The Final Feast: An examination of the significant Iron Age amphora burials in north-west Europe in relation to the mediterranean symposium and feasting ritual 9781407300221, 9781407330716

Citation preview

BAR S1605 2007

The Final Feast

CRAVEN

An examination of the significant Iron Age amphora burials in north-west Europe in relation to the Mediterranean symposium and feasting ritual

THE FINAL FEAST

Pamela Elizabeth Craven

BAR International Series 1605 2007 B A R

The Final Feast An examination of the significant Iron Age amphora burials in north-west Europe in relation to the Mediterranean symposium and feasting ritual

Pamela Elizabeth Craven

BAR International Series 1605 2007

ISBN 9781407300221 paperback ISBN 9781407330716 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407300221 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Christopher Pare for his guidance in setting me on the research path. When Chris left Birmingham for Germany, Roger White took on this responsibility and it is Roger that I have to thank for the tremendous help he has given in seeing the completion of this work. He has been totally supportive and his advice and positive encouragement have been much appreciated. Very special thanks must go to Michel Chossenot. His reply to my letter changed the direction of my studies. He not only arranged meetings and gave access to reports which would have been otherwise unavailable, but he and his family made me feel very welcome in their home at Chalons for which I am most grateful. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Museum staff from Chalons-en-Champagne for their patience and co-operation. A memorable meeting with Aline Melkon of the St.-Remi Musée, Reims was arranged by Michel Chossenot. Aline let me see the original hand-written, Prunay II excavation report and guided me round the public exhibits before allowing me to see the stored artefacts. Although we could not find the amphorae of Prunay II my experiences in France leave me indebted to the kindness of all those I met there. I have been fortunate in receiving helpful information from a variety of sources, but would particularly like to thank Martin Schöenfelder, Mark Atkinson, J.D. Hill, Laurent Olivier, Anne Cahen-Delhaye and Simon Esmonde-Cleary for their observations. I would like to thank Mrs. D.D. A Simpson for permission to use the line drawing of Écury-leRepos and also École française de Rome and Edisud. For their response. I regard Paul Sealey as a special correspondent and friend and would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his interest and the many communications which I hope will continue in the future. My long-suffering family and friends who have had to put up with my obsession for amphorae deserve particular mention. Abigail, Mark and Jeremy although on the other side of ‘the pond’ have provided long-distance support and Abigail and Mark have also taken on the onerous task of proof- reading. But my greatest thanks must go to Donald, without whose unfailing love and support I could not have completed this work.

i

Contents PART 1: THE BACKGROUND TO IRON AGE FEASTING IN NORTH- WESTERN EUROPE CHAPTER 1: THE REASONS, IMPORTANCE, AIMS AND METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH 1.1 Introduction: The importance of the research and the inspiration for the study. .....................................................3 1.2 The state of research in burial archaeology. ............................................................................................................4 1.3 Questions of disposal...............................................................................................................................................4 1.4 Methodology............................................................................................................................................................5 1.5 The organization of chapters. ..................................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 2: EARLY GREEK EVIDENCE FOR A TRADITION OF FEASTING 2.1Introduction: Sources of evidence ............................................................................................................................7 2.2 Homeric myths ........................................................................................................................................................7 2.2.1 The descriptions of feasting in Homeric Society. ..................................................................................8 2.3 The Greek symposium. ..........................................................................................................................................10 2.3.1The symposium and vase painting. ........................................................................................................10 2.3.2 The symposium environment................................................................................................................11 2.4 The cult of Dionysos. ............................................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 3: ITALIAN FEASTING AS REPRESENTED BY PAINTINGS AND ARTEFACTS OF IRON AGE AND EARLY ROMAN ITALY 3.1 Introduction: The problem of defining a Roman style of feasting.........................................................................24 3.2 Archaeological sources: Feasting images from the southern Italian colonies. ......................................................25 3.3 Archaeological evidence: Etruria and the pictorial evidence of feasting. .............................................................25 3.4 Archeological sources: Pictorial and artefactual evidence from Pompeii. ............................................................27 3.5 Literary sources: The Roman symposium..............................................................................................................28 3.6 Summary. .........................................................................................................................................................30 CHAPTER 4: THE LITERARY EVIDENCE FOR A GALLIC FEASTING TRADITION 4.1 Introduction: The problems with textual evidence. ...............................................................................................37 4.2 The importance of Iron Age feasting according to classical texts. ........................................................................38 4.2.1 The classical accounts of Gallic feasting..............................................................................................38 4.3 The relevance of medieval Irish literature. ............................................................................................................40 4.3.1. Feasting in Irish myths.................................................................................................................................40 4.4 Summary. .........................................................................................................................................................41 CHAPTER 5: THE VESSELS AND EQUIPMENT OF THE GALLIC FEAST IN TEXTS AND PRACTICE 5.1 Introduction: An examination of the relationship between the literary sources and the archaeological evidence 50 5.2 Feasting accommodation: Banqueting halls, temporary structures, and hearths. ..................................................50 5.2.1 Furnishings...........................................................................................................................................51 5.2.2 The Celtic Hearth..........................................................................................................................................52 5.3 Seating arrangements: sitting or reclining? ...........................................................................................................53 5.4 The feasting company: who could attend? ............................................................................................................53 5.5 Feasting ritual ........................................................................................................................................................54 5.5.1 Hand washing ...............................................................................................................................................54 5.5.2 The menu ......................................................................................................................................................54 5.5.3 Eating utensils...............................................................................................................................................56 5.5.4 Serving food..................................................................................................................................................56 5.6 Vessels associated with wine serving: Mixing, diluting, straining, warming, pouring and drinking. ...................56 5.6.1 Mixing and diluting: Buckets........................................................................................................................56 5.6.2 Straining........................................................................................................................................................57

