shallow hearth base (1412), attributed to Phase 1.3 (c. 600 – 300 BC), consisted of a scoop lined with burnt brickearth. This feature, which produced a large quantity of carbonised peas, lay to the west of the main area of settlement. Remains of pulse crops are in general uncommon at British prehistoric sites (Murphy 1995: 146). The very large sample of charred peas, comprising almost 5000 seeds, is therefore interesting. Seeds of Camelina sativa (gold-of-pleasure) occurred in two samples from this feature. Remains of this plant have been reported from Iron Age deposits in Scandinavia, Germany and Holland (van Zeist 1970: 87). It has also been identified in association with flax seeds from Boudiccan destruction levels at Colchester (Murphy 1992). Camelina is a common weed of flax, but has also been grown as an oil crop in its own right.

Bedwin 1992

1987

Unenclosed Settlement

Lavender 1991

This site consists of a small, rectangular ditched cemetery enclosure, probably that of a small family group. Nine pits were identified, but only three contained cremations. One was a large pit (28) placed centrally along the north-south axis of the enclosure, but well towards the west end. It contained eight pottery vessels; three were small bowls and five were pedestal urns, the biggest of which held a large quantity of cremated bone and melted objects of copper alloy. There was also a broken silver trumpet brooch and an iron disc, which lay beneath the cinerary urn. Two other small pits contained cremation burials; (8) had the truncated remains of three jars in a trefoil arrangement, one of which contained a quantity of cremated bone and (9) contained only the badly damaged base of a truncated jar. Due to the long-lived forms of burial 28 and the absence of both Gallo-Belgic wares and copies, it is thought the enclosure dates to the second half of first century BC due to the presence of the metalwork. During rescue excavations at Maldon, Beacon Green, an irregular feature was identified (MBF 11). This was a shallow hollow and yielded an assemblage of 2018 pottery sherds. The fills within the hollow were a series of buff-yellow, silty clays, most of which contained some little burnt daub and fire-cracked flint. It seems likely that the pottery was dumped in MBF 11 soon after breakage (Brown 1992: 15). Jars and bowls dominate the assemblage and there was one shell-tempered sherd present which commonly occurs on EIA sites along the Thames and its estuary. These pieces rarely occur in the Chelmer valley/Blackwater estuary. Only a few sherds were recovered from Heybridge (Brown 1986), just to the north of Beacon Green. It seems likely that the shell-tempered sherd from Beacon Green may be part of a vessel brought to the site via the Blackwater estuary, possibly from south Essex (Brown 1992: 18).

Barton 1962

1989

1938, 1955

Unenclosed Settlement

References

There were four cooking pits and three hearths found at this site. There were five postholes placed round one of the hearths; four of which were square above the hearth and the smaller fifth placed nearer to it. This would suggest that a frame, supported by four stakes was built over the fire upon which vessels were suspended. Indeed, in another hearth a pottery fragment was found with a pierced rim, perhaps to take some form of suspension. One pit (G2) was used to receive rubbish and contained a heavy deposit of black soil in its lower portions over which lay a large accumulation of pottery, which in turn was covered by a clean deposit of gravel showing tip lines. This pit produced haematite-coated wares and a small situlate jar as well as two rims from two coarseware vessels and two body sherds from two further coarseware vessels.

Detail

Cemetery

Date of Discovery

Site Type

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

121

34

Stansted DCS

Essex

Essex

Essex

Stansted ACS

Stansted ACS

Essex

Slough House Farm

32

33

Essex

County

Sheepen

Site Name

31

Site No.

Vessels

Location

Food

Vessels

Loaiton

Indicator

LIA, Conquest

LIA

LIA

EIA

LIA, Conquest

Date

1985-1991

1985-1991

Enclosed Settlement

1985-1991

Enclosed Settlement

Enclosed Settlement

1988-9

1930s, 1970

Date of Discovery

Settlement

Oppidum

Site Type

Havis and Brook 2004

Large quantities of Iron Age pottery were recovered from a ditch (241/5/316) (Pottery Group 1). The ditch lay close to a sequence of LIA/early Roman cremations. A late first to third centuries AD pit (108) produced a large quantity of pottery (Pottery Group 2). Group 1 consisted of a large assemblage of grog-tempered wares (mainly jars) and some imported amphora sherds (Italian and Spanish), but no imported fine or tablewares. Group 2 (late first to early second century) produced a group dominated by grey wares and lacking in imports. These included flagons, jars, platter and sherds from a southern Spanish amphorae (Dr.1A).

Havis and Brook 2004

Gullies 522 and 524 represented a single structure, that was positioned in the centre of a ‘partitioned’ area in the north-west corner of the main enclosure. Quantities of amphora were excavated from fill 1008 and much of the pottery included much burnt material. Two pits (779, 817) located on either side of a rectangular structure (667) produced large quantities of early Roman date pottery. Cattle had the lowest frequency of indicators (6%), while pig and sheep/goat were roughly similar (18% and 15% respectively). The appears to be a pre-eminence of pig in the assemblage and a high incidence of skull fragments. LIA pit group to the south of the enclosure all contained domestic refuse. The pits’ location, clustered within a small area outside the main enclosed area, would suggest this area was being used for rubbish deposition and possibly also for cess-pitting. The lack of evidence for cess- or rubbish pits within the enclosed area itself would appear to support this. ACS site lacks the finewares despite the presence of amphora. The bulk of the coarse pottery is wheelthrown and in the characteristically grog-tempered fabrics of the later Pre-Roman Iron Age. Certain forms characteristic of middle and later phases within the LPRIA are absent, however. Virtually absent from the site are imitations of Gallo-Belgic forms, but also vessels of Cam Forms 204, 210 and 212 – the common carinated cup and bowl forms of late Augustan, Tiberian and Tibero-Claudian date.

Havis and Brook 2004

Wallis 1998a

Pit 403 was located on the edge of the north area of the LBA activity. The lower fill (405) was a dark brown silty clay with a high charcoal content, and with a quantity of Darmsden-Linton style pottery, probably a selective deposition. The upper fill (404) was a dark orangey-red, almost stone-free, silty clay. Since there was no scorching of the lower fill (404) was probably burnt elsewhere, perhaps during the process that produced the charcoal in the lower fill, and it seems to have been a deliberate capping for the feature. The pottery assemblage includes bowls and jars.

This rectangular structure (667) is thought to represent a shrine.

Niblett 1985

References

Excavations revealed an industrial area where a range of products was manufactured for use in the legionary fortress and subsequent colonia at Colchester. There is little or no evidence to suggest that any of the features on the site predated the Roman conquest of AD 43, in spite of the large quantities of preconquest finds surviving as rubbish in later features. Many features contained imported material and the amphorae collection indicates that the site was supplied from a wide variety of sources, including Italy, Spain, Rhodes and the Aegean. A minimum of 135 amphorae were recovered and the principal commodities which were imported into the site were wine (1619.12 litres) and olive oil (1392.51 litres).

Detail

Appendix A - Feasting Sites in East Anglia

122

Stansted SCS

Stansted SCS

Stansted DFS

35

36

Site Name

Site No.

Essex

Essex

Essex

County

Vessels

Food

Existence of Aggrandisers

Indicator

EIA

EIA

LIA, Conquest

Date

Settlement

Settlement

Cemetery

Site Type

1985-1991

1985-1991

1985-1991

Date of Discovery

See Food description

Two large pit sequences (2187, 2460) were identified. The largest quantity of pottery came from pit sequence 2187 in the south-western corner of the site, which produced c. 80kg of EIA pottery. The top fill of these features (2310) was a very dark greyish-brown soil, containing a substantial amount of charcoal and daub. Numerous tip lines appeared in these sequences, but it would now seem that the backfill was deposited at the same time, due to connecting sherds being present in different fills (Havis and Brooks 2004: 23-4). Both pits 2131 and 2164 were relatively shallow, but contained a large quantity of burnt material and pottery. This fifth century BC ceramic assemblage consisted of jars, bowls, lugs and lug handles and a rim from a fine cup. The pottery from 2187 contains a full range of fine and coarse jars, bowls and cups, indicating a variety of functions and it is likely that they derived from a variety of sources. Evidence suggests that storage/cooking and consumption may have been carried out in spatially distinct areas. The assemblage contained many large unabraded sherds, which could be refitted to form large parts of a number of vessels. Sherds did not derive from a single layer, e.g. parts of a large storage vessel were found throughout the pit fill. Despite the presence of large unabraded sherds, 35% of the pottery by sherd count was so small and abraded, making fabric identification impossible. This would indicate that the pit was filled in a single operation with debris consisting of both freshly broken and highly abraded sherds; this would have derived from a variety of sources, and have become mixed prior to deposition in the pit. It is probable that the fill from 2187 represents the transference of material from a surface midden and deposited in the pit as a deliberate act rather than as casual rubbish disposal (Havis and Brooks 2004: 53).

Duckend Site – early-mid 2nd century The cremated remains of a rich burial were contained within a wooden box. The cremated bone lay in the centre of the burial on a pewter tray, with the grave goods arranged it. These were five copper alloy vessels (a jug, an amphora, two skillets and a bowl), five glass vessels (two bottles, a bowl, an urn and a cup), a ‘dinner service’ of eight samian vessels, and other pottery containers including a colour-coated beaker and a carrot amphora. An iron knife with a bone handle was found associated with the remains of the rear leg of a pig.

Cremation 555 – later first century The cremation was covered by a layer of charcoal thought to represent a series of burnt planks. Beneath these planks, four pottery vessels were found, two of the samian platters, the others a two-handled flagon and an everted-rim beaker. On the northern side of the cremation were the remains of the right side of a young male pig skull, which had been cleaved in half down the centre. The complete skeleton of a chicken was also present. A similar burial was also discovered (DFS 313) dating to the same period. Here the cremated bone was contained within a wooden casket which had metal fittings. Inside, as well as the cremated remains, was a toiletry set. Two pottery vessels were recovered (an everted-rim beaker and flagon), but more may have been removed by a later ditch. The right side of a young female pig skull, cleft in half, was recovered, along with the bones representing the right side of a chicken.

Cremation 400 – pre-Flavian The cremation contained many objects of copper alloy associated with a wooden trencher or casket. Seven pottery vessels were placed within the grave (two platters, everted-rim beaker, two miniature necked jars, terra rubra pedestal beaker and a terra nigra carinated cup). The remains of a chicken skeleton were recovered from the burial, the skull being within one of the small cups.

Cremation 505 – pre Flavian Remains of five pottery vessels were recovered along with the partial skeleton of a neonatal pig and a single chicken bone. The vessels included 3 platters, a carinated cup and a butt beaker

Cremation 345-pre Flavian This cremation was situated in the centre of this particular cemetery. Ten pottery vessels were found including two flagons, three platters, two terra nigra cups, a butt beaker, a narrow-necked jar and a globular jar. Two of the platters also contained the remains of meat offerings. The majority of the cremated bone lay separately from the pots.

Detail

Havis and Brook 2004

Havis and Brook 2004

Havis and Brook 2004

References

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

123

41

Herts

Aldwick, Barley

Essex

Woodhams Walter

Essex

Essex

West Mersea

39

Woodhams Walter

Essex

Wendens Ambo

38

40

Essex

County

Stanway

Site Name

37

Site No.

Food

Vessels

MIA/LIA

LIA, Conquest

LIA, Conquest

LIA

Existence of Aggrandisers

Food

MIA, LIA

LIA, Conquest

Date

Vessels

Existence of Aggrandisers

Indicator

Settlement

Enclosure

Enclosure

Burial

Unenclosed Settlement

Burials

Site Type

1959, 1960

1976

1976

1979

1853

1930s, Aerial Photos

Date of Discovery

Buckley and Hedges 1987b

Buckley and hedges 1987b

Cra’ster 1961

The enclosure ditch (CF101) produced about 80 Belgic-Roman vessels from just a 6m excavated section of the ditch. The sherds were mainly large and unabraded and represent a manufacture date of c. AD 40 to 60. This assemblage represents a homogenous group of domestic wares of the mid-first century AD. The functional composition of the group is as follows: 65% jars of various kinds, 25% tablewares and 10% special purpose wares. Half of the jars show evidence of burning or soot and were clearly used as cooking pots, although some of the examples are unlikely to have been made with that use in view. Of the tablewares – platters, beakers and flagons – two-thirds may be described as medium fine, and the remainder as fine. The special purpose vessels comprise two jars, each with a central hole in the base, and are of uncertain use, a miniature jar, a colander, two lids for cooking pots and an oil amphora. Excavations revealed a number of pits whose fillings varied from clean chalk rubble to very black humus. In Pit 30 differences in tip lines were visible. The rubbish contained many potsherds, but no unbroken pots. Sherds of one pot often came from several different pits, suggesting a midden existed, so rubbish was scattered and then placed in pits. P29 contained pure rubbish although this was rarely homogenous throughout the pit, but showed traces of having come from different sources. One of the largest pits (P67) contained rubbish and a good many animal bones. However, the bottom of the pit was covered with a layer of solid fine ash, and it was on top of this ash layer that the pit walls had fallen. For that amount of ash to have been produced, it is assumed that the whole contents of this pit had caught fire at some point. The ash was found to contain cereal grains together with other seeds. Immediately on the floor of the pit there were traces of a burnt log or plank – a possible indication that these corn storage pits were lined. Also in the ash layer were a reaping hook and several large potsherds, all showing traces of burning; many of the sherds belonged to one pot.

Thompson 1981

This cremation burial consisted of four pottery vessels and a small amount of cremated bone. The vessels included a pedestal urn of local production (Essex), a cup, a pedestalled cup and a butt-beaker. The pedestal urn is of note because it seems to be a copy of a Gallo-Belgic import, but it is regarded as an early form that was in use before the imports of Gallo-Belgic wares. The pottery assemblage had been burnt and charcoal and burnt grains were present in the context.

Hodder 1982c

Crummy 1997a, 1997b, 1997c

To the west of Gosbecks is the Stanway burial site which included four large wooden mortuary chambers and the involved the ritual breaking of objects. The burials date from the late 1st century BC to c. AD 60. Each chamber had been placed symmetrically in a large enclosure which was up to 80m across and demarcated by a ditch. There is some evidence that each chamber was covered by an earth mound. In all, there were five enclosures laid out as two rows, one of three and the other of two, although only four were funerary enclosures. One of the biggest chambers in Enclosure 3 contained fragments of at least 24 vessels, each single one imported. These were the remains of a service, i.e. a set of bowls, cups and plates, with some being of the same design but of differing sizes so that could be stored as nested sets. A secondary ‘warrior’ burial was identified which contained a gaming board, shield boss, iron spearhead and a rare amber-coloured glass bowl from Italy. There was also a shallow copper-alloy pan with a ram’s head shaped handle and a copper-alloy jug. Its handle had a lion’s head at the top and a lion’s paw at the base. There was also a pottery dinner service, amphora, beaker, flagon and cup, all of which had been imported into Britain. Enclosure 4 contained a chamber and a sub-enclosure. The burial in the chamber was again accompanied by at least 20 vessels and appear to be part of a nested dinner service. A secondary ‘gaming’ or ‘doctor’s’ grave was discovered in Enclosure 5. Thirteen medical instruments were noted including two iron scalpels, a saw, two blunt hooks, a sharp hook, two pairs of forceps, three handled needles, a scope probe, and a copper-alloy instrument of as yet unidentified function. A gaming board and counters was placed in the grave with the doctor’s bones scattered over the right-hand side of the board and some of the instruments lying to the left and in the centre. An amphora stood upright in the grave, resting on one corner, perhaps indicating that it may have contained some of its original contents when buried. There was also a dinner service of plates and cups made in northern Gaul, a samian bowl from southern Gaul and a flagon. A copper-alloy pan imported from Italy was also present and it appears to have been tinned all over so that it would have looked silvery in colour. A copper-alloy straining bowl was also part of the grave goods. Several pits with structured pottery and bone dumps.