ii

5.6.3 Warming: Pans..............................................................................................................................................57 5.6.4 Sieving .........................................................................................................................................................57 5.6.5 Drinking ........................................................................................................................................................58 CHAPTER 6: IRON AGE SOCIETY AND THE FEAST IN SOCIAL RITUAL 6.1 Introduction: Social organisation in the Late Iron Age .........................................................................................61 6.2 Identifying change. ................................................................................................................................................61 6.2.1 Greek influence.............................................................................................................................................61 6.2.2 Italian influence. ...........................................................................................................................................61 6.3 The hierarchical tribal societies of Late Iron Age Gaul and Britain......................................................................62 6.3.1 Family relationships......................................................................................................................................64 6.4 Changes in settlement patterns. .............................................................................................................................65 6.4.1 Oppida culture and a move towards urbanization. .......................................................................................65 6.4.2 Trade and oppida. .........................................................................................................................................66 6.4.3 Coinage. ........................................................................................................................................................67 6.5 Ritual practices and religious beliefs. ....................................................................................................................67 6.5.1 Burial practices in the Iron Age. ...................................................................................................................68 6.6 Summary. .........................................................................................................................................................69 6.6.1. Indications of Gallic feasting .......................................................................................................................69 PART II: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION TO PART II..................................................................................................................................71 CHAPTER 7: THE CORPUS OF EVIDENCE AND AN INVENTORY OF IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS OF GAUL AND BRITAIN 7.1 INTRODUCTION: AMPHORA BURIALS.........................................................................................................73 7.1.1 Recognising wine as a symbolic agent..........................................................................................................73 7.2 The amphorae in the burials of Late iron Age Gaul and pre-Roman Britain.........................................................74 7.2.1 Amphorae: “The jerry cans of antiquity” (Parker 1992:31)..........................................................................74 7.2.2 Amphora classification and chronology. ......................................................................................................74 7.3 The distribution of amphora burials. .....................................................................................................................77 7.4 Funerary ritual in the amphora burials of the Late Iron Age. ................................................................................78 7.4.1 Complete amphorae. .....................................................................................................................................78 7.5 Élite burials and the criteria for élite burial. ..........................................................................................................80 7.5.1 Elaborate funerary arrangements. .................................................................................................................80 7.5.2 Imported goods. ............................................................................................................................................81 7.5.3 Prestige goods. .....................................................................................................................................82 7.6 The burial rite and the amphora condition.............................................................................................................83 7.6.1 Inhumation and complete amphorae. ............................................................................................................83 7.6.2 Cremation and complete amphorae...............................................................................................................84 7.6.3 Cremations associated with amphorae sherds...............................................................................................84 7.6.4 Sherds of amphorae in burials.......................................................................................................................84 7.6.5 Pyre sites (ustrina).........................................................................................................................................85 7.7 Establishing the relationship between feasting and funerary traditions in Gaul....................................................88 7.7.1 Offerings and meal remains. .........................................................................................................................88 7.7.2 Drinking vessels............................................................................................................................................89 7.8 Large pieces and altered amphorae in burials........................................................................................................90 7.9 Summary. .........................................................................................................................................................91 7.10. The inventory of amphora-related burial sites of Gaul and Britain ....................................................................93 CHAPTER 8: AMPHORA BURIALS IN THE CHAMPAGNE-MARNE AREA. THE EVIDENCE OF A GRAVESIDE FEASTING TRADITION: A PACT BETWEEN THE LIVING AND THE DEAD? 8.1 Introduction: Why the Champagne area? ............................................................................................................128 8.2 The Champagne area now and then.....................................................................................................................130

iii

8.2.1 Historical settlement and funerary practices. ..............................................................................................131 8.2.2 Settlement and cemetery evidence from the Middle Iron Age to the beginning of the Late Iron Age. ......132 8.2.3 The Late Iron Age: Settlement, tribes and funerary practices.....................................................................133 8.2.4 The relationship between settlement and burial contexts............................................................................135 8.3 The “amphora burials” of Champagne. ...............................................................................................................136 8.4 Chapter conclusions and discussions...................................................................................................................148 8.5 Summary. .......................................................................................................................................................159 CHAPTER 9: PITS CONTAINING AMPHORAE 9.1 Introduction: The justification for investigating pits. ..........................................................................................171 9.1.1 Problems of approach. ................................................................................................................................171 9.2 The ritual characteristics of pits...........................................................................................................................171 9.2.1 Dimension, construction and internal arrangement. ...................................................................................171 9.2.2 Pit contents..................................................................................................................................................173 9.3 Funerary practices................................................................................................................................................174 9.4 Amphorae and symposium wares. .......................................................................................................................175 9.4.1 Bronze vessels.............................................................................................................................................176 9.5 The evidence of ritual, funerary practices and amphora symbolism. ..................................................................176 9.5.1 Ritual. .......................................................................................................................................................176 9.5.2 Funerary practices.......................................................................................................................................177 9.5.3 Amphora symbolism. ..................................................................................................................................177 9.5.4 A comment on social structure from the evidence of pits...........................................................................178 9.6 Summary. 178 PART III DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER 10: THE FINAL FEAST 10.1 Introduction: Textual and archaeological concerns. ..........................................................................................191 10.2 Identifying Late Iron Age feasting practices: Greek, Roman and Gallic feasting. ............................................191 10.3 Changes in Late Iron Age Gallic feasting..........................................................................................................192 10.4 Élite society. ......................................................................................................................................................193 10.5 The Champagne cemeteries. ..............................................................................................................................194 10.6 Amphorae and ritual. .........................................................................................................................................194 10.7 The duality of late Iron Age feasting and burial ritual. .....................................................................................201 10.8 Society. .......................................................................................................................................................201 10.9 Tradition. .......................................................................................................................................................202 10.10 Regionalised responses....................................................................................................................................207 10.11 The way forward..............................................................................................................................................208 APPENDIX Glossary

.......................................................................................................................................................209

BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................................................210