References

Detail

Appendix A - Feasting Sites in East Anglia

124

44

43

42

Site No.

Herts

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Conquest

Conquest

Existence of Aggrandisers

Herts

Folly Lane

Folly Lane

LIA

LIA, Conquest

LIA, Conquest

Date

Food

Existence of Aggrandisers

Food

Indicator

Herts

Herts

Herts

County

Datchworth

Baldock

Baldock

Site Name

Burial

Burial

Settlement

Cemetery

Oppidum

Site Type

Hertfordshire HER

Niblett 1999

A cropmark of a polygonal, trapezoidal enclosure was excavation. There appeared to be no internal features, but the enclosure ditch produced LIA pottery and other rubbish deposits. A deep pit, possibly a shaft, was also found along the line of the enclosure ditch. It contained Roman tile in its upper fill. The pit/shaft appears to be at the site of the entrance and may therefore be an entrance feature. This mid first century AD burial was located within a ritual enclosure on top of a hill. In the centre of the enclosure, on the crest of the hill, were two pits – a large shaft and a smaller grave. The shaft was timber-lined and strewn across the shaft floor were small fragments of 40 broken pots – 15 South Gaulish samian ware, 5 Gaulish imports (includes a butt beaker and flagon), 14 imitation terra nigra, possibly 4 to 6 Italian amphorae (Dr.2-4), 4 vessels in local ‘native’ fabrics (platters, bowl, jar, cups. None of the vessels were complete. A few scraps of metalwork, including a small silver handle, were found with the pottery but none of it showed any signs of burning. The only burnt material was a few crumbs of cremated human bone near the south corner. The grave pit, which was surrounded by stakes presumed to have supported a daub or turf roof, was filled with a dark humic earth mixed with crumbs of charcoal, cremated human bone and a mass of solidified molten copper alloy and silver. The burnt lining in parts of the grave implies that some of the molten metal was still hot when it was deposited. On the south end of the grave however, the material had been allowed to cool because wooden planks on the floor were unburnt. There was a large quantity of copper alloy sheeting as well as numerous copper alloy studs, bands, bosses and rivets. There was also a large folded bundle of iron chain mail too. Numerous pieces of broken amphora, many burnt, and a few fragments of burnt butt beakers were present, but no other pottery. The burial is dated to c. AD 55. Before backfilling the shaft, the timber structures were destroyed and then c. AD 100 a temple was constructed to the north of the shaft.

1968+

1997

1980s/early 1990s

Niblett 1999

Burleigh 1982, 1995; Stead and Rigby 1986

The first rich cremation to be discovered was in 1968. This burial consisted of two iron firedogs, a large bronze cauldron, a pair of imported shallow bronze dishes, a pair of wooden buckets with bronze attachments and a Dressel 1A amphora. Along the western edge of the burial pit was a length of pig vertebrae and there were three phalanges of a brown bear. It is thought the body was wrapped in a bear skin (a similar occurrence was noted at Welwyn Garden City). Further excavations in 1980 revealed a square ditched enclosure. Six secondary urned cremation burials were identified, which surrounded a central burial made up of two separate pits. The first was the pit with the remains of the funeral pyre. Among the ashes were numerous fragments of burnt bronze possibly from a brooch or jewellery. There appeared to be a bronze rim of another vessel, and possibly even another bronze-bound bucket. Fragments from iron chainmail were also identified. Included in the pyre debris were animal remains of horse, cattle, sheep, pig and fowl. The horse fragments were teeth and foot bones, perhaps representing the remains of a hide (similar to the bear skins used at Welwyn and the other Baldock burial). The cattle bones were teeth and foot bones and the seven fragments of pig came from the right tibia and ulna and teeth (these remains are not associated with the carcass from the second pit). The burnt sheep fragments came from the fibula and radius, whereas the unburnt bones were from the head and teeth. The second pit contained the food and drink. There were two sides of pork and half a third animal. Adjacent to this and next to the remains of a pottery urn, was the rim of a small wooden vessel with bronze and iron fittings. This burial is dated to c. 20 BC to AD 30.

1968+

Deliberate destruction of prestige items in pyre debris.

Burleigh 1982, 1995; Stead and Rigby 1986

Within the main settlement, a well (B189) dated to the end of first century AD produced an interesting deposit. Bones from this are mainly cattle, sheep and pig and are mostly heavily charred. The lower limbs of the cattle are not charred, whilst the humerus, radius, femur, tibia and other part of the carcass are. This suggests that perhaps the animals were killed and cut up at one time for a specific purpose. The waste bones were immediately disposed of into the well, the carcasses cut up and the meat cooked. If the whole carcass had been spit-roasted it is unlikely that the bones would have become heavily charred and then fragmented. It is more likely it is the debris from small portions cooked and eaten and the bones thrown back into the fire. This burnt material comprises food bones from 8 cattle, 7 sheep and 2 pigs including a wild boar. A further pit (A12) dates to AD 50-70 and contained the bones of 98 sheep, 5 cattle, 9 pigs and 12 fowls. The sheep bones were not fragmented and were largely intact. The sheep were apparently not jointed and dispersed, as was normally the case on this site. The evidence indicates that the flesh was removed from the bones, an unusual practice when preparing sheep meat. This suggests that it may have been intended for preserving – perhaps by salting, smoking or drying – and was to be packed to be as light and compact as possible.

1980s/early 1990s

References

Detail

Date of Discovery

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

125

LIA

Conquest

Existence of Aggrandisers

Existence of Aggrandisers

Herts

Herts

King Harry Lane, St Albans

Knebworth

49

50

Burial

Cemetery

Burial

Unknown

1967

1956

Hertfordshire HER

Stead and Rigby 1989

This was a cremation cemetery and one of the main features is the use of ditched enclosures for groups of burials. It seems that each enclosure had a prominent burial, more or less central, with less important graves grouped around it. The first phase of burials dates to AD 1- 40 although the first graves could be as early as 15 BC. The King Harry Lane cemetery consisted of a number of rich cremations that were accompanied by feasting equipment, such as fine tableware, flagons, amphorae and food remains. Of the 309 burials recovered from the site, 156 contained cremated animal bones. Sixty-four of these were pig remains. Only parts of the pig were cremated, such as a single left or right limb or joint, or a limb plus the head. Not only were individual burials accompanied by restricted parts of the body, but in general heads were preferred.

LIA

Existence of Aggrandisers

Herts

Hertford Heath

48

An amphora and Romano-British burial were discovered at this site and is dated to the first century AD.

Hüssen 1983; Homes and Frend 1959

The cremated remains of the deceased were placed in the western part of the grave pit. In the centre were three iron bands on which was a decorated bronze sheet with a glass roundel attached. There was a pair of iron shears below this and a tweezer-like instrument. On the western side of the grave were an amphora (Dressel 1b), more iron bands and a bronze-covered iron ring. The south side of the pit contained various iron objects including clamps, a knife and pins. The central and northwest part of the grave produced the pottery and the glass vessel. There were eleven native wheel-turned pots, including a pedestalled jar and four bowls which had been crushed in situ. There was also an imported ribbed glass bowl.

1850s

1980

Hertfordshire HER

Burial

Enclosure

A LIA ‘chieftain’ burial was discovered during the 1850s when constructing a railway line. Two lathe-turned shale vases in the shape of pedestal urns were recovered. There was also a large circular bronze bowl, two bronze bucket escutcheons in the form of ram’s heads, which had been attached to a wooden bucket, two bronze ring-handles adapted to the escutcheons and a bronze chest handle.

LIA

Existence of Aggrandisers

Herts

Harpenden

LIA, Conquest

Vessels

Neal et al. 1990

Herts

In the northwest corner of Enclosure A was Building 13, again dating to the LIA. Pottery from the feature was in two distinct horizons. The primary level contained a large quantity of native pottery from at least 36 vessels, an imported terra nigra platter and an imported butt-beaker. In a secondary level was a fineware beaker. A ditch (74) dated to c. AD 62-100 had a particularly rich fill. Layer 77 contained very large quantities of Flavian and earlier pottery as well as imported finewares. Much of the pottery is Belgic in fabric. There were remains from 8 jars, 8 bowls, a cup, 3 platters, a shallow bowl, 2 butt beakers and a lid. Coarsewares were also present and these included a terra nigra and terra rubra butt beaker, GalloBelgic butt beaker, Lyons ware cup and beakers, mica-dusted beakers, North Gaul eggshell-ware cups and Pompeian red ware dishes.

1980

Enclosure

LIA, Conquest

Food

Herts

Gorhambury

Gorhambury

Neal et al. 1990

A LIA building (8) contained a cess pit (622). This contained Belgic wares and fine wares. There was a coin of Cunobelin and another of Republican date and mineralised seeds of coriander, fig, lentil, field pea, sloe, bullace, ribes species, blackberry and grape. The cesspit included seeds of a number of edible plants. All could have grown locally though it seems likely that fig seeds arrived in imported dried fruit. The fruit species indicate a fairly varied diet including some more exotic species such as grape and fig. Small number of pulses and the absence of grain from the sample suggest that these were thoroughly ground during food processing; this may also explain the low number of food flavouring seeds.

Partridge 1989

Partridge 1989

1970s

The main enclosure ditch in Area 1 (F1) produced a large amount of pottery and dated to the LIA. Finds included beakers, jars, flagons, tazza, bowls, cooking pots and cups. The majority of the vessels are of local production, particularly around the Verulamium area, apart from amphorae sherds. Fragments came from Dressel 1 (Italian origin), Dressel 2-4 (Spanish) and Dressel 20 (Spanish – Gaudalquivir region).

In Area 4 of this site a MIA ditch (F600) was located. Finds from the ditch fill included daub, animal bones (mainly pig) and a redeposited and probably reused Neolithic axe. In the southern section of the ditch a mass of burnt clay mixed with many sherds of sandy handmade pottery were recovered from the base of the ditch. The pottery is dated to the MIA to LIA and includes five jars and fragments of at least four other vessels.

References

1970s

Detail

Date of Discovery

Enclosure

Enclosure

Site Type

MIA, LIA

MIA, LIA

Date

Vessels

Food

Indicator

Herts

Herts

County

Foxholes Farm

Foxholes Farm

Site Name

47

46

45

Site No.

Appendix A - Feasting Sites in East Anglia

126

Herts

Herts

Upper Milfield Wood, Buntingford

54

Herts

Skeleton Green (sub-site of PuckeridgeBraughing)

St Stephens, St Albans

Herts

PuckeridgeBraughing

53

Herts

PuckeridgeBraughing

Herts

Herts

County

PuckeridgeBraughing

Site Name

Skeleton Green

52

51

Site No.

Food

Existence of Aggrandisers

Vessels

Food

Location

Vessels

Food

Indicator

LIA

LIA, Conquest

LIA, Conquest

LIA, Conquest

MIA/LIA, LIA

MIA/LIA, LIA, Conquest

MIA/LIA, LIA, Conquest

Date

Settlement

Burial, Cemetery

Oppidum

Oppidum

Oppidum

Oppidum

Oppidum

Site Type

2002

1856, 1985-6

1970s

1970s

1970s

1970s

1970s

Date of Discovery

A ditch dated by pottery to the LIA contained butchered animal bone, daub, iron fragments and flints.

Hertfordshire HER

Niblett 2002

Partridge 1981

This is a sub-site of the Puckeridge-Braughing settlement. In the southeast corner of Building IIa (AD 1525) was a large storage pot which had been set into the floor; presumably originally a storage vessel, at the end of its useful life it had been used as a receptacle for domestic rubbish (animal bones, fragments from the rim of the pot and the terminal of an iron bucket handle). A shallow pit (F8) contained domestic rubbish, charcoal and burnt stones. It is thought this represents a cooking hollow. The lower fill of another pit (F9) was very black and sticky and had been sealed with a thick layer of oyster shells. Above this was a layer of brown stony loam, followed by another sticky layer and a further sealing layer of oyster shells. Analysis of the faunal remains concluded that remains from 16 cattle, 21 pigs, 13 sheep, 2 horses, 7 chickens and a red deer were present. Pottery from this pit included a samian platter and numerous GalloBelgic finewares (10 platters, 3 cups, 11 beakers and 6 two-handled jugs). There were also sherds from 9 mica-dusted jars, as well as a large assemblage of coarsewares (6 platters, 8 butt beakers, 2 bead-rim jars, 1 necked cup, 6 pedestal vessels, 8 cordoned bowls and jars, 15 further jars and bowls, 3 large storage vessels and 7 lids). F3 was a squarish pit and contained a fairly homogenous fill of brown stony silty with a slightly sticky primary fill c. 20 cm thick. A fair sprinkling of grain came from the primary fill and this may indicate its use as a storage pit.

This cemetery, which dates from c. AD 50-60, lies only 500m east of the King Harry Lane cemetery and extends on either side of Watling Street. Six enclosures survived and as time went on the function of the enclosures changed. The earliest (A, D and E) all contained cremations, but their successors (B, C and F) were empty of burials. Enclosure B was probably laid out after AD 80, and, though by the early second century its gullies had silted up and later burials would cluster thickly around it, the area inside was kept empty of burials throughout the life of the cemetery. Here were found small areas of burning, too small to be the remains of pyres, but possibly evidence for hearths used in feasting. Numerous amphora sherds might indicate the associated drinking, as might the ceramic beakers, many nearly complete, found in a large shaft on the opposite side of Watling Street. This shaft also contained a large amount of horse bones.

Partridge 1979

It is thought the site was a trading centre with extensive and far-reaching trade contacts between Italy and Gaul and the Puckeridge-Braughing region, particularly during the later years of the first century BC. The trade was far-reaching due to the presence of Arretine, Gallo-Belgic imported pottery, amphorae and high quality glassware.

Partridge 1981

Partridge 1979

Burial D45, revealed in well D22 contained no bone, but three samian dishes stacked one on top of the other (La Graufesenque), small bronze bowl and fragments from four iron corner brackets from wooden chest.

The material from a well (F52) forms one of the most important assemblages from the site. The well had been dug through the eastern side of a ditch and palisade trench. Finds included fragments from ten samian vessels and a large assemblage of Gallo-Belgic wares (19 platters, 15 cups, 10 beakers, rim from a large two-handled jug, rim from a small jug, beaker and small jar). Sherds from 28 mica-dusted jars were also identified along with 3 forms of amphorae (Dr.20, oil amphora from Guadalquivir valley, Spain; Dr.2-4, Campanian wine amphorae; Dr.7-11, made in Southern Spain and possibly held garum). There are fragments from a mortaria and a variety of coarsewares (3 platters, 4 butt beakers, a bead-rim jar, 12 pedestal vessels, 9 small-necked bowls, 10 other jars and bowls, 8 coarse bowls, 9 large storage vessels and 4 lids). The faunal assemblage contained remains from 24 cattle, 29 pigs, 19 sheep, 22 chickens and 4 horses. A small sample of fish bones also came from this deposit and included eel, roach, chub, carp, mackerel, flounder and plaice. This small collection of fish bones from a well at Skeleton Green included estuarine and marine fish, suggesting the importation of fresh or preserved fish from more distant waters (Ashdown and Evans 1981).

Partridge 1979

References

Pits C5, 27 and 36 contained huge quantities of rubbish including many very large sherds and tips of ash. Finds included Arretine and Gallo-Belgic wares. Ditch D23/31 yielded large quantities of refuse, including a number of substantially intact vessels of Flavian date, as well as much charcoal and animal bone.