iv

List of Figures Fig. 2.1 Feasting areas; andrones. ...............................................................................................................................11 Fig. 2.2 Reclining on couches: Athenian relief. ..........................................................................................................11 Fig. 2.3 Reclining symposiasts pictured inside the Bomford cup................................................................................12 Fig. 3.1 Tomb of the Diver, Poseidonia. .....................................................................................................................24 Fig. 3.2 A banquet scene from the Tomb of the Painted Vases, Corneto....................................................................26 Fig. 3.3 A painting from the Tomb of the Painted Vases, Corneto. ...........................................................................27 Fig. 3.4 The layout of the Roman triclinium ..............................................................................................................29 Fig. 4.1 A romantic view of Gallic feasting. ...............................................................................................................42 Fig. 5.1 The sanctuary at Corent..................................................................................................................................50 Fig. 5.2 A ditched enclosure at Écury-le-Repos showing post settings.......................................................................51 Fig. 5.3 The distribution of firedogs in Europe. ..........................................................................................................52 Fig. 5.4 A comparison of animal offerings from Lamadaleine, and the oppidum of Titelburg ..................................55 Fig. 5.5 Meat selection. ...............................................................................................................................................55 Fig. 5.6 The distribution of bucket finds. ....................................................................................................................57 Fig. 5.7 The distribution of strainers. ..........................................................................................................................57 Fig. 5.8 Distribution of Aylesford pans ......................................................................................................................58 Fig. 5.9 Dippers used in the Greek symposium...........................................................................................................58 Fig. 6.1 Tribal map of Gaul. ........................................................................................................................................63 Fig. 6.2 The monument to Vercingetorix on the site of Alesia....................................................................................64 Fig. 6.3 Map of Late Iron Age oppida ..........................................................................................................................................65 Fig. 7.1 Parts of an amphora........................................................................................................................................73 Fig. 7.2 Dressel 1 wine amphorae. ..............................................................................................................................75 Fig. 7.3 Amphora typology in the Late Iron Age burials of Gaul and Britain.............................................................76 Fig. 7.4 Dressel 1 Distribution in Late Iron Age Gaul. ...............................................................................................77 Fig. 7.5 A reconstruction of the funerary chamber at Clemency.................................................................................79 Fig. 7.6 Complete amphorae types placed in Late Iron Age burials............................................................................79 Fig. 7.7 Burial rites in amphorae associated burials. ...................................................................................................84 Fig. 7.8 The amphorae typologies in Late Iron Age burials containing sherds. ..........................................................85 Fig. 7.9 The presence of amphorae fragments in the different archaeological features of Clemency (after Metzler et al. 1993: 78)................................................................................................................................................88 Fig. 7.10 The incidence of ‘fresh’ animal bones in (complete and sherd) amphorae burials. .....................................89 Fig. 7.11 The incidence of burnt animal bones in (complete and sherd) amphorae burials. .......................................89 Fig.7.12 A suggested incidence of pottery forms and functions in burials containing complete amphorae. ..............90 Fig. 7.13 A suggested incidence of pottery forms and functions in burials containing amphora sherds.....................90 Fig. 7.14 Amphora typology in burials associated with large vessel pieces................................................................91 Fig. 7.15 Map showing the amphora related burial sites of Gaul and Britain. ............................................................92 Fig. 8.1 The departments of modern Champagne......................................................................................................129 Fig. 8.2 Variations in terminology for Iron Age chronology in the Champagne region. ..........................................129 Fig. 8.3 Physical regions of Champagne. ..................................................................................................................130 Fig. 8.4 Sites of the Middle and Late Iron Age in Champagne. ................................................................................131 Fig. 8.5 Tribes of Champagne. ..................................................................................................................................133 Fig. 8.6 Amphorae finds in settlement areas. ............................................................................................................135 Fig. 8.7 Middle and Late Iron Age cemeteries and amphora associations. ...............................................................135 Fig. 8.8 Burials containing amphorae in the Champagne region...............................................................................136 Fig. 8.9 The cemetery “La Noue Mauroy”, Acy-Romance, showing the position of amphora Tomb 7 ..................137 Fig. 8.10 The contents of Tomb 10, “La Noue Mauroy”, Acy-Romance..................................................................137 Fig. 8.11 Bezannes ....................................................................................................................................................138 Fig. 8.12 Buoy, “Chemin de Vadenay”. ....................................................................................................................139 Fig. 8.13 Bouy, “Le Guillardet”. ...............................................................................................................................139 Fig. 8.14 Écury-le-Repos...........................................................................................................................................140 Fig. 8.15 Fère-Champenoise, “Faubourg de Connantre” ..........................................................................................141 Fig. 8.16 Hallignicourt, “Les Hauts de Croche”........................................................................................................142 Fig. 8.17 Hauviné, “Feneux” .....................................................................................................................................143 Fig. 8.18 Hauviné, “Le Terme-Badaud” ...................................................................................................................143 Fig. 8.19 Montepreux ................................................................................................................................................144 Fig. 8.20 Normée .......................................................................................................................................................145

v

Fig. 8.21 Pottery, amphorae, nails and coins in the Late Iron Age cemetery of Normée. .........................................145 Fig. 8.22 St. Germainmont ........................................................................................................................................146 Fig. 8.23 Sommesous.................................................................................................................................................147 Fig. 8.24 Vieux-les-Asfeld. .......................................................................................................................................147 Fig. 8.25 Known positions of amphorae depositions in enclosured cemeteries of Champagne................................150 Fig. 8.26 A comparison of the enclosure at Arnac -la-Poste and classical Greek banqueting rooms........................151 Fig. 8.27 Pieces resulting from the accidental breakage of a modern ‘amphora’......................................................152 Fig. 8.28 The ‘amphora’ base is still serviceable as a plant holder. ..........................................................................152 Fig. 8.29 The regional divisions of Gaul as recognized by Caesar. ..........................................................................154 Fig. 8.30 Some important Gallic tribes and the association of regional amphora burials. ........................................155 Fig. 8.31 The occurrence of complete and sherd amphora burials in the sites of the Late Iron Age. .......................156 Fig. 8.32 Generalised characteristic areas of the Champagne region ........................................................................160 Fig. 9.1 Pit 10, Saint-Roch, Toulouse .......................................................................................................................172 Fig. 9.2 Pit 9, Esterac, Toulouse ...............................................................................................................................173 Fig. 9.3 Pit XI, Vieille-Toulouse ..............................................................................................................................173 Fig. 9.4 Six bronze situlae, from pit XXIII, Vieille-Toulouse...................................................................................176 Fig. 9.5 Map of the amphora-associated Late Iron Age pits of Gaul; and Britain.....................................................179 Fig. 10.1 Funerary Pits 25 and 28, Vieille-Toulouse, showing the deposition of ‘decollared’ amphorae ...............195 Fig. 10.2a Amphora deposition: complete amphorae. ...............................................................................................198 Fig. 10.2b Amphora deposition: Large pieces or modified amphorae. ....................................................................199 Fig. 10.2c Amphora deposition: sherds of amphorae. ...............................................................................................200