Detail

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

127

Norfolk

Norfolk

Norfolk

Caistor St Edmund

Hunstanton

Ingoldisthorpe

Quidney Farm, Saham Toney

58

59

60

61

Norfolk

Norfolk

Ashmanhaugh

Herts

Welwyn Garden City

56

57

Herts

County

Verulamium

Site Name

55

Site No.

LIA, Conquest

LIA

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

LIA, Conquest

LIA

LIA

LIA

Location

Date

LIA, Conquest

Food

Food

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Existence of Aggrandisers

Existence of Aggrandisers

Indicator

Unknown

Isoldated Find

Settlement

Enclosure

Isolated Find

Cemetery

Burial

Site Type

1992

1990s

1961

1950s

Bates 2000

Saham Toney is thought to be a possible tribal centre, similar to that at Fison Way. The area is suggested to be a major centre, possibly with production and distribution functions, or perhaps acting as a site of religious focus, from the MIA into the Roman period. There is a large amount of evidence for a range of coin types, and coin moulds and a large number of high-status metal objects and horse-fittings. The early presence of pottery imported from continental Europe adds weight to the interpretation as does the apparently unenclosed nature of the site.

Wymer 1986

A pit complex was thought to be working hollows. They contained domestic rubbish including charred grains, marine resources, a large triangular loomweight, a saddle quern in pit 60, a bone and shale bead, small fragments of burnt clay and a few potboilers.

Norfolk HER

Gurney 1986b

A group of pits in the immediate vicinity of roundhouse 5123 were associated with the structure’s use. Plant macrofossil remains suggest that this part of the site was once a focus for cereal-processing activity. Pit 1067 contained 70 sherds of Iron Age pottery and pit 1335 was rich in charcoal. Near the roundhouse, pits 2425 and 5126 were filled by refuse deposits featuring charcoal, burnt flint, flecks of burnt bone and pottery. Pit 5126 had 1.57kg of pottery from its upper fill and a loomweight and charcoal in the lower fill. There was an abundance of charred cereal remains.

A bronze strainer handle was discovered. It is the form of a boar.

Norfolk HER

1965, two found at Welwyn in 1906

A spout from a strainer was discovered, which was in a zoomorphic form.

Smith 1912; Stead 1967

A grave was dug out of gravel, but had been backfilled with a finer grey sandy earth including fragments of charred wood which could have derived from the funeral pyre. There was no trace of a timber lining or anything resembling the structure of a vault. The cremated remains were placed in a small heap towards the centre of the northern end of the grave. The immediate area of the cremation seems to have been kept clear; the grave goods at this end (apart from the glass gaming pieces) were found leaning against the wall of the grave. There was an oblique line across the southern edge of the grave and a scatter of ornamental bronze-headed studs. These studs could originally have decorated a wooden object which formed a partition. To the south of this ‘partition’ the grave goods, and particularly the pots, were crowded together on the floor of the grave. It was accompanied by a rich array of grave goods. These included 5 amphorae, 7 pedestal urns, 7 bowls, 4 cups, 5 beakers, 3 platters, 3 flagons and a tripod vessel. There was also a cup belonging to a class of silver drinking vessels popular in the Mediterranean world, and among the Romans in particular, during the last century BC and the 1st century AD. There was also a bronze strainer and dish, although the strainer is thought to have originally been an imported Roman bowl that had been turned into a spouted strainer by a local metalworker. This main grave formed part of a small cemetery, with the few secondary burials consisting of coarse pottery funerary urns. To the north at Welwyn, two burials were discovered in 1906 during pipe laying. The first contained an amphora, two pots (pedestal urn and cup), the base and a handle of a bronze bowl, a handle from a bronze jug, three bronze masks and a pair of iron firedogs. The second burial contained five amphorae, two pots (pedestal urn and cup), two silver cups, bronze patera, bronze jug, tankard with bronze handle and an iron frame (similar to firedogs).

1990s

Niblett and Reeves 1990

References

1965, 1989

Detail The rich cremation burial was in a sub-rectangular pit and dated to the early/mid-first century AD. The burial was that of an adult whose cremated remains were contained in a large glass jar in the centre of the north side of the burial pit. In addition to the cremation jar, there were three subsidiary glass vessels – a large unguent flask and two glass bottles. The burials also contained four pottery lamps and probably imported from Gaul, and twenty scattered gaming counters. The grave is dated by the thirteen complete stamped samian vessels from La Graufesenque which were found arranged in the southwest sector of the grave. The group consisted of four medium-sized and four small cups of form Dr.27, four medium-sized dishes of form Dr.18 and one large dish of form DR.18R. Most of the footrings were unworn and some of the vessels retained traces of kiln grit on the side of their bases, suggesting that the vessels were new, or at any rate unused at the time of burial. The stamps on the vessels suggest a date of c. AD 80 to 85. Coarseware consisted of a small poppyhead beaker and the lower part of a flagon in local Verulamium region fabric. Lying against the north wall of the grave was a pair of iron strigils, held together by an iron hook. A bronze bowl lay in the centre of the grave with decorative handles in the form of either dolphins’ or birds’ heads with long beaks, flanking a central female head. The workmanship suggests a Gaulish or Italian origin. Near the east wall of the grave was an iron tripod, perhaps originally serving as a folding chair. It could of course have been intended to support the bronze bowl, which was found lying adjacent to it. Both objects could have formed part of the equipment for a dinner party or drinking party.

Date of Discovery

Appendix A - Feasting Sites in East Anglia

128

Norfolk

Norfolk

Woodcock Hill, Saham TOney

Hockwoldcum-Wilton

Claydon

Elvedon

66

67

68

69

Suffolk

Suffolk

Norfolk

Thornham

Norfolk

Norfolk

65

Fison Way, Thetford

Fison Way, Thetford

Norfolk

Fison Way, Thetford

64

Norfolk

Snettisham

63

Norfolk

County

Silfield

Site Name

62

Site No.

LIA, Conquest

EIA, MIA, LIA

Food

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

LIA, Conquest

LIA, Conquest

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Vessels

Conquest

MIA, MIA/LIA, LIA, Conquest

MIA, MIA/LIA, LIA, Conquest

Vessels

Food

Vessels

Date

MIA, MIA/LIA, LIA, Conquest

LIA

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Location

MIA

Food

Indicator

Unknown

Settlement

Settlement

Unknown

Enclosure

Enclosure

Enclosure

Enclosure

1888

1970s

1960s

1850

Brown 1986

Salway 1967

Suffolk HER

Suffolk HER

No excavation has taken place on the site, just fieldwalking. However, 204 coins were found, nearly 200 brooches, a few Iron Age pottery sherds and a quantity of sherds of Roman date. A wicker-lined storage pit contained a large portion of the rear end of a cow and quantities of first century BC pottery. In a depression (C3) a hoard of samian was discovered. It would appear that the pit acted as a sump and after it had already received a considerable deposit, the pottery was dropped into it. The pottery dates to the first century AD. A flat depression contained a variety of Iron Age material. There was large quantities of pottery and bones of ox, pig, sheep, goat and deer, brooches, a child’s bracelet, two antler weaving combs, numerous fragments of clay spindle whorl, loom weights and sling shots. Three brown globular urns were found with the remains of a two-handled bronze-plated wooden tankard and cremated bones. The urns, which were empty, were arranged in the form of a triangle, their necks being downwards. The tankard consisted of a framework of wooden staves covered by thin metal plates and adorned with medallions. It had two bronze handles.

Gregory 1986

1950s and 1960s

Gregory 1991

Gully 672 contained a high number of large, fresh sherds from four vessels, one of handmade Iron Age type and three wheel-turned Early Roman. It is thought to be a domestic rubbish deposit, but there are no structures in the vicinity which are obviously related to the feature. Gully 689 contained hand-made Iron Age, wheel-made grog-tempered and Early Roman wares, clay loomweight, crucible, mould and hearth-lining fragments. Gully 2270 of Enclosure 17 contained a large group of Early Roman vessels with a low proportion of Iron Age. The former included terra nigra and forms of Gallo-Belgic origin. The slightly exotic nature of this assemblage is emphasised by the discovery of an oak leaf of sheet bronze, which might have votive connections, and there is the possibility of ritual activity associated with the enclosure.

Cutting U produced sherds of a terra nigra platter and body sherds of a wheel-made jar were found associated with a concentration of oyster shells in the loam beneath the rampart. In Cutting V, there were three wheel-made vessels in association with animal bone and charcoal. In the ditch of Cutting V (Layer 8) there was part of a carinated bowl of mid-first century type, while in the top of that layer was a rubbish dump, a concentration of Roman brick fragments, more than 2700 oyster shells and sherds from at least twenty-two vessels of a second century date.

Gregory 1991

The site first acquired significant archaeological attention when a number of rich Roman hoards were found in its vicinity. The Thetford Treasure, a hoard of late Roman gold and silver jewellery and spoons, and possibly coins, was discovered to the east of the main concentration of late Roman finds, and south of the rectangular crop-mark (previously identified through AP in 1973). The finds were thought to represent evidence for a religious site and the enclosure is believed to be reminiscent of the concentric walls and ditch of the Gosbecks enclosure, in the corner of which stood a Romano-Celtic temple (Hull 1958: 259-67). Fison Way has a similar layout to a continental Viereckshanzen, but the function of Fison Way during the Iron Age is unclear. However, during the Roman period it became a temple site. This site is thought to be a tribal centre with the ceremonial or religious site providing a context for the metalworking and coining in Phase II, but there is an absence of domestic activity and a scarcity of imported luxury goods, particularly the absence of amphorae.

Gregory 1991

Stead 1991; Fitzpatrick 1992

This site is particularly rich in precious metal hoards. A bronze vessel was discovered which contained fragments of at least fifty torques, seventy ingot rings/bracelets, three straight ingots and nine coins. Five hoards further produced nine gold, fifteen gold/silver alloy, fourteen silver and twenty five bronze torques.

1970s

Ashwin 1996

References

Pit group 1636 contained large intersecting pits. Two of these featured deposits of antler animal bone lying on their bases, which might have been deliberate special deposits. Pit 1266 contained Iron Age pottery, iron slag and animal bone. In the centre of the base lay an inverted cattle skull, with the horn detached.

Detail

Feature F2442 is within the line of ditches of enclosure 26. At its base were at least two pits (2752 and 2883). The lower fill, a very dark soot-rich sand-loam, contained large quantities of potboilers. The upper fill of 2442 contained sherds of hand-made Iron Age and Early Roman pottery. The lower fill provides the only clue as to the use of the hollow, but there was no trace of burning on the natural sand at the base of the hollow or the pits. Assuming the soot and potboilers were created by the activities carried on within the hollow, one has to think what activity would produce large quantities of soot and potboilers.

1970s

1970s

1948

1992

Unenclosed Settlement

Isolated Finds

Date of Discovery

Site Type

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

129

Settlement

Conquest

LIA, Conquest

MIA/LIA, LIA, Conquest

EIA, MIA, LIA

EIA, Conquest

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Vessels

Food

Suffolk

Suffolk

Suffolk

Suffolk

Suffolk

Lakenheath

Brandon

Beck Row, Mildenhall

Barham

Barnham

72

73

74

75

76

Liversidge 1959

Suffolk HER

Sealey 2004

Suffolk HER

Suffolk HER

A bronze strainer spout was found in a ditch, a feature dated to the late first century AD. The spout is in the form of a fish and although found in a first century AD context, it is considered to be the workmanship of the LIA instead. A small pit within the ringwork was found to contain a high proportion of fine-ware pottery sherds and some animal bones, while at the rear of the ring, 5 small pits/postholes contained substantial numbers of potsherds, including a complete base (LBA/EIA). F18, just within entrance, contained numerous sherds of pottery, including fragments of Darmsden style fine wares as well as small amount of animal bone. F74 contained the complete base of a coarse flint tempered pot. Substantial numbers of sherds were also found in F48, 63, 65 and 69 - mostly coarse flint tempered sherds, but also some fragments of Darmsden-type fine flint tempered and burnished wares. In a single large post hole there was an articulated human leg and clay-lined trough. Fragments of horse jaws were recovered too, including an almost complete mandible deliberately placed on base of outer ditch.

1999

1968

1978

Enclosure

Enclosure

1992

A hoard of bronze vessels was found consisting of a large bronze cauldron with iron handles. The cauldron held a wine strainer, an inscribed skillet and situla fittings and remains of wood. The hoard is dated AD 50-60.

Isolated Find

Suffolk HER

1882

A pewter hoard of four vessels was discovered along with a handle of a bucket, a knife and two vases.

Settlement, Isolated Find

1852, 1956

This site has yielded a number of hoards. Together they consist of a bronze cauldron, two plates of pottery and pewter and an organic deposit between them. There was a further pewter hoard contained around twenty-five vessels.

Isolated Find

Conquest

Prestige Items/Items of Etiquette

Suffolk

Icklingham

71

Martin 1988

Pit 0004 contained a human skull with a large stone partially covering the face, above this were layers of charcoal, animal bone and pottery, a large amount of burnt clay fragments and handmade pot and domestic refuse.

1900-1, 1947-57, 1975

Enclosure

References

Detail

Date of Discovery

Site Type

LIA

Date

Food

Indicator

Suffolk

County

Burgh

Site Name

70

Site No.

Appendix A - Feasting Sites in East Anglia

Appendix B Selected Figures

131

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types Location Vessels Aggrandisers Food Prestige Items Figure 9. Distribution of Early Iron Age feasting sites (refer to Appendix A for site names)

132

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Feasting Types Location Vessels Aggrandisers Food Prestige Items Figure 10. Distribution of Middle Iron Age feasting sites (refer to Appendix A for site names)

133

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types Location Vessels Aggrandisers Food Prestige Items

134

Figure 11. Distribution of Middle/Late Iron Age feasting sites (refer to Appendix A for site names)

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Feasting Types Location Vessels Aggrandisers Food Prestige Items

135

Figure 12. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites (refer to Appendix A for site names)

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types Location Vessels Aggrandisers Food Prestige Items Figure 13. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites (refer to Appendix A for site names)

136

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Site Dates and Types

Feasting Types

„

LBA/EIA

Settlement

Location

„

EIA

Unenclosed

Vessels

„

E/MIA

Enclosed

Aggrandisers

„

MIA

­

Hillfort

Food

„

M/LIA

´

Oppidum

Prestige Items

„

LIA

„

Conquest

137

Figure 14. Distribution of Early Iron Age feasting sites and Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age settlement

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Site Dates and Types

Feasting Types

„

LBA/EIA

Settlement

Location

„

EIA

Unenclosed

Vessels

„

E/MIA

Enclosed

Aggrandisers

„

MIA

­

Hillfort

Food

„

M/LIA

´

Oppidum

Prestige Items

„

LIA

„

Conquest

138

Figure 15. Distribution of Middle Iron Age feasting sites and Early/Middle Iron Age and Middle Iron Age settlement

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Site Dates and Types

Feasting Types

„

LBA/EIA

Settlement

Location

„

EIA

Unenclosed

Vessels

„

E/MIA

Enclosed

Aggrandisers

„

MIA

­

Hillfort

Food

„

M/LIA

´

Oppidum

Prestige Items

„

LIA

„

Conquest

Figure 16. Distribution of Middle/Late Iron Age feasting sites and Middle/Late Iron Age settlement

139

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Site Dates and Types

Feasting Types

„

LBA/EIA

Settlement

Location

„

EIA

Unenclosed

Vessels

„

E/MIA

Enclosed

Aggrandisers

„

MIA

­

Hillfort

Food

„

M/LIA

´

Oppidum

Prestige Items

„

LIA

„

Conquest

Figure 17. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and Late Iron Age settlement

140

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Site Dates and Types

Feasting Types

„

LBA/EIA

Settlement

Location

„

EIA

Unenclosed

Vessels

„

E/MIA

Enclosed

Aggrandisers

„

MIA

­

Hillfort

Food

„

M/LIA

´

Oppidum

Prestige Items

„

LIA

„

Conquest

Figure 18. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and Conquest settlement

141

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types

Hoard Types

Location

 

Metal

Vessels

®

Coins

Aggrandisers Food Prestige Items

142

Figure 22. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and coin and metal hoards

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Feasting Types

Hoard Types

Location

 

Metal

Vessels

®

Coins

Aggrandisers Food Prestige Items

143

Figure 23. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and coin and metal hoards

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types

Number of Coin Finds per Site

Location

z

1

z

5

z

51-150

Vessels

z

2

z

6-10

z

151-300

Aggrandisers

z

3

z

11-25

Food

z

4

z

26-50

Prestige Items

144

Figure 24. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and bronze coin finds

z

z

301 - 450 450+

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Feasting Types

Number of Coin Finds per Site

Location

z

1

z

5

z

51-150

Vessels

z

2

z

6-10

z

151-300

Aggrandisers

z

3

z

11-25

Food

z

4

z

26-50

Prestige Items

145

Figure 25. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and silver coin finds

z

z

301 - 450 450+

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types

Number of Coin Finds per Site

Location

z

1

z

5

z

51-150

Vessels

z

2

z

6-10

z

151-300

Aggrandisers

z

3

z

11-25

Food

z

4

z

26-50

Prestige Items Figure 26. Distribution of Late Iron Age feasting sites and gold coin finds

146

z

z

301 - 450 450+

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Feasting Types

Number of Coin Finds per Site

Location

z

1

z

5

z

51-150

Vessels

z

2

z

6-10

z

151-300

Aggrandisers

z

3

z

11-25

Food

z

4

z

26-50

Prestige Items

147

Figure 27. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and bronze coin finds

z

z

301 - 450 450+

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types

Number of Coin Finds per Site

Location

z

1

z

5

z

51-150

Vessels

z

2

z

6-10

z

151-300

Aggrandisers

z

3

z

11-25

Food

z

4

z

26-50

Prestige Items

148

Figure 28. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and silver coin finds

z

z

301 - 450 450+

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Feasting Types

Number of Coin Finds per Site

Location

z

1

z

5

z

51-150

Vessels

z

2

z

6-10

z

151-300

Aggrandisers

z

3

z

11-25

Food

z

4

z

26-50

Prestige Items

149

Figure 29. Distribution of Conquest feasting sites and gold coin finds

z

z

301 - 450 450+

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types

Distribution Zone

Location

1 Riverine – Bure/Yare

6 Chalkland

Vessels

2 Riverine – Nene

7 Coastal

Aggrandisers

3 Riverine – Ouse

Food

4 Riverine – Little Ouse/Lark

Prestige Items

5 Riverine – Gipping

Figure 30. Early Iron Age feasting sites and distribution zones

150

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Feasting Types

Distribution Zone

Location

1 Riverine – Bure/Yare

6 Chalkland

Vessels

2 Riverine – Nene

7 Coastal

Aggrandisers

3 Riverine – Ouse

Food

4 Riverine – Little Ouse/Lark

Prestige Items

5 Riverine – Gipping

151

Figure 31. Middle Iron Age feasting sites and distribution zones

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types

Distribution Zone

Location

1 Riverine – Bure/Yare

6 Chalkland

Vessels

2 Riverine – Nene

7 Coastal

Aggrandisers

3 Riverine – Ouse

Food

4 Riverine – Little Ouse/Lark

Prestige Items

5 Riverine – Gipping

Figure 32. Middle/Late Iron Age feasting sites and distribution zones

152

Appendix B - Selected Figures

Feasting Types

Distribution Zone

Location

1 Riverine – Bure/Yare

6 Chalkland

Vessels

2 Riverine – Nene

7 Coastal

Aggrandisers

3 Riverine – Ouse

Food

4 Riverine – Little Ouse/Lark

Prestige Items

5 Riverine – Gipping

Figure 33. Late Iron Age feasting sites and distribution zones

153

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Feasting Types

Distribution Zone

Location

1 Riverine – Bure/Yare

6 Chalkland

Vessels

2 Riverine – Nene

7 Coastal

Aggrandisers

3 Riverine – Ouse

Food

4 Riverine – Little Ouse/Lark

Prestige Items

5 Riverine – Gipping

Figure 34. Conquest feasting sites and distribution zones

154

Bibliography Abercrombie, T.A. 1998. Pathways of memory and power: ethnography and history among an Andean people. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Ashdown, R. and Evans, C. 1981. Animal Bones. Part I. Mammalian Bones. In Skeleton Green. A Late Iron Age and Romano-British Site (ed. C. Partridge). Britannia Monograph Series 2, pp. 205-235.

Albarella, U. and D. Serjeantson. 2002. A Passion for Pork: Meat Consumption at the British Late Neolithic Site of Durrington Walls. In Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption (eds. P. Miracle and N. Milner). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs, pp. 33-49.

Ashwin, T. 1996. Excavations of an Iron Age site at Silfield, Wymondham, Norfolk 1992-3. Norfolk Archaeology 42(3): 241-82. Atkins, R. and A. Mudd. 2003. An Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Prickwillow Road, Ely, Cambridgeshire: excavations 1999-2000. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society XCII: 5-55.

Alcock, J.P. 2001. Food in Roman Britain. Stroud: Tempus. Allen, D.F. 1944. The Belgic dynasties of Britain and their coins. Archaeologia 90: 1-46.

Atkinson, M. 1995. Elms Farm, Heybridge. Current Archaeology 144: 452-458.

Allen, D.F. 1958. The origins of coinage in Britain: a reappraisal. In Problems of the Iron Age in southern Britain (ed. S.S. Frere). Occasional Paper, University of London Institute of Archaeology 11, pp. 97-308.

Atkinson, M. and S.J. Preston. 1998. The Late Iron Age and Roman settlement at Elms Farm, Heybridge, Essex. Excavations 1993-5: an interim report. Britannia 29: 85-110.

Allen, D.F. 1970. The coins of the Iceni. Britannia 1: 1-33.

Atkinson, M. and S.J. Preston. forthcoming. Heybridge: a late Iron Age and Roman settlement, excavations at Elms Farm, 1993-5. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report.

Anthony, I.E. 1968. Excavations in Verulam Hills Fields, St Albans, 1963-4. Hertfordshire Archaeology 1: 9-50.

Audouze, F. and O. Büchsenschütz. 1992. Towns, villages and countryside of Celtic Europe from the beginning of the second millennium to the end of the first century BC. London: Batsford.

Appadurai, A. 1981. Gastro-politics in Hindu south Asia. American Ethnologist 8: 494-511. Appadurai, A. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bakels, C. and S. Jacomet. 2003. Access to Luxury Foods in Central Europe during the Roman Period: the archaeobotanical evidence. World Archaeology 34(3): 542-557.

Applebaum, E.S. 1949. Excavations at Wilbury Hill, an Iron Age hillfort near Letchworth, Hertfordshire. Archaeological Journal 106: 12-45.

Barrett, J.C. 1989a. Afterword: render unto Caesar…In Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe (eds. J.C. Barrett, A.P. Fitzpatrick and I. MacInnes). Oxford: British Archaeological Report (International Series) 471, pp. 235-41.

Arnold, B. 1991. The deposed princess of Vix: the need for an engendered European prehistory. In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the 22nd Chacmool Conference (eds. D. Walde and N. Willows). Calgary: The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, pp. 366-74.

Barrett, J. 1989b. Food, gender and metal: questions of social reproduction. In The Bronze-Iron Age Transition (eds. M.-L. Sørensen and R. Thomas). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 483, pp. 304-20.

Arnold, B. 1995. ‘Honorary males’ or women of substance? Gender, status and power in Iron Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3(2): 153-68.

Barrett, J.C. 1991a. The archaeology of social reproduction. In Landscape, Monuments and Society: the prehistory of Cranbourne Chase (eds. J.C. Barrett, R. Bradley and M. Green). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 6-8.

Arnold, B. 1999. Drinking the Feast: Alcohol and the Legitimation of Power in Celtic Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1): 71-93.

Barrett, J.C. 1991b. Bronze Age pottery and the problem of classification. In Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranbourne Chase (eds. J.C. Barrett, R. Bradley and

Arnold, B. 2001. Power Drinking in Iron Age Europe. British Archaeology 57: 12-19. 155

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

M. Hall). Oxbow Monograph 11: Oxbow, pp. 201-230.

Bedwin, O. 1991. Asheldham Camp – an Early Iron Age hillfort: the 1985 excavations. Essex Archaeology and History 22: 13-37.

Barrett, J.C. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bedwin, O. 1992. Early Iron Age settlement at Maldon and the Maldon ‘burh’ excavations at Beacon Green 1987. Essex Archaeology and History 23: 10-24.

Barrett, J.C. and D. McOmish 2004. All Cannings Cross. British Archaeology 74: 4.

Bell, D. and G. Valentine. 1997. Consuming geographies: we are where we eat. London: Routledge.

Bartel, A., O-H. Frey, F.-R. Herrmann, A. Kreuz and M. Rösch. 1998. Ein frühkeltischer Fürstengrabhügel am Glauberg im Wtteraukreis, Hessen: Bericht über die Forschungen 1994-96. Germania 75 (1997): 459-550.

Berger, L. 1963. Poseidonios Fragment 18: Ein Beitrag zur Deutung der spat-keltischen Viereckschanzen. Urschweiz 27: 26-8.

Barth, F. 1969. Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (ed. F. Barth). Boston: Little Brown and Company, pp. 9-38.

Biddulph, E. 2005. Samian Wear. Current Archaeology 196: 191-193.

Barth, F. 1983. Sohar: Culture and Society in an Omani Town. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Biel, J. 1982. Ein Fürstengrabhugel der späten Hallstattzeit bei Ebrdingen-Hochdorf, Kr. Ludwigsburg (BadenWürttemberg). Germania 60: 61-104.

Barthes, R. 1979. Towards a psycho-sociology of contemporary food consumption. In Food and Drink in History (eds. R. Forster and O. Ranum). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, pp. 126-138.

Biel, J. 1997. Le Hohenasperg et l’habitat de Hochdorf. In Vix et les éphémères principautés celtiques: les Vie-Ve siècles avant J.C. en Europe centre-occidentale, Actes du Colloque du Châtillon-sur-Seine (eds. P. Brun and B. Chaume). Paris Éditions Errance, pp. 17-22.

Barthes, R. 1983. Empire of Signs. Trans. R. Howard. London: Cape.

Biel, J., H.-J. Hundt, U. Körber-Grohne, W. Gauer and A. Hartmann. 1985. Das Grab des Keltenfürsten. In Der Keltenfürst von Hochdorf: katalog zur ausstellung Stuttgart, Kunstbäude vom 14.August bus 13.Oktober 1985. Stuttgart, pp. 78-163.

Barthes, R. 1988. The Semiotic Challenge. Trans. R. Howard. Oxford: Blackwell. Bartlett, R. 1987. Harlow Temple Excavations 1985-6: an interim report. Harlow Museum Occasional Paper 1.

Birchall, A. 1965. The Aylesford-Swarling culture: the problem of the Belgae reconsidered. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31: 241-367.

Barton, K.J. 1962. Settlements of the Iron Age and Pagan Saxon periods at Linford, Essex. Essex Archaeology and History 1: 57-104.

Blagg, T. and M. Millett (eds.). 1990. The early Roman Empire in the west. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Bates, S. 2000. Excavations at Quidney Farm, Saham Toney, Norfolk 1995. Britannia 31: 201-237.

Blitz, J.H. 1993. Big pots for big shots: feasting and storage in a Mississippian community. American Antiquity 58 (1): 80-96.

Bats, M. 1988. Vaisselle et alimentation à Olbia de Provence. Revue Archaeologique de Narbonnaise Supplement 18.

Bloch, M. 1995. Questions not to ask of Malagasy carvings. In Interpreting Archaeology: finding meaning in the past (eds. I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carmen, J. Last and G. Lucas). London: Routledge, pp. 212-15.

Battaglia, D. 1990. On the Bones of the Serpent: Person, Memory and Mortality in Sabarl Island Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Battaglia, D. 1992. The Body in the gift: memory and forgetting in a Sabarl mortuary exchange. American Ethnologist 19: 3-18.

Bloch, M. and J. Parry. 1982. Introduction: death and the regeneration of life. In Death and the Regeneration of Life (eds. M. Bloch and J. Parry). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-44.

Beardsworth, A. and T. Keil. 1997. Sociology on the menu: an invitation to the study of food and society. London: Routledge.

Blümner, H. 1911. Die römischen Privataltertümer. Munich. 156

Bibliography

Boardman, J. 1980. The Greeks Overseas: their early colonies and trade. London: Thames and Hudson.

Bishops Stortford; excavations at Woodside Industrial Park, 1992 (M. Medlycott). Essex Archaeology and History 25: 34-39.

Bourdieu, P. 1980. Les sens pratique. Paris: Les Editions de Minuet.

Brown, N.R. 1996. The Archaeology of Essex, c. 1500500 BC. In The Archaeology of Essex: Proceedings of the 1993 Writtle Conference (ed. O. Bedwin). Chelmsford: Essex County Council, Planning Department, pp. 26-37.

Boyle, A. 2004. The Ferrybridge chariot burial. Current Archaeology 191: 481-85.

Brown, N.R. 1999. The Archaeology of Ardleigh, Essex. Excavations 1955-1980. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 90.

Bradford, J.S.P. and R.G. Goodchild. 1939. Excavations at Frilford, Berkshire 1937-8. Oxoniensia 4: 1-70. Bradley, R. 1993. Where is East Anglia? Themes in regional prehistory. In Flatlands and Wetlands – Current themes in East Anglian Archaeology (ed. J. Gardiner). Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology Report 50, pp. 5-13.

Brown, N. R. and J. Glazebrook. 2000. Research and Archaeology: a framework for the eastern counties, 2: Research Agenda and Strategy. East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 8.

Bradley, R. 2006. Bridging the Two Cultures: commercial archaeology and the study of British prehistory. Paper presented at the Society of Antiquaries on 12th January 2006.

Brown, R.A. 1986. The Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Woodcock Hall, Saham Toney, Norfolk. Britannia 17: 1-58.

Brandt, E. 1994. Egalitarianism, hierarchy and centralisation in the Pueblos. In The Ancient Southwestern Community (eds. W. Wills and R. Leonard). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 9-23.

Brück, J. 1999. Houses, Lifecycles and Deposition on Middle Bronze Age Settlements in Southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 145-166.

Branigan, K. (ed.) 1994. The Archaeology of the Chilterns. Chess Valley Archaeological and Historical Society.

Brück, J. 2001. Body metaphors and technologies of transformation in the English Middle and Late Bronze Age. In Bronze Age landscapes: tradition and transformation (ed. J. Brück). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 149-60.

Braun, D. 1983. Pots as tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories (eds. J.S. Moore and A.S. Keene). New York: Academic Press, pp. 107-134.

Brun, P. 1987. Princes et Princesses de la Celtique: le Premier Age du Fer (850-450 av. J.C.). Paris: Éditions Errance.

Bray, T.L. 2003. The Commensal Politics of Early States and Empires. In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires (ed. T.L. Bray). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, pp. 1-13.

Brunaux, J-L. (ed.). 1999. Ribemont-sur-Ancre (Somme). Bilan préliminaire et nouvelles hypotheses. Gallia 56: 177-283.