List of Tables Table 2.1 References to food and feasting in The Iliad. ..............................................................................................14 Table 2.2 References to drinking and wine in The Iliad..............................................................................................19 Table 2.3 References to feasting utensils and furnishings in The Iliad. ......................................................................22 Table 3. The portrayal of feasting and wine-drinking in Etrurian graves....................................................................32 Table 4. The references to feasting in Celtic/ Irish mythic tales..................................................................................44 Table 7.1 An inventory of wine-related burial sites of Gaul and Britain. ...................................................................95 Table 7.2 Amphora chronology in the Late Iron Age burials of Gaul and Britain....................................................123 Table 8.1 Seriation Table from the cemetery of Normée. .........................................................................................162 Table 8.2 Champagne cemeteries. .............................................................................................................................165 Table 9.1 Amphora-associated Iron Age pits of Gaul and Britain. ...........................................................................180 Table 10.1 A tentative reconstruction of the ritual stages in amphorae deposition. ..................................................197 Table 10.2 (Table 7.2 reprise) Amphora chronology in the Late Iron Age burials of Gaul and Britain: reprise comparing circulation periods and deposition dates.................................................................................203

vi

PART 1 THE BACKGROUND TO IRON AGE FEASTING IN NORTH-WESTERN EUROPE

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

CHAPTER 1

The Reasons, Importance, Aims and Methodology of the Research (2002) and Loughton (2003). Poux has studied the prolific finds from Gallic Iron Age sanctuary sites of Corent and Braine and has proposed a number of ritual deposition scenarios, including feasting and ritual sacrifice.

1.1 Introduction: The importance of the research: The inspiration for the study In the second year of undergraduate study I had the opportunity to travel to France and visit the museums of the Mediterranean coast. Many of the rooms of St. Raphael, Fréjus and Marseilles were devoted to displays of amphorae. This was the first time I had encountered the vessels in large numbers and I soon became obsessed by the form. In the first instance I merely assumed that the amphorae finds were the evidence of a sea-borne trade between Italy and Gaul. After the French visit rather than abating, the passion to know more about the ostentatious, yet crude vessels increased, eventually resulting in this amphorae-inspired study.

The multiplicity of Gallic find spots includes wrecks off the Mediterranean coast (Parker 1992), the fields and countryside around Toulouse, and river sites such as the Saõne (Tchernia 1986). Tchernia’s enumeration of amphora bodies and sherds is impressive and furnishes accurate data. However, the study does not begin to explain how simple, mass-produced transport vessels underwent a metamorphosis and became status offerings, gracing the most prestigious funerary chambers of Late Iron Age Gaul and Britain, eclipsing weapons, decorative pots, miscellaneous jewels, coins and bronze vessels.

Previous amphorae studies

Intrigued by this mundane, ubiquitous vessel which apparently articulate response in settlement and élite Gallic burial contexts, I began to collect data from amphora related burials with the intention of drawing parallels between Roman lifestyles and changing funerary practices in Gaul. This is a very banal summary of my original study aims, and my instincts led me, like Matthieu Poux, to assume that funerary feasting rituals were a prime motivation for amphora deposition in burial contexts. The modes of classical Greek and Roman feasting and contrasting Gallic feasting are described in Part I in order that the later data collection could be related to these patterns. In the event these feasting patterns bore no relevance to the cemetery behaviour observed in Part II.