Brown, N.R. 1986. The prehistoric pottery. In Prehistoric settlement and the Romano-British small town at Heybridge, Essex (N.P. Wickenden). Essex Archaeology and History 17: 7-68.

Brunaux, J-L. (ed.). 2000. Des Enclos, pourquoi faire? Actes de la table ronde de Ribemont-sur-Ancre (1989). Revue Archèologique de Picardie 1-2. Bryant, S.R. 1995. The late Bronze Age to the Middle Iron Age in the Chilterns. In Chiltern Archaeology: Recent Work (ed. R. Holgate). Dunstable: The Book Castle, pp. 17-27.

Brown, N.R. 1988a. A late Bronze Age enclosure at Lofts Farm, Essex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54: 249-302.

Bryant, S.R. 1997. Iron Age. In Research and Archaeology: A framework for the eastern Counties. (eds. J. Glazebrook). Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 3, pp. 23-34.

Brown, N.R. 1992. Prehistoric Pottery. In Early Iron Age settlement at Maldon and the Maldon ‘burh’ excavations at Beacon Green 1987 (O. Bedwin). Essex Archaeology and History 23: 15-18.

Bryant, S.R. and G. Burleigh. 1995. Later prehistoric dykes of the eastern Chilterns. In Chiltern Archaeology: Recent Work (ed. R. Holgate). Dunstable: The Book Castle, pp. 92-5.

Brown, N.R. 1994. Early and Middle Iron Age Pottery. In Iron Age and Roman material from Birchangar, near

Bryant, S.R. and R. Niblett. 1997. The late Iron Age of Hertfordshire and the North Chilterns. In Reconstructing

157

Brown, N.R. 1988b. A Late Bronze Age settlement on the boulder clay: excavations at Broads Green 1986. Essex Archaeology and History 19: 7-14.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Iron Age Societies (eds. A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 270-281.

Champion, T.C. 1994. Socio-economic development in eastern England in the First Millennium BC. In Europe in the First Millennium BC (eds. K.Kristiansen and J. Jensen). Sheffield: JR Collis Publications, pp. 125-44.

Buckley, D.G. and J.D. Hedges. 1987a. The Bronze Age and Saxon settlements at Springfield Lyons, Essex: an interim report. Essex County Council Occasional Paper 5.

Champion, T.C. and S. Champion. 1986. Peer-Polity interaction in the European Iron Age. In Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change (eds. C. Renfrew and J. Cherry). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59-68.

Buckley, D.G. and J.D. Hedges. 1987b. Excavation of a cropmark enclosure complex at Woodham Walter, Essex 1976. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 33.

Champion, T.C., C. Gamble, S. Shennan and A. Whittle. 1984. Prehistoric Europe. London: Academic Press.

Burillo Mozota, F. and A. Alzola Romero. 2005. Food, Drink and ‘the Other’ in the Celtiberian City-State of Segeda I (Zaragoza, Spain). Archaeological Review from Cambridge 20(2): 69-81.

Chaplin, R.E. and F. McCormick. 1986. The Animal Bones. In Baldock: the excavation of a Roman and PreRoman settlement, 1968-72 (I.M. Stead and V. Rigby). Britannia Monograph Series 7, pp. 396-415.

Burleigh, G. 1982. Excavation at Baldock, 1980-1: an interim report. Hertfordshire’s Past 12: 3-18.

Chapman, M. 1992. The Celts: the construction of a myth. London: MacMillan.

Burleigh, G. 1995. A late Iron Age oppidum at Baldock, Hertfordshire. In Chiltern Archaeology: Recent Work (ed. R. Holgate). Dunstable: The Book Castle, pp. 103-12.

Cherry, J.F. 1984. The emergence of the state in the prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 30: 18-48.

Burleigh, G., D. Went and K. Matthews. 1990. An archaeological evaluation at Hollard’s Farm, Codicote, Hertfordshire. North Hertfordshire District Council.

Childe, V.G. 1940. Prehistoric communities of the British Isles. London: W & R Chambers.

Bushe-Fox, J.P. 1925. Excavation of the late-Celtic urnfield at Swarling, Kent. London: Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries, London. No. 5, pp. 271-273.

Clark, C.P. 1988. Late Iron Age enclosures at Kelvedon: excavations at the Doucecroft site 1985-6. Essex Archaeology and History 19: 15-39.

Cardarelli, A., F. di Gennaro, A. Guidi and M. Pacciarelli. 1980. Le Ricerche di Topografia Protostorica nel Lazio. In Il Bronzo Finale in Italia (ed. R. Peroni). Bari: De Donato, pp. 91-103.

Clark, J.G.D. and C.I. Fell. 1953. The early Iron Age site at Micklemoor Hill, West Harling, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 19: 1-40.

Caruth, J. 1992. CAM022: Excavation archive report. Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service.

Clarke, J.E. and M. Blake. 1994. The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the emergence of rank societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional competition and political development in the New World (eds. E. Brumfiel and J. Fox). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17-30.

Carver, E. 2001. The visibility of imported wine and its associated accoutrements in later Iron Age Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 325. Chacon, P. 1588. De Triclinio, sive de modo convivandi apud priscos Romanos.

Codere, H. 1966. Fighting with property; a study of Kwakiutl potlatching and warfare, 1792-1930. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Chagnon, N. 1983. Yanomamö. The Fierce People. 3rd Ed. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Cohen, A. 1979. Political Symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology 8: 87-113.

Champion, S. 1994. Regional studies: a question of scale. In Europe in the First Millennium BC (eds. K.Kristiansen). Sheffield: JR Collis Publications, pp. 145-50.

Collins, R. 1988. Theoretical Sociology. San Diego: Harcourt/Brace/Jovanowich.

Champion, T.C. 1987. The European Iron Age: assessing the state of the art. Scottish Archaeological Review 4: 98-107.

Collis, J.R. 1984a. Oppida: earliest towns north of the Alps. Sheffield: Dept. of Prehistory and Archaeology.

Champion, T.C. (ed.) 1989. Centre and periphery: comparative studies in archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman.

Collis, J.R. 1984b. The European Iron Age. London: Batsford. 158

Bibliography

Collis, J.R. 1997. Celtic Myths. Antiquity 71: 195-201.

Darvill, T. 1987. Prehistoric Britain. London: Batsford.

Connerton, P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, J.N. 1997. Courtesans and fishcakes: the consuming passions of Classical Athens. London: Harper Collins.

Cotton, M.A. and S.S. Frere. 1968. Ivinghoe Beacon: excavations, 1963-5. Records of Buckinghamshire 18: 187-260.

Davies, J. 1996. Where eagles dare: the Iron Age of Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62: 63-92.

Cra’ster, M.D. 1961. The Aldwick Iron Age settlement, Barley, Hertfordshire. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society LIV: 22-46.

Davies, J. 1999. Patterns, Power and Political Progress in Iron Age Norfolk. In Land of the Iceni: the Iron Age in Northern East Anglia (eds. J. Davies and T. Williamson). Norwich: Centre for East Anglian Studies, pp. 14-44.

Creighton, J. 1995. Visions of power: imagery and symbols in late Iron Age Britain. Britannia 26: 285-301.

Davies, J., T. Gregory, A.J. Lawson, K. Rickett and A. Rogerson. 1991. The Iron Age Forts of Norfolk. Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology Report 54.

Crummy, P. 1980. Camulodunum. Current Archaeology 72: 6-9.

Davis, S. 1989. Animal remains from the Iron Age cemetery. In Verulamium: The King Harry Lane site (I.M. Stead and V. Rigby) English Heritage Archaeological Report 12, pp. 250-259.

Crummy, P. 1993. Aristocratic Graves at Colchester. Current Archaeology 132: 492-7. Crummy, P. 1997a. City of Victory: The story of Colchester – Britain’s first Roman town. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust.

Dawson, M. 2000. The Iron Age and Romano-British period: a landscape in transition. In Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman landscapes of the Great Ouse valley (ed. M. Dawson). York: CBA Research Report 119, pp. 107-30.

Crummy, P. 1997b. Your Move, Doctor! Colchester Archaeologist 10: 1-9.

Dietler, M. 1989. Greeks, Etruscans and thirsty barbarians: Early Iron Age interaction in the Rhone basin of France. In Centre and Periphery: comparative studies in archaeology (T.C. Champion). London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 127-41.

Crummy, P. 1997c. Colchester: the Stanway burials. Current Archaeology 132: 492-7. Cunliffe, B. 1968. Early pre-Roman Iron Age communities in eastern England. Antiquaries Journal 48: 175-91.

Dietler, M. 1990. Driven by Drink: the role of drinking in the political economy and the case of Early Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 352-406.

Cunliffe, B. 1979. The Celtic World. London: The Bodley Head Ltd.

Dietler, M. 1994. Quenching Celtic thirst. Archaeology (May/June): 44-8.

Cunliffe, B. 1984. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52.

Dietler, M. 1995. The cup of Gyptis: rethinking the colonial encounter in Early Iron Age western Europe and the relevance of world-systems models. Journal of European Archaeology 3(2): 89-111.

Cunliffe, B. 1988. Greeks, Romans and barbarians: spheres of interaction. London: Batsford. Cunliffe, B. 1991. Iron Age Communities in Britain (3rd edition). London: Routledge.

Dietler, M. 1996. Feasts and commensal politics in the political economy. In Food and the status quest: an interdisciplinary perspective (eds. P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhövel). Providence: Berghahn Books, pp. 87-126.

Cunliffe, B. 1992. Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11: 69-83.

Dietler, M. 2001. Theorising the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics and Power in African Contexts. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power (eds. M. Dietler and B. Hayden). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 65-114.

Cunliffe, B. 1994. Iron Age societies in western Europe and beyond, 800-140 BC. In The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe (ed. B. Cunliffe). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 336-72. Danaher, I. 2005. Food for Thought: Campanian Still Lifes. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 20(2): 53-68. 159

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Dietler, M. and B. Hayden (eds.) 2001a. Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Effros, B. 2002. Creating Community with Food and Drink in Merovingian Gaul. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ehrenberg, M. 1989. Women in prehistory. London: British Museum.

Dietler, M. and B. Hayden. 2001b. Digesting the Feast – Good to Eat, Good to Drink, Good to Think: An Introduction. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power (eds. M. Dietler and B. Hayden). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 1-20.

Ekengren, F. 2003. Drinking and the Creation of Death. Lund Archaeological Review 9: 45-61. Erith, F.H. and P.R. Holbert. 1974. A Belgic Pit at Ardleigh. Colchester Archaeological Group Annual Bulletin 17: 3-19.

Dietler, M. and I. Herbich. 2001. Feasts and Labour Mobilisation: Dissecting a fundamental economic practice. In Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics and power (eds. M. Dietler and B. Hayden). Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 240-264.

Esmonde Cleary, A.S. 1995. Roman Britain 1994. Britannia 26: 354.

Douglas, M. 1972. Deciphering a meal. Daedalus 101: 61-81.

Evans, C. 1984. A shrine provenance for the Willingham Fen hoard. Antiquity 58: 212-214.

Douglas, M. (ed.) 1984. Food in the social order. New York: Russell Sage.

Evans, C. 1989. Perishable and worldy goods – artefact decoration and classification in the light of wetlands research. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8: 179-202.

Evans, A.J. 1890. On a late Celtic urnfield at Aylesford, Kent. Archaeologia 52: 317-388.

Douglas, M. (ed.) 1987. Constructive drinking: perspectives on drink from anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Evans, C. 1992. Commanding gestures in lowland: the investigation of two Iron Age ringworks. Fenland Research 2: 16-26.

Downey, R., A. King, and G. Soffe. 1978. The Roman temple on Hayling Island, Second Interim Report on excavations 1977. London.

Evans, C. 2003. Power and Island Communities: excavations at the Wardy Hill ringwork, Coveney, Ely. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology Report 103.

Downey, R., A. King, and G. Soffe. 1979. The Hayling Island Temple, Third Interim Report on the excavations of the Iron Age and Roman temple, 1976-1978. London.

Evans, C. and I. Hodder. 2005. Marshland Communities and Cultural Landscape. The Haddenham Project Volume II. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

Drury, P. 1978. Excavations at Little Waltham, Essex. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 26: London.

Evans, C. and D. Serjeantson. 1988. The backwater economy of a fen-edge community in the Iron Age: the Upper Delphs, Haddenham. Antiquity 62: 360-70.

Dryden, M. 1845. Roman and Romano-British remains at and near Shefford. Co. Bedfordshire. Publications of the Cambridge Archaeological Society 8(1840-6): 184.

Evans, C., D. MacKay and L. Webley. 2004. Excavations at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge. The Hutchison Site. Assessment Report. Cambridge University Archaeological Unit, Report No. 609.

Dunbabin, K.M.D. 2003. The Roman Banquet: Images of Convivality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dyer, J.F. 1976. Ravensburgh Castle, Hertfordshire. In Hillforts: Later prehistoric earthworks in Britain and Ireland (ed. D.W. Harding). London: Academic Press, pp. 153-9, 421-3.

Eves, R. 1996. Remembrance of Things Passed: Memory, Body and the Politics of Feasting in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea. Oceania 66: 266-77. Fedière, A. and A. Villard. 1993. La tombe augustéenne de Fléré-la-Rivière (Indre). Saint Marcel: 7e suppl. à la Rev. Arch. du Centre de la France.

Earwood, L. 1993. Domestic wooden artefacts in Britain and Ireland from Neolithic to Viking times. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

Fiddes, N. 1991. Meat: A Natural Symbol. London: Routledge.

Ecclestone, J. 1995. Early Iron Age settlement at Southend: excavations at Fox Hall Farm, 1993. Essex Archaeology and History 26: 24-39. 160

Bibliography

Fitzpatrick, A. 1989. The uses of Roman imperialism by the Celtic barbarians in the later Republic. In Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe (eds. J.C. Barrett, A. Fitzpatrick and I. MacInnes). Oxford: British Archaeological Report (International Series) 471, pp. 27-54.

di Gennaro, F. and S.K.F. Stoddart. 1982. A Review of the Evidence for Prehistoric activity in part of South Etruria. Papers of the British School at Rome 50: 1-21. Gero, J.M. 2003. Feasting and the Practice of Stately Manners. In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires (ed. T.L. Bray). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, pp. 285-288.

Fitzpatrick, A. 1992. The Snettisham, Norfolk, Hoards of Iron Age Torques: Sacred or Profane? Antiquity 66: 395-8. Fitzpatrick, A. 1996. Celtic Iron Age Europe. In Cultural Identity and Archaeology: the construction of European communities (eds. P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones and C.Gamble). London: Routledge, pp. 238-255.

Gero, J.M. 2004. Sex Pots of Ancient Peru: PostGender Reflections. In Combining the Past and Present: Archaeological Perspective on Society. Proceedings of Prehistory in a Global Perspective: a conference in honour of Professor Randi Haaland’s contribution to archaeology (eds. T. Oestigaard, N. Anfinset and T. Saetersdal). Oxford: British Archaeological Report (International Series) S1214, pp. 3-22.

Fitzpatrick, A. and Timby, J. 2002. Roman pottery in Iron Britain. In Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis (eds. A. Woodward and J.D. Hill). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 161-172.

Gero, J.M. and Conkey, M. (eds.) 1991. Engendering Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell

Ford, R. 1972. An ecological perspective on the eastern Pueblos. In New perspectives on the Pueblos (ed. A. Ortiz). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 1-18.

Gibson, C. 2004. Westbury Proposed Eastern By-Pass, Wiltshire: Archaeological Evaluation Report. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.

Foster, J. 1986. The Lexden tumulus: a re-appraisal of an Iron Age burial from Colchester, Essex. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 156.

Gilchrist, R. 2000. Archaeological Biographies: Realising Human Lifecycles, -Courses and –Histories. World Archaeology 31(3): 325-328.

Foster, R. 1990. Nurture and force-feeding: mortuary feasting and the construction of collective individuals in New Ireland society. American Ethnologist 17: 431-8.

Gingell, C. and A.J. Lawson. 1984. The Potterne project: excavation and research at a major settlement of the Late Bronze Age. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 78: 31-4.

Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: an anthropological approach. London: Routledge. Fox, C.F. 1923. The archaeology of the Cambridge Region. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gingell, C. and A.J. Lawson. 1985. Excavations at Potterne, 1984. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 79: 101-8.

French, C.A.I. 2003a. Geoarchaeology in action: studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution. London: Routledge.

Glazebrook, J. (ed.) 1997. Research and Archaeology: a framework for the eastern counties, 1: Resource Assessment. East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 3.

French, C.A. I. 2003b. Wandlebury Ringwork, Cambridgeshire: Evaluation survey and excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report.

Going, C.J. 1987. The mansio and other sites in the south eastern sector of Caesaromagnus: the Roman pottery. Chelmsford Archaeological Trust Report 3.2. London: CBA Research report 62.

French, C.A.I. and K. Gdaniec. 1996. Wandlebury Hillfort, Cambridgeshire, 1995: the training excavation of the University of Cambridge: Summary report 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Friedländer, L. 1922. Darstellungen Sittengeschichte Roms. Leipzig: G. Wissowa.

aus

Going, C.J. 1993. The Iron Age. In Excavations at Mucking Vol.1. The Site Atlas (A.J. Clark). London: English Heritage, pp. 19-20.

der

Goodman, J., P.E. Lovejoy and A. Sherratt. 1995. Consuming Habits: Drugs in History and Anthropology. London: Routledge.

Friedman, J. 1994. Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage.

Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, cuisine and class: a study in comparative sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garnsey, P. 1999. Food and society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 161

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Gosden, C. 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gurney, D. 1986a. Settlement, Religion and Industry on the Roman Fen Edge, Norfolk. Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology Report 31.

Gosden, C. 1997. Iron Age Landscapes and Cultural Biographies. In Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: New Approaches to the British Iron Age (eds. A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 303-308.

Gurney, D. 1986b. A Romano-Celtic temple site at Caistor St Edmund. In Excavations at Thornham, Warham, Wighton and Caistor St Edmund, Norfolk (T. Gregory and D. Gurney). Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology Report 30, pp. 37-58.

Grant, A. 1984. Animal Husbandry. In Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire Volume 2: The Excavations 1969-1978: The Finds (ed. B. Cunliffe). Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52, pp. 496-548.

Gurney, D. 1993. Excavations and Surveys in Norfolk 1992. Norfolk Archaeology 41: 523-4. Gwilt, A. and C. Haselgrove. 1997. Reconstructing Iron Age societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow.

Grant, A. 1989. Animals and ritual in Early Britain: the visible and the invisible. In L’Animal das les pratiques religieuses: les manifestations materielles (ed. J.-D. Vigne). Paris: Anthropozoologica Troisième Numéro Special, pp. 79-86.

Hall, D.N. 1992. The Fenland Project, Number 6: The Southwestern Cambridgeshire Fenlands. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology Report 56.

Grant, A. 1991. Economics or symbolic? Animals and ritual behaviour. In Sacred and profane: Proceedings of a conference on archaeology, ritual and religion (eds. P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skates and J. Toms). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 109-14.

Hall, D.N. 1996. The Fenland Project, Number 10: Cambridgeshire Survey, The Isle of Ely and Wisbech. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology Report 79. Hall, D.N. and J. Coles. 1994. The Fenland Survey: an essay in landscape and persistence. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 1.

Grant, A. 2000. Biological and environmental analyses. In Late Iron Age and Roman Silchester: excavations on the site of the forum-basilica, 1977, 1980-6 (M. Fulford and J. Timby). Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, pp. 425-482.

Halstead, P. and J.C. Barrett. 2004a. Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Grant, A. 2002. Food, status and social hierarchy. In Consuming passions and patterns of consumption (eds. P. Miracle and N. Milner). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monograph, pp. 17-23.

Halstead, P. and J.C. Barrett. 2004b. Introduction: Food, Drink and Society in Prehistoric Greece. In Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece (eds. P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 1-15.

Gregory, A. 1977. The enclosure at Ashill. East Anglian Archaeology Report 5, pp. 9-30.

Hamilakis, Y. 1996. Wine, Oil and the Dialectics of Power in Bronze Age Crete: A Review of the Evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15(1): 1-32.

Gregory, A. 1986. An enclosure of the first century AD at Thornham. In Excavations at Thornham, Warham, Wighton and Caistor St Edmund, Norfolk (A. Gregory and D. Gurney). Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology Report 30, pp. 1-13.

Hamilakis, Y. 1998. Eating the dead: Mortuary feasting and the politics of memory in the Aegean Bronze Age Societies. In Cemetery and society in the Aegean Bronze Age (ed. K. Branigan). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 115-32.

Gregory, A. 1991. Excavations in Thetford, 1980-2: Fison Way. Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology Report 53. Gregory, A. and D.Gurney. 1986. Excavations at Thornham, Warham, Wighton and Caistor St Edmund, Norfolk. Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology Report 30.

Hamilakis, Y. 1999. Food technologies/technologies of the body: the social context of wine and oil production and consumption in Bronze Age Crete. World Archaeology 31(1): 38-54.

Gregory, A. and A. Rogerson. 1992. General Conclusions. In The Iron Age Forts of Norfolk (J.A. Davies, T. Gregory, A.J. Lawson, R. Rickett and A. Rogerson). Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology Report 54, pp. 68-72.

Hamilakis, Y. and E. Konsolaki. 2004. Pigs for the Gods: burnt animal sacrifices as embodied rituals at a Mycenaean sanctuary. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23(2): 135-151.

162

Grew, F.O. 1980. Roman Britain in 1979. I. Sites explored. Britannia 11: 345-402.

Bibliography

Haverfield, F. 1923. Romanisation of Roman Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hamilakis, Y., M. Pluciennik and S. Tarlow. 2002. Thinking through the body: archaeologies of corporeality. London: Plenum.

Havis, R. and H. Brooks. 2004. Excavations at Stansted Airport 1986-1991. Volume 1. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 107.

Hamilton, S. 2002. Between Ritual and Routine: Interpreting British Prehistoric Pottery Production and Distribution. In Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis (eds. A. Woodward and J.D Hill). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 38-53.

Hawkes, C.F.C. 1931. Hillforts. Antiquity 5: 60-97.

Harris, M. 1975. Cows, pigs, wars and witches: the riddles of culture. London: Hutchinson.

Hawkes, C.F.C. 1959. The ABC of the British Iron Age. Antiquity 33: 170-82.

Harris, M. 1986. Good to eat: riddles of food and culture. London: Allen and Unwin.

Hawkes, C.F.C. and P. Crummy. 1995. Camulodunum 2. Colchester Archaeological Report 11. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust.

Harris, M. 1987. Foodways: historical overview and theoretical prolegomenon. In Food and Evolution: Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits (eds. M. Harris and E.B. Ross). Philadelphia: Temple, pp. 57-90.

Hawkes, C.F.C. and M.R. Hull. 1947. Camulodunum. First Report on the excavations at Colchester 1930-1939. Oxford: Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 14.

Haselgrove, C. 1982. Wealth, prestige and power: the dynamics of late Iron Age centralisation in south eastern England. In Ranking, resource and exchange (eds. C. Renfrew and S. Shennan). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79-88.

Hawkes, G. 1999. Beyond Romanisation: the creolisation of food. A framework for the study of faunal remains from Roman sites. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 10: 89-95.

Haselgrove, C. 1987. Iron Age coinage in South-East England: the Archaeological Context. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (British Series) 174.

Hawkes, G. 2001. An archaeology of food: a case study from Roman Britain. In TRAC 2000: Proceedings of the 10th Annual TRAC (eds. G. Davies, A. Gardner and K. Lockyear). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 94-103.

Haselgrove, C. 1988. The archaeology of British potin coinage. Archaeological Journal 145: 99-122.

Hawkes, G. 2002. Wolves’ Nipples and Otters’ Noses? Rural foodways in Roman Britain. In TRAC 2001: Proceedings of the 11th Annual TRAC (eds. M. Carruthers, C. Van Driel-Murray, A. Gardner, J. Lucas, L. Revell and E. Swift). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 45-50.

Haselgrove, C. 1989. The Later Iron Age in Southern Britain and Beyond. In Research on Roman Britain 196089 (ed. M. Todd). Britannia Monograph No.11, pp. 1-18. Haselgrove, C. 1993. The Development of British Iron Age Coinage. Numismatic Chronicle 153: 31-64.

Hayden, B. 1990. Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers and Planters: the emergence of food production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31-69.

Haselgrove, C. 1996. Iron Age coinage: recent work. In The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends (eds. T. Champion and J.R. Collis). Sheffield: JR Collis Publications, pp. 67-86.

Hayden, B. 1995. Pathways to power: principles for creating socio-economic inequalities. In Foundations of social inequality (eds. T. Price and G. Feinman). New York: Plenum Press, pp. 15-86.

Haselgrove, C. 1997. Iron Age Brooch Deposition and Chronology. In Reconstructing Iron Age Societies (eds. A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 51-72.

Hayden, B. 1996. Feasting in prehistoric and traditional societies. In Food and the status quest: an interdisciplinary perspective (eds. P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhövel). Providence: Berghahn Books, pp. 127-147.

Haselgrove,C. and M. Millett. 1997. Verulamium Reconsidered. In Reconstructing Iron Age Societies (eds. A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 282-96.

Hayden, B. 1998. Practical and Prestige Technologies: the Evolution of Material Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(1): 1-56.

Haverfield, F. 1906. The Romanisation of Roman Britain. Proceedings of the British Academy 1905-1906: 185-217.

Hayden, B. 2001. Fabulous feasts: a prolegomenon to the importance of feasting. In Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics and power

163

Haverfield, R. 1912. The Romanisation of Roman Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

(eds. M. Dietler and B. Hayden). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 23-64.

Hill, J.D. 1999. Settlement, landscape and regionality: Norfolk and Suffolk in the pre-Roman Iron Age of Britain and beyond. In Land of the Iceni: the Iron Age in Northern East Anglia (eds. J. Davies and T. Williamson). Norwich: Centre of East Anglian Studies, pp. 185-207.

Hayden, B. 2003. Were Luxury Foods the First Domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives from Southeast Asia. World Archaeology 34(3): 458-469.

Hill, J.D. 2000. The Iron Age. In An Atlas of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire History (eds. T. Kirby and S. Oosthuizen). Sudbury: The Lavenham Press, pp. 10.

Healy, F. 1991. Iron Age and Roman pottery. In Excavations in Thetford, 1980-2: Fison Way (T. Gregory). Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology Report 53, pp. 155-172.

Hill, J.D. 2002a. Just About the Potter’s Wheel? Using, Making and Depositing Middle and Later Iron Age Pots in East Anglia. In Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis (eds. A. Woodward and J.D. Hill). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 143-160.

Heath, D.B. 2000. Drinking Occasions: Comparative Perspectives on Alcohol and Culture. Ann Arbor: Sheridan Books. Henig, M. 1995. The Art of Roman Britain. London: Batsford.

Hill, J.D. 2002b. Pottery and the Expression of Society, Economy and Culture. In Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis (eds. A. Woodward and J.D. Hill). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 75-84.

Hertz, R. 1960. Death and the right hand. Trans. R. and C. Needham. London: Cohen and West.

Hill, J.D. 2005. Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery HAD IV. In Marshland communities and cultural landscape. The Haddenham Project Volume II (C. Evans and I. Hodder). Cambridge: McDonald Institute, pp. 84-92.

Hill, J.D. 1993. Ritual Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a study on the formation of a specific archaeological record. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Cambridge. Hill, J.D. 1994. Why we should not take the data from Iron Age settlements for granted: recent studies of intrasettlement patterning. In The Iron Age in Wessex: Recent Work (eds. A.P. Fitzpatrick and E.L. Morris). Salisbury: Association Française d’Etude de l’Age du Fer and Wessex Archaeology, pp. 4-8.

Hill, J.D. and P. Braddock. 2005. The Iron Age Pottery. In Marshland communities and cultural landscape. The Haddenham Project Volume II (C. Evans and I. Hodder). Cambridge: McDonald Institute, pp. 144-191. Hill, J.D., C. Evans and M. Alexander. 1999. Hinxton Rings – A Late Iron Age cemetery at Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, with a reconsideration of Northern Aylesford-Swarling distributions. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 243-273.

Hill, J.D. 1995a. The pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: an overview. The Journal of World Prehistory 9(1): 47-98. Hill, J.D. 1995b. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A Study in the Formation of a Specific Archaeological Record. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 292.

Hingley, R. 1990. Iron Age ‘currency bars’: the archaeological and social context. Archaeological Journal 147: 90-117. Hingley, R. 1996. The ‘legacy’ of Rome: the rise, decline and fall of the theory of Romanisation. In Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial perspectives (eds. J. Webster and N.J. Cooper). Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monographs 3, pp. 35-48.

Hill, J.D. 1995c. How should we study Iron Age societies and hillforts? A contextual study from southern England. In Different Iron Ages: Studies on the Iron Age in temperate Europe (eds. J.D. Hill and C, Cumberpatch). BAR (International Series) 602, pp. 45-66.

Hinman, M. 2004. Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age activity on land adjacent to Hauxton Road, Trumpington, Cambridge. Post-excavation assessment of evaluation and excavation at Trumpington Park and Ride. Section I: Assessment. Cambridgeshire County Council Report No. 706.

Hill, J.D. 1996a. Hillforts and the Iron Age of Wessex. In The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends (eds. T.C. Champion and J.R. Collis). Sheffield: JR Collis Publications, pp. 95-116. Hill, J.D. 1996b. The Identification of Ritual Deposits of Animals. A general perspective from a specific study of ‘special animal deposits’ from the southern English Iron Age. In Ritual treatment of human and animal remains: Proceedings of the first meeting of the Osteoarchaeological Research Group (eds. S. Anderson and K. Boyle), pp. 17-32.

Hodder, I. 1982a. Theoretical Archaeology: a reactionary view. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (ed. I. Hodder). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-16.

164

Hodder, I. 1982b. Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

Hodder, I. 1982c. Wendens Ambo: The Excavations of Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement. London: Passmore Edwards Museum.

Jones, A. 2002. Archaeology Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, M.U. and D. Bond. 1980. Later Bronze Age settlement at Mucking, Essex. In Settlement and Society in the Later British Bronze Age (eds. J. Barrett and R.J. Bradley). Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 83, pp. 471-82.

Hodder, I. (ed.) 1987. The Archaeology of Contextual Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, J.R. 1907. Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jones, S. 1997. The archaeology of ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and present. London: Routledge.

Holmes, J. and W.H.C. Frend. 1959. A Belgic chieftain’s grave on Hertford Heath. East Hertfordshire Archaeological Society Transactions 14: 1-19.

Junker, L.L. 1999. Raiding, trading and fasting: the political economy of Philippine chiefdoms. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i.

Horsley, K. 1994. F42 – The Cremation Group: Roman Pottery. In Iron Age and Roman material from Bichangar, near Bishops Stortford, excavations at Woodside Industrial Park, 1992 (M. Medleycott). Essex Archaeology and History 25: 40-41.

Junker, L.L. 2001. The Evolution of Ritual Feasting Systems in prehispanic Philippine Chiefdoms. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power (eds. M. Dietler and B. Hayden). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 267-310.