The catalogue of amphora literature is large, and different authors have commented on provenance, and production, chronology and Iron Age economies. André Tchernia, whose masterful volume in French traced the beginnings of the amphora trade in Gaul, remained matter-of-fact in approach when detailing amphorae volumes, provenance and destination (1986). Paul Tyers’ Internet site includes distribution maps and chronological tables for each amphora form imported into Britain since the Late Iron Age so that it is possible to trace typological and chronological journeys from kiln to market (1996). Paul Sealey has considered at great length the rise and fall of import levels into Britain using data from Sheepen, Colchester to estimate how amphorae quantities dropped in the years between 50 and 0 BC (1985). More recently Gwilt and Haselgrove have called for a shift away from approaches whereby materials are categorised, pointing out that such studies provide little interpretative evidence and miss significant cultural relevance attached to artefacts (1997:4).

As the data collection grew, it became apparent that not all of the burial contexts that contained amphorae qualified as élite burials. Some contained sherds rather than complete amphorae, together with potsherds and fragmentary goods. I believed that the study of the sherd depositions would be potentially rewarding, although usually dismissed as being of little worth. In his exploration of pre-Roman burial rites in Northwest Europe, Collis states that “graves at Wederath and St. Albans have only produced sherds of amphora”, and consequently dismisses them from study (1977: 5).

Andrew Fitzpatrick had pre-empted this approach, with a reasoned study of amphora sited of Northern France and Great Britain (1985). This acclaimed piece presents a first gazetteer of British and Gallic find spots, but also notes the importance of vessels as chronological and social markers. Fitzpatrick not only mapped the occurrence of finds, but also emphasised the contexts in which these vessels were found, so that social implications could be made. This work proved to be a turning point and more recently amphora studies have attempted to link deposition finds to cultural interpretations. Perhaps the most innovative expositions have come from Poux (1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2002a, 2002b), Poux & Feugère

Convinced that sherd burials hinted at a localised tradition, details were added to the growing database of evidence. An unfortunate assumption that sherds possibly represented the remains of feasting clouded my earlier interpretative attempt. However, a heartening read of Richard Bradley’s 2nd edition of The Passage of Arms 3

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN confirmed that sometimes a fresh approach to a previously conceived piece of work, could cast new light on misconceptions (1998). His investigation into artefactual deposition relates to a complete spectrum of disposal, the traditions of death and the rites of passage. The artefacts of Bradley’s study were inanimate objects, crafted for a particular social function in the world of the living, but when deposited in funerary contexts assumed a relationship with the world of the dead as perceived by the living.

grave goods varied in style, quantity, quality and treatment. A most difficult question to answer has to be, ‘Why place any item in a grave’? Sarah Tarlow notes that often grave goods have been employed by archaeologists in order to found theories of ancient economies and trade relationships , or social structures (1999: 12). She then goes on to remind that the “critical question of how the action of depositing a dead individual, with or without particular grave goods was understood by those involved is not even asked”.

This study therefore aims to understand this relationship through interrogation of the reasons for the selection of amphorae and their treatment in the light of mortuary practice. Gwilt and Haselgrove state that artefacts have “ideological and symbolic meanings which allow them to be manipulated in social strategies” (1997: 2), and while amphorae are still the key to this study, it is recognised that the significance of the vessels must be relative to cultural and social contexts. The focus of the study has therefore changed from being a study of amphora in burials to a study of funerary behaviour and attitudes in which amphorae are incidental.

Fitzpatrick has suggested that “grave goods speak for the dead (2000:15), but if they do, the script is provided by the living. Funerary goods imply some understanding of death, and a deliberate reaction from the mourners. There are several explanations that may be relevant. The inclusion of goods that are functional, (amphorae, pots, swords), hint at a belief in an afterlife. But death is final, there is no return. Often we are told, “You can’t take it with you when you go!”, and yet in some status burials it appeared that supplies of food and wine in amphorae were amassed for a journey to the afterlife. Mourners may have wished to see the deceased as remembered in life, dressed in best clothing and jewels as at Fléré-laRivière (Ferdière & Villard 1993). Warriors would retain their weapons. Such items were regarded as equipment for the deceased’s journey to the afterlife and were worn during the cremation (Roymans 1990:219). The tombs of Clemency (Metzler et al. 1991) and Fléré-la-Rivière were set out as feasting rooms with supplies of wine and meat, reflecting worldly possessions and status. Status and display were important factors in the ways some individuals wished to be perceived (Hill 1997:100). The symbolic attestation of élite status earned during life was awarded to the deceased by the living community. The actions of those who created the burial chamber and performed the funerary rites may have been performed out of reverence, grief or obligation. Emotions and behaviour may have been influenced by family bonds or a debt of honour to a war hero. Today mourners may find solace in the laying of flowers, erecting a headstone or displaying a favourite photograph. These actions produce a channel of remembrance, a modern day version of the ancestor cult. The Late Iron Age peoples left no inscribed memorial stones so we cannot tell what social ties were broken by the departure of the deceased or the funerary behaviour which ensued as a consequence.