Huffman, T.N. 1996. Snakes and Crocodiles: power and symbolism in ancient Zimbabwe. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Kan, S. 1989. Symbolic immortality: the Tlingit potlatch of the 19th Century. London and Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hull, M.R. 1958. Roman Colchester. Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiqs. London 20. Oxford.

Kelly, R. 1991. Sedentism, socio-political inequality and resource fluctuations. In Between bands and states: sedentism, subsistence and interaction in small scale societies (ed. S. Gregg). Occasional Paper No. 9. Centre for Archaeological Investigations. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, pp. 135-158.

Hunn, J.R. 1992. The Verulamium Oppidum and its landscape in the Late Iron Age. Archaeological Journal 149: 19-68. Hüssen, C.M. 1983. A rich La Tène burial at Hertford Heath, Hertfordshire. British Museum Occasional Paper 44.

Kennett, D.H. 1970. The Felmersham Fish-Head Spout: A Suggested Reconstruction. Antiquaries Journal 50: 86-8.

Hutcheson, N. 2003. Material culture in the landscape: a new approach to the Snettisham hoards. In Re-searching the Iron Age (ed. J. Humphrey). Leicester Archaeology Monographs No. 11, pp. 87-97.

King, A. 1978. A comparative survey of bone assemblages on Roman sites in Britain. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 15: 207-32.

Hutcheson, N. 2004. Later Iron Age Norfolk : metalwork, landscape and society. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 361.

King, A. 1984. Animal bones and the dietary identity of military and civilian groups in Roman Britain, Germany and Gaul. In Military and civilian in Roman Britain (eds. T. Blagg and A. King). Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 137, pp. 187-217.

Jackson, K.H. 1964. The oldest Irish tradition: a window on the Iron Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James, S. 1998. Celts, politics and motivation in archaeology. Antiquity 72: 200-9.

King, A. 1991. Food production and consumption – meat. In Britain in the Roman period – recent trends (R.F.J. Jones). Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications, pp. 15-20.

James, S. 1999. The Atlantic Celts: ancient people or modern invention? London: British Museum.

King, A. 1999. Diet in the Roman world: a regional intersite comparison of the mammal bones. Journal of Roman Archaeology 12: 168-202.

James, S. and V. Rigby. 1997. Britain in the Celtic Iron Age. London: British Museum.

Kleiner, D.E.E. 1987. Roman Imperial funerary altars with portraits. Rome: Giorgio Bretscheider Editore.

165

Joffroy, R. 1979. Vix et ses Trésors. Paris: Librairie Jules Tallandier.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

Knight, D. 1984. Late Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement in the Nene and Great Ouse Valleys. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 130.

Lavender, N.J. 1991. A Late Iron Age Burial Enclosure at Maldon Hall Farm, Essex: Excavations 1989. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57: 203-209.

Knight, S. 2002. Butchery and Intra-Site Variation in Animal Bone Deposition: a Case Study from Danebury. University of Leicester: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.

Laver, P.G. 1927. The excavation of a tumulus at Lexden, Colchester. Archaeologia 76: 241-54. Lawson, A.J. 1994. Potterne. In The Iron Age in Wessex: Recent Work (eds. A.P. Fitzpatrick and E.L. Morris). Salisbury: Association Française d’Etude de l’Age du Fer and Wessex Archaeology, pp. 42-46.

Knight, S. 2003. The importance of being processed: butchery patterns from Danebury. In Re-searching the Iron Age (ed. J. Humphrey). Leicester Archaeology Monographs No. 11, pp. 25-34.

Lethbridge, T.C. 1954. Burial of an Iron Age warrior at Snailwell. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 47: 25-37.

Knight, V.J. 2001. Feasting and the emergence of platform mound ceremonialism in eastern North America. In Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics and power (eds. M. Dietler and B. Hayden). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 311-333.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966. The Culinary Triangle. Partisan Review 33: 586-595. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Raw and the Cooked. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Knüsel, C.J. 2003. More Circe than Cassandra: the princess of Vix in ritualised social context. European Journal of Archaeology 5(3): 275-308.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1978. The Origin of Table Manners. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Koch, E. 2003. Mead, chiefs and feasts in later prehistoric Europe. In Food, culture and identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (ed. M. Parker Pearson). Oxford: British Archaeological Report (Int. Series) S1117, pp. 125-143.

Levine, P. 1986. The amateur and the professional: antiquarians, historians and archaeologists in Victorian England, 1838-1886. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kristiansen, K. 1985. Post-Depositional Formation Processes and the Archaeological Record. In Archaeological Formation Processes (ed. K. Kristiansen). Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet, pp. 7-11.

Lindsay, H. 1998. Eating with the dead: the Roman funerary banquet. In Meals in a social context. Aspects of the communal meal in the Hellenistic and Roman world (eds. I. Nielsen and H. S. Nielsen). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 67-80.

Kristiansen, K. 1998. Europe before history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Küchler, S. 2002. Malanggan Art, Memory and Sacrifice. Oxford: Berg.

Liversidge, J. 1959. A new hoard of Romano-British pewter from Icklingham. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 52: 6-10.

Kuhlicke, F.W. 1969. Postscript on the Iron Age Finds from Felmersham Bridge. Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal 4: 81-2.

Luff, R. 1996. The ‘bare bones’ of identifying ritual behaviour in the archaeological record. In Ritual treatment of human and animal remains: Proceedings of the first meeting of the Osteoarchaeological Research Group (eds. S. Anderson and K. Boyle), pp. 1-13.

Kus, S. 1993. Towards an archaeology of body and soul. In Representations in archaeology (eds. J-C. Gardin and C. S. Peebles). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 168-95.

McDonald, T. 1994. Archaeological Site Summaries of Excavations undertaken on the A41 London-Birmingham Trunk Road (King’s Langley and Berkhamstead Bypass Sections). Hertford: Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust.

Lambot, B. and P. Méniel. 2000. Le Village d’Acy Romance dans son contexte regional. In Rites et Espaces en Pays Celte et Méditerranéen (ed. S. Verger). Rome: École Française de Rome 276, pp. 7-139.

McIntosh, Wm.A. 1996. Sociologies of Food and Nutrition. London: Plenum Press.

Lambot, B., M. Friboulet and P. Méniel. 1994. AcyRomance II. Les nécropoles dans leur contexte regional. Doss. De Protohistoire 5, Bull. de la Soc. Arch. Champ. 8.

166

McOmish, D. 1996. East Chisenbury: ritual and rubbish at the British Bronze-Iron Age transition. Antiquity 70: 68-76.

Bibliography

Macaulay, S. 1995. Herod’s Farm, Foxton SAM 216: an Iron Age and Roman cropmark site. Cambridge: Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit Report 118.

Meadows, K.I. 1994. You are what you eat: diet, identity and romanisation. In Proceedings of the fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology conference, Durham (eds. S. Cottam, D. Dungworth, S. Scott and J. Taylor). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 133-140.

Mackreth, D.F. 1988. Excavation of an Iron Age and Roman enclosure at Werrington, Cambridgeshire. Britannia 19: 59-151.

Meadows, K.I. 1997. Much ado about nothing: the social context of eating and drinking in early Roman Britain. In Not so much a pot, more a way of life (eds. C.G. Cumberpatch and P.Q. Blinkhorn). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 21-35.

Mackreth, D.F. 2001. Monument 97, Orton Longueville, Cambridgeshire: a Late Pre-Roman Iron Age and Early Roman farmstead. Manchester: East Anglian Archaeology Report 97.

Meadows, K.I. 1999. The appetites of households in early Roman Britain. In The archaeology of household activities (P.M. Allison). London: Routledge, pp.101-20.

Malcolmson, R.W. and S.N. Mastoris. 1998. The English pig: a history. London: Hambledon.

Medlycott, M. 1994. Iron Age and Roman material from Birchangar, near Bishops Stortford; excavations at Woodside Industrial Park, 1992. Essex Archaeology and History 25, 28-45.

Malim, T. and R. McKenna. 1993. Borough Fen ringwork: Iron Age fort, Newborough, Cambridgeshire. In Fenland Research 8 (eds. C. Evans and J. Pollard). Cambridge: Cambridge University Archaeology Unit.

Megaw, J.V.S. 1966. The Vix burial. Antiquity XL: 38-44.

Malim, T. and D. Mitchell. 1993. Neolithic ditches and Iron Age settlement at Thrapston Road, Brampton 1992. Cambridge: Cambridgeshire County Council Report 81.

Megaw, J.V.S. 1970. Art of the European Iron Age. Bath: Adams and Dart. Meigs, A. 1997. Food as a cultural construction. In The anthropology of food and body: gender, meaning and power (C. Counihan). London: Routledge, pp. 95-106.

Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the western Pacific: an account of the native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea. London.

Meniél, P. and B. Lambot. (eds.) 2002. Repas des vivants et nourriture pours les morts en Gaule. Acte du 25e Colloque International de l’Association Française pour l’Etude de l’Age du Fer. Reims : Société Archéologique Champenoise No. 16. Supplément au Bulletin No. 1.

Maltby, M. 1996. The exploitation of animals in the Iron Age: the archaeozoological evidence. In Recent trends in the archaeology of Iron Age Britain (eds. T.C. Champion and J. Collis). Sheffield: JR Collis Publications, pp. 17-27. Marquardt, J. 1886. Das Privatleben der Römer. Leipzig: A. Mau.

Mercuriale, G. 1601. De arte gymnastic. Meskell, L. 2001. Archaeologies of Identity. In Archaeological Theory Today (ed. I. Hodder). Malden: Polity Press, pp. 187-213.

Martin, E. 1979. Suffolk Archaeological Unit Excavations 1978. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology 34: 218-20.

Meskell, L. 2002. The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 279-301.

Martin, E. 1988. Burgh: Iron Age and Roman Enclosure. Ipswich: East Anglian Archaeology Report 40.

Metcalf, P. and R. Huntingdon. 1991. Celebrations of Death: the anthropology of mortuary ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second Ed.

Martin, E. 1999. Suffolk in the Iron Age. In Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia (eds. J. Davies and T. Williamson). Norwich: Centre of East Anglian Studies, pp. 45-99.

Metzler, J., R. Warino, R. Bis and N. Metzler-Zens. 1991. Clemency et les tombes de l’aristocratie en Gaule Belgique. Musée national d’histoire et d’art. Luxembourg: Dossiers d’archéologie du musée national d’histoire et d’art 1.

Matthews, C.L. 1976. Occupation sites on a Chiltern Ridge. Part 1: Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 29.

Millett, M. 1990a. The Romanisation of Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mauss, M. 1990 [1950]. The Gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. Trans. W.D. Halls. London: Routledge.

Millett, M. 1990b. Romanisation: historical issues and archaeological interpretation. In The Early Roman Empire 167

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

in the West (eds. T.F.C Blagg and M. Millett). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 35-41.

Murray, O. 1990. Sympotic history. In Sympotica: a symposium on the ‘symposion’ (ed. O. Murray). Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 3-14.

Mills, B.J. (ed.) 2004a. Identity, Feasting and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Neal, D.S., A. Wardle and J. Hunn. 1990. Excavation of the Iron Age, Roman and medieval settlement at Gorhambury, St Albans. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 14.

Mills, B. J. 2004b. Identity, Feasting and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest. In Identity, Feasting and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest (ed. B. J. Mills). Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pp. 1-23.

Needham, S. 1995. A bowl from Maidcross, Suffolk: burials with pottery in the post-Deverel-Rimbury period. In Unbaked urns of rudely shape (eds. I. Kinnes and G. Vardell). Oxford: Oxford Monograph 55, pp. 159-71.

Morris, E.L. 1994. Production and distribution of pottery and salt in Iron Age Britain: a review. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60: 371-93.

Needham, S and T. Spence. 1997. Refuse and the formation of middens. Antiquity 71: 77-90.

Morris, M. and A.Wainwright. 1995. Iron Age and Romano-British settlement, agriculture and industry in the Upper Bulbourne Valley, Hertfordshire: an interim interpretation. In Chiltern Archaeology: Recent Work (ed. R. Holgate). Dunstable: The Book Castle, pp. 68-75.

Nelson, M. 2005. The Barbarian’s Beverage: a history of beer in ancient Europe. London: Routledge. Niblett, R. 1985. Sheepen: an Early Roman Industrial Site at Camulodunum. CBA Research Report 57.

Moss-Eccardt, J. 1988. Archaeological investigations in the Letchworth Area, 1958-1974. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 77: 35-103.

Niblett, R. 1999. The excavation of a ceremonial site at Folly Lane, Verulamium. Britannia Monograph Series 4.

Murphy, P. 1991a. Cereals and crop weeds. In Asheldham Camp – an Early Iron Age hillfort: the 1985 excavations (O. Bedwin). Essex Archaeology and History 22: 31-35.

Niblett, R. 2002. Roman Cemeteries of Verulamium. Current Archaeology 182: 69-75. Niblett, R. and P. Reeves. 1990. A Wealthy Early Roman Cremation from Verulmaium. The Antiquaries Journal 70: 441-446.

Murphy, P. 1991b. Plant remains and the environment. In Excavations in Thetford, 1980-1982, Fison Way (ed. T. Gregory). Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology Report 53, pp. 175-181.

Oestigaard, T. 2000. Sacrifices of Raw, Cooked and Burnt Humans. Norwegian Archaeological Review 33(1): 41-58.

Murphy, P. 1992. Charred cereals and flax from building 152. In Excavations at Culver Street, the Gilberd School and other sites in Colchester 1971-85 (P. Crummy). Colchester Archaeological Report 6, pp. 330-333.

Okun, M.L. 1989. An example of the process of acculturation in the early Roman frontier. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8(1): 41-54.

Murphy, P. 1995. Botanical Evidence. In Excavations at North Shoebury: settlement and economy in south-east Essex 1500BC-AD 1500 (J.J. Wymer and N.R. Brown). Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 75, pp. 146-150.

Olivier, L. 1999. The Hochdorf ‘princely’ grave and the question of the nature of archaeological funerary assemblages. In Archaeology and Time (ed. T. Murray). London: Routledge, pp. 109-38. Parker Pearson, M. 1984. Social change, ideology and the archaeological record. In Marxist perspectives in archaeology (M. Spriggs). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59-72.

Murray, M.L. 1992. The archaeology of mystification: ideology, dominance, and the urnfields of southern Germany. In Ancient Images, Ancient Thought: the archaeology of Ideology (eds. A. S. Goldsmith, S. Garvie, D. Selin and J. Smith). Calgary: Chacmool, University of Calgary, pp. 97-104.

Parker Pearson, M. 1999. Food, sex and death: cosmologies in the British Iron Age with particular reference to East Yorkshire. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1): 43-69.

Murray, M.L. 1995. Viereckschanzen and Feasting: Sociopolitical ritual in Iron Age Central Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3(2): 125-151.

Parker Pearson, M. 2000. Eating Money. Archaeological Dialogues 7(2): 217-232.

168

Bibliography

Parker Pearson, M. (ed.). 2003. Food, culture and identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (Int. Series) 1117.

Potter, J.M. 1997. Communal ritual and faunal remains: an example from the Dolores Anasazi. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 353-364.

Parry, J. 1985. Death and digestion: the symbolism of food and eating in North Indian mortuary rites. Man 20: 612-30.

Potter, J.M. 2000. Pots, parties and politics: communal feasting in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 65(3): 471-492.

Partridge, C. 1978. Excavations and fieldwork at Braughing, 1968-1973. Hertfordshire Archaeology 5.

Potter, T.W. and S.D. Trow. 1988. Puckeridge-Braughing: The Ermine Street Excavations 1971-1972. Hertfordshire Archaeology 10.