1.2 The state of research in burial archaeology Burial studies in Britain have included those by Reece (1977) and Whimster (1981), who classified Iron Age burials according to geographical areas and assemblage characteristics. This was useful in flagging up regional practices. Gallic region are more numerous than those of Britain, and as a result local traditions have been afforded little in-depth treatment in the compilation of texts edited by Ferdière which attempts to trace a chronology of changing funerary practices throughout France (2000). In common with amphora studies, descriptive volumes of burial practices have been succeeded by anthropologically styled studies, which delve into the issues relating to mortuary practices and attitudes to death (Chapman, Kinnes & Randsborg 1981, Parker Pearson 1999, Tarlow, 1999). These volumes do not attempt to provide solutions except by provoking thought. Questions need to be asked, but the correct answers are less important than the appropriate questions. 1.3 Questions of dispersal Burial evidence is regarded as the primary route to understanding Iron Age peoples (Haselgrove et al. 20001: 12), although we are sure that interment was a selective process, and therefore representative of only a proportion of the population (Chossenot 1997: 288). The disposal of human remains with or without accompanying goods was performed in numerous ways. Status burials containing prestige goods were placed in isolated locations contrasting with simple cremation pits with no ritual offerings interred in a cemetery ditch. The spectrum of ritual variation was vast. Even at local level

The process by which acceptance of death’s finality was achieved involved mortuary rituals which might have included display and visible commemoration, but did not necessarily take the form of celebration and glorification. The process of accepting the finality of death often appeared to be expressed and emphasised through acts of destruction of the body and goods and the placement of remains.

4

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE In the Champagne region cemeteries were often distanced from settlement sites. Apart from establishing clear zones for the living and the dead this might imply a sense of fear of the dead.

A first concern was to collect data. Many of the sites where amphora related burials were found became the subjects of rescue archaeology, the context therefore destroyed. Reports and documentation detailing these excavations varied in quality. Some journals and reports dated from the early 20th century and included little interpretative evidence.

Sherds of pots and amphorae in grave deposits have frequently been categorised as having minimal value in burial archaeology, as noted by Pearce (1997:175). In many cases amphorae were represented by very small sherds and only some of the pieces selected for deposition. The breaking of some vessels possibly occurred at the funeral pyre, and Chossenot suggests that this was a symbolic act, marking the end of life on earth (1997: 188). As only some of the pieces were present the amphora could not be reconstructed. A similar selection was made of human bones. There was clear intention that resurrection was not possible.

A recent study by Emma Carver included an up-to-date table of amphora finds in Britain (2001). In the current study the corpus of evidence provides a similar table of amphora related burials from Britain, Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg. Table 8 is arranged in such a way that it is possible to identify burial location, the date when an amphora was assumed to have been deposited, its typology and a possible amphora circulation date. Other columns specify the mode of burial, the age and sex of the deceased if known, a comment on accompanying artefacts and details of animal material in offering form. I noticed during the collection of data that many amphorae in burials of the Champagne were in sherd form, and one column of the table identifies the state of amphorae at the time of deposition if known.

In the Champagne region of France it is easy to recognise boundaries marking the realms of the dead. Enclosure cemeteries from the final Iron Age are surrounded by ditches containing cremation burials. Speculation on the symbolic nature of boundaries has increased and become a focus of interest in recent studies (Gwilt & Haselgrove 1997: 3). The enclosure cemeteries of the Late Iron Age were often marked out with ditches that clearly defined the border between the living and the dead. Carr & Knüsel believe that the placement of ritual deposits in ditches and enclosure boundaries reduced the harmful effects associated with the rites of passage (1997: 168-9). It is interesting that many of the Late Iron Age burials associated with amphorae were placed in enclosure ditches and it is possible that non-funerary incidents of ritual activity occurring in cemeteries might also be recognised. The frequency of amphora sherds in ritual contexts is a convincing testament to their importance, “Mere identification of ritual is insufficient without attempt to explain it” (Haselgrove et al. 2001: 18), we are reminded, and this is where a reflective approach is important.