Partridge, C. 1980. Excavations at Puckeridge-Braughing 1975-9. Hertfordshire Archaeology 7: 28-132.

Poux, M. 2004. L’Âge du vin. Rites de boisson, festins et libations en Gaule indépendante. Montagnac: Éditions Monique Mergoil. Protohistoire Européenne 8.

Partridge, C. 1981. Skeleton Green: A Late Iron Age and Romano-British Site. Britannia Monograph Series 2. Partridge, C. 1982. Braughing, Wickham Kennels 1982. Hertfordshire Archaeology 8: 40-59.

Poux, M., Y. Deberge, S. Foucras, J. Gasc and D. Pasquier. 2002. L’enclos cultuel de Corent (Puy-de-Dôme): festins et rites collectives. Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France, Tome 41: 57-110.

Partridge, C. 1989. Foxholes Farm. A multi-period gravel site. Hertford: Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust.

Poyer, L. 1991. Maintaining egalitarianism: social equality on Micronesian Atoll. In Between Bands and States: sedentism, subsistence and interaction in small scale societies (ed. S. Gregg). Occasional Paper No. 9. Centre for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, pp. 359-375.

Pauli, L. 1991. Heilige Plätze und Opferbräuche bei den Helvetieren and ihren Nachbarn. Archäologie der Schweiz 14(1): 124-135. Pearce, S.M. 1995. On collecting: an investigation into collecting in the European tradition. London: Routledge.

Priest, V., P.Clay and J.D. Hill. 2003. Iron Age Gold in Leicestershire. Current Archaeology 188: 358-362.

Pitts, M. 2004. ‘I drink, therefore I am’? Pottery consumption and identity at Elms Farm, Heybridge, Essex. In TRAC 2003 Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (eds. B. Croxford, H. Eckardt, J. Meade and J. Weekes). Oxford: Oxbow Books: 16-27.

Pryor, F. 1984. Excavation at Fengate, Peterborough, England: the Fourth Report. Northamptonshire Archaeological Society Monograph 2. Ralph, S. 2001. An Assessment of the Role of Aerial Photography in Iron Age Hertfordshire. Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation. University of Cambridge.

Pitts, M. 2005a. Regional identities and the social use of ceramics. In TRAC 2004 Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (eds. J. Bruhn, B. Croxford and D. Grigoropoulos). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 50-64.

Ralph, S. 2005a. Eat, Drink and be Roman? Feasting in later Iron Age and Early Roman Britain. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 20(2): 32-52.

Pitts, M. 2005b. Pots and Pits: Drinking and Deposition in Late Iron Age south-east Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24(2): 143-161.

Ralph, S. 2005b. Constructive Consumption: Feasting in Iron Age Britain and Europe. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 20(1): 55-69.

Pollard, J. 1992. The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeology 33(2): 315-333.

Ralph, S. 2006. Feasting in later Iron Age and Early Roman Britain: a ceramic approach. In Prehistoric Pottery: Some Recent Research (ed. A. Gibson). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series) S1509, pp.105-112.

Pollock, S. 2003. Feasts, Funerals and Fast Food in early Mesopotamian States. In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in early States and Empires (ed. T.L. Bray). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, pp. 17-38.

Rappaport, R. 1984 [1968]. Pigs for the Ancestors: ritual in the ecology of a New Guinea people. Rev.ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pope, R. 2003. A functional ceramic analysis and its application in later Iron Age Dorset. In Re-searching the Iron Age (ed. J. Humphrey). Leicester Archaeology Monographs No. 11, pp. 1-9. 169

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

RCHME. 1992. Cropmarks in Hertfordshire – A Report for the National Mapping Programme.

Sealey, P.R. 1985. The Amphoras – summary and conclusions. In Sheepen: an early Roman industrial site at Camulodunum (R. Niblett). London: CBA Research Report 57, pp. 98-111.

RCHME. 1994. The Iron Age Enclosure at Borough Fen, Cambridgeshire. Unpublished Archive Report.

Sealey, P.R. 1996. The Iron Age. In The Archaeology of Essex: Proceedings of the 1993 Writtle Conference (ed. O.Bedwin). Chelmsford: Essex County Council, Planning Department, pp. 46-68.

Reynolds, D. 1976. An Archaeological Survey of Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire’s Past 1: 5-7. Rigby, V. and I. Freestone. 1997. Ceramic changes in Late Iron Age Britain. In Pottery in the making (eds. I. Freestone and D. Gaimster). London: British Museum, pp. 56-61.

Sealey, P.R. 1999a. The Cauldron Pit. In The Archaeology of Ardleigh, Essex. Excavations 1955-1980 (N.R. Brown). Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 90, pp. 31-33.

Riva, C. 2000. The Genesis of the Etruscan City-State. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge.

Sealey, P.R. 1999b. Finds from the Cauldron Pit. In The Archaeology of Ardleigh, Essex. Excavations 1955-1980 (N.R. Brown). Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 90, pp. 117-124.

Robinson, P. and G. Swanton. 1993. On Blagan Hill. Current Archaeology 134: 73-4. Rodwell, K.A. 1988. The prehistoric and Roman settlement at Kelvedon, Essex. CBA Research Report 63.

Sealey, P.R. 1999c. The Character and Function of the Cauldron Pit. In The Archaeology of Ardleigh, Essex. Excavations 1955-1980 (N.R. Brown). Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 90, pp. 178-180.

Rodwell, W.J. 1987. The Pottery and its implications. In Excavations at Woodham Walter and an Assessment of Essex Enclosures (D.G. Buckley and J.D. Hedges). Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 33, pp. 20-29.

Sealey, P.R. 2004. Strainer Bowl Spout. In A Roman Maltings at Beck Row, Mildenhall, Suffolk (E. Bales). EAA Occasional Paper 20, pp. 16-17.

Rösch, M. 1999. Evaluation of honey residues from Iron Age hilltop sites in southwestern Germany: implications for local and regional land use and vegetation dynamics. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8: 105-12.

Serjeantson, D. 2005. Animal Remains HAD V. In Marshland communities and cultural landscape. The Haddenham Project Volume II (C. Evans and I. Hodder). Cambridge: McDonald Institute, pp. 216-243.

Roscoe, P.B. 1995. Of power and menace: Sepik art as an affecting presence. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 1, 1-22.

Shanks, M. and C. Tilley. 1987. Re-constructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosman, A. 1971. Feasting with Mine Enemy: Rank and Exchange among Northwest Coast Societies. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sharples, N. 1990. Late Iron Age Society and Continental Trade in Dorset. Revue Archaeologie Ouest (Supplement 3): 299-304.

Ross, S. 1974. Pagan Celtic Britain. London: Cardinal.

Sharples, N. 1991. Maiden Castle. London: Batsford.

Rowlands, M., M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen (eds.) 1987. Centre and periphery in the ancient world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Shennan, S. (ed.) 1989. Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London: Routledge. Simpson, W.G. 1985. Excavations at Maxey, Bardyke Field, 1962-3. In The Fenland Project No. 1: The lower Welland Valley Volume II (eds. F. Pryor and C. French). Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology Report 27, pp. 245-264.

Salway, P. 1967. Excavation at Hockwold-cum-Wilton, Norfolk, 1961-2. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 60: 39-80.

Smith, A. 2001. The differential use of constructed sacred space in southern Britain, from the Late Iron Age to the fourth century AD. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (British Series) 318.

Saunders, C. 1972. The Pre-Belgic Iron Age in the Central and Western Chilterns. Archaeological Journal 128: 1-30. Sauter, M.R. 1980. Sur le sexe de la ‘Dame de Vix’ (CôteD’Or). L’Anthropologie (Paris) 84(1): 89-113.

Smith, C.R. 1852. Collectania Antiqua. Volume II.

Schiffer, M.B. 1983. Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48(4): 675-706. 170

Bibliography

Smith, R.A. 1909. A Hoard of Metal found at Santon Downham, Suffolk. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 13: 146-63.

Timby, J.R. 1987. The distribution of Terra Nigra and Terra Rubra to Britain. Acta Rei Cretariae Romane Fautorum XXV/XXVI: 291-310.

Smith, R. 1912. On Late Celtic Antiquities discovered at Welwyn, Herts. Archaeologia LXIII (1911-12): 1-30.

Tooker, E. 1967. An ethnography of the Huron Indians, 1615-1649. Midland, Ontario: Huronia Historical Development Council.

Spencer, C. 1994. Factional ascendance, dimensions of leadership and the development of centralised authority. In Factional competition and political development in the New World (eds. E. Brumfiel and J. Fox). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31-43.

Toynbee, J.M.C. 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. London: Thames and Hudson. Trigger, B. 1969. The Huron: Farmers of the North. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stead, I.M. 1967. A La Tène burial at Welwyn Garden City. Archaeologia 101, 1-62.

Turner, R. 1999. Ivy Chimneys, Witham, Essex 1978-83. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 88.

Stead, I.M. 1991. The Snettisham Treasure: excavations in 1990. Antiquity 65: 447-65.

Tyers, P.A. Roman pottery in Britain. London: Batsford.

Stead, I.M. and V. Rigby. 1986. Baldock: the excavation of a Roman and Pre-Roman settlement, 1968-72. Britannia Monograph Series 7.

Van der Veen, M. 2003. When is Food a Luxury? World Archaeology 34(3): 405-427. Van Zeist, W. 1970. Prehistoric and early historic food plants in the Netherlands. Palaeohistorica 14: 42-173.

Stead, I.M. and V. Rigby. 1989. Verulamium: the King Harry Lane site. English Heritage Archaeological Report 12.

Wade-Martins, P. 1974. The Linear Earthworks of West Norfolk. Norfolk Archaeology 36: 23-38.

Steel, L. 2002. Wine, Women and Song: Drinking Ritual in Cyprus in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. In Engendering Aphrodite: Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus (eds. D. Bolger and N. Serwint). Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports, pp. 105-119.

Wallace, C. 2004. Pottery from DFS and DCS cremations. In Excavations at Stansted Airport 1986-1991. Volume 1 (R. Havis and H. Brooks). Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 107, pp. 238-242.

Steel, L. 2004. A Goodly Feast … A Cup of Mellow Wine: Feasting in Bronze Age Cyprus. In The Mycenaean Feast (ed. J.C. Wright). Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, pp. 161-180.

Wallace, C. and Horsley, K.2004. Late Iron Age and Roman pottery. In Excavations at Stansted Airport 19861991. Volume 1 (R. Havis and H. Brooks). Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 107, pp. 285-312.

Stevenson, J. and C. Johnson. 2004. Brisley Farm: the last Iron Age warriors of Kent? Current Archaeology 191: 490-4.

Waller, M. 1994. The Fenland Project No. 9: Flandrian Environmental Change in Fenland. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology Report 70.

Stucky, J. 1597. Antiquitatum convivialium libri tres.

Wallis, S. 1998a. Excavations at Slough House Farm. In Archaeology and the Landscape in the Lower Blackwater Valley (S. Wallis and M. Waughman). Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 82, pp. 5-58.

Thompson, I. 1981. A ‘Belgic’ Cremation Burial found at West Mersea. Essex Archaeology and History 13: 63-5. Thompson, I. 1982. Grog-tempered ‘Belgic’ pottery of south eastern England. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 108.

Wallis, S. 1998b. Excavations at Howell’s Farm. In Archaeology and the Landscape in the Lower Blackwater Valley (S. Wallis and M. Waughman). Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 82, pp. 109-121.

Thompson, S. 1988. Death, Food and Fertility. In Death ritual in late Imperial and Modern China (eds. J. Watson and E. Rawski). Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 71-108.

Walsh, K. 1995. Iron Age and Roman settlement remains near Tort Hill, Sawtry. Fenland Research 9: 57-9. Watson, W.J. 1949. Belgic bronzes and pottery found at Felmersham-on-Ouse, Bedfordshire. Antiquaries Journal 29: 37-61.

171

Tierney, J.J. 1960. The Celtic ethnography of Posidonius. Proceedings of the Royal Institute of Archaeology 60: 189-275.

Divergent Patterns of Consumption: Feasting and Social Complexity in Iron Age East Anglia

of the fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology conference, Durham (eds. S. Cottam, D. Dungworth, S. Scott and J. Taylor). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 141-50.

Webster, J. 2001. Creolizing the Roman Provinces. American Journal of Archaeology 105: 209-225. Welch, P.D. and M.C. Scarry. 1995. Status-related variation in foodways in the Moundville chiefdom. American Antiquity 60(3): 397-419.

Willis, S.H. 1996. The Romanisation of pottery assemblages in the east and north-east of England during the first century AD: a comparative analysis. Britannia 27: 179-221.

Wells, P. 1980. Culture contact and culture change: early Iron Age central Europe and the Mediterranean world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, S.H. 1997. Settlement, materiality and landscape in the Iron Age of the East Midlands: evidence, interpretation and wider resonance. In Reconstructing Iron Age societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age (A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 205-215.

Wells, P.S. 1990. Iron Age temperate Europe: some current research issues. Journal of World Prehistory 4(4): 437-476. West, S. 1990. West Stow: the prehistoric and RomanBritish occupations. Ipswich: East Anglian Archaeology Report 48.

Willis, S.H. 2002. A date with the past: Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery and chronology. In Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis (eds. A. Woodward and J.D. Hill). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 4-21.

Whimster, R. 1981. Burial practices in Iron Age Britain: a discussion and gazetteer of the evidence c. 700 BC – AD 43. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (British Series) 90.

Wobst, H.M. 2000. Agency in (spite of) material culture. In Agency in Archaeology (eds. M-A. Dobres and J. Robb). London: Routledge, pp. 40-50.

Whitcher Kansa, S. and S. Campbell. 2004. Feasting with the Dead? – A Ritual Bone Deposit at Domuztepe, south eastern Turkey (c. 5500 cal BC. In Behaviour Behind Bones: the Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity (eds. S.J. O’Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 2-13.

Woolf, G. 1993. The social significance of trade in late Iron Age Europe. In Trade and exchange in prehistoric Europe (eds. C. Scarre and F. Healy). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 211-18. Woolf, G. 2003. Becoming Roman: the origins of provincial civilisation in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whittle, A., J. Pollard and C. Grigson. 1999. The Harmony of Symbols: the Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Wright, J.C. 1995. Empty cups and empty jugs: the social role of wine in Minoan and Mycenaean societies. In The origins and ancient history of wine (eds. P.E. McGovern, S.J. Fleming and S.H. Katz). Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers, pp. 287-309.

Whittle, A. and J. Pollard. 1999. The Harmony of Symbols: Wider Meanings. In The Harmony of Symbols: the Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure, Wiltshire (A. Whittle, J. Pollard and C. Grigson). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 381-390.

Wright, J.C. (ed.). 2004. The Mycenaean Feast. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Wieland, G. 1999. Keltische Viereckschanzen. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Wymer, J.J. 1986. Early Iron Age pottery and a triangular loomweight from Redgate Hill, Hunstanton. Norfolk Archaeology 39: 286-296.

Wiessner, P. and Schiefenhövel, W. (eds.) Food and the Status Quest, an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Providence: Berghahn.

Wymer, J.J. and N.R. Brown. 1995. Excavations at North Shoebury: settlement and economy in south-east Essex 1500 BC-AD 1500. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 75.

Wilkins, J., D. Harvey and M. Dobson. 1995. Food in antiquity. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Wilkinson, T.J. 1988. Archaeology and Environment in South Essex. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 42.

Young, M. 1985. Abutu in Kalauna: A retrospective. Mankind 15(2): 184-198.

Williams, H. 2004. Potted Histories – Cremation, ceramics and social memory in Early Roman Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23(4): 417-427. Willis, S.H. 1994. Roman imports into Late Iron Age British societies: towards a critique of existing models. In Proceedings 172