The frequently occurring sherd depositions led to the assumption that this was a factor that should be investigated. The sherds seem to point to localised ritual preferences and with the intention of highlighting regional differences maps have been produce that provide a focus for relevant questions. 1.5 The organisation of chapters The study is divided into three parts. The first section explores the development of feasting rituals in Iron Age Europe using the evidence of mythic literature, classical texts and iconography. Chapters 2 and 3 identify, describe, differentiate and analyse the feasting customs of Greek and Roman societies in order to lay a foundation for a comparative interpretation of Celtic or Gallic feasting ritual in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 is not merely concerned with classical observation of authors such as Tacitus and Strabo who describe the Gauls through Roman eyes, but introduces the corroboration of later Irish mythic in which ‘Celtic’ feasting plays a part.

1.4 Methodology The material remains of mortuary ritual provide the vital information for this research. The research has been mainly desk based apart from two trips to France to converse with Michel Chossenot. The visits to France incorporated visits to the Museums of Chalons-surChampagne and more importantly to Reims where the exhibits from the Prunay II cemetery were on display. Here Madame A. Melkon helped to search the archives for amphorae from the Prunay cemetery, but sadly these were missing. This reinforced concerns that these pieces of pottery which had deserved mention in an aged report were less valued than crumbling iron fibulae or reconstitutable pots and were now lost, mislaid or thrown out.

In Chapter 5 the textual sources are supported by the artefactual evidence of feasting vessels, furnishings and accommodation which were particular to feasting. Throughout the last centuries BC changes in feasting ritual were apparent. Chapter 6 comments on the rise of powerful individuals and the social changes which may have culminated in a series of Gallic burials containing wine-related vessels. The focus of the study has changed since its inception and this is emphasised in Part II. Three chapters are concerned with the disposal of both human and nonhuman material. Chapter 7 lists 265 Late Iron Age burials 5

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN of Gallic Europe which contain amphorae, either in complete or sherd form. Though the initial recording of interments may have been included in a cemetery record, in this instance each burial is treated as a unique ceremony and is accorded an individual account. The amphora burials of the Champagne region are considered in full detail in Chapter 8. Amphora sherds figure in many of these burials, although amphorae are absent from other burials in the region. A series of maps guides the investigation into why these burials may be regarded as special and highlights changes occurring in funerary practices at the end of the Iron Age. A body of evidence presenting similar ideology to that of amphorae burials is that of ‘funerary’ pits, which contain artefactual deposits associated with wine. These are considered in Chapter 9. Part III, the concluding Chapter 10, provides an interpretation of the assembled evidence, and attempts to justify conclusions. ‘Ritual’ is an overworked explanation of the many funerary practices which impact upon social order. The performance of burial rites are the way by which mourners come to terms with loss and social adjustments, and this study is an exploration into the reasons for symbolic inclusions of amphorae in funerary contexts. A few sherds of amphora in an occasional burial might seem insignificant, but the recurring incidences of broken material in the Champagne burials suggest that unique local funerary practices may be identifiable.

6

CHAPTER 2

Early Greek Evidence for a Tradition of Feasting complexity of mythical structure veils a designed purpose in the realisation of social expectations. The considerable effort put into myth analyses by such eminent theorists as Levi-Strauss and Vernant has resulted in clarifying the properties of intentional subliminal meanings, even when historical accuracy is unlikely. Social communication might already exist in terms of kinship, economy and language, but myth provides a channel of communication on a “different level of mental activity” (Douglas 1967: 49).

2.1 Introduction: The evidence sources It is appropriate to first consider the ritual of the feast as performed by the ancient Greeks, for it seems that in Iron Age Europe, the Greek procedure of feasting was destined to be copied and modified by both contemporary and later societies. Much of the Greek evidence contained in this account relies on myths originating in the Bronze Age. The mythic evidence is heavily reliant on the Homeric portrayal of events in the Iliad and Odyssey. Much has been written on these works which are possibly the work of more than one author, and presumed to date c. 750-700 BC. Although these are compilations and transcriptions, the accounts present a visual picture of contemporary Greek lifestyle.

The Homeric tales consistently provide early references to feasting which will be used in this study. Although it is admitted that any likelihood of realism pertaining to mythic accounts relies on additional substantiation through pottery, architecture, and factual classical accounts, though mythic accounts provide a first framework within which to explore the feasting rituals of contemporary and later Iron Age cultures.

J. Griffin notes that, “Nobody who writes on Homer has read everything that has been written about the poems” (1980: xiii). Literary style, historical accuracy, military progress and expression of social values have all been the subject of analyses. In the present instance, passages which describe feasting are used to ascertain the impact of ritual on a living community. Also of interest are the celebrations of death expressed in communal feasting, and how these are expressive of social structure.

In modern day terms we might draw parallels between television and radio soap operas in ascertaining a mythic role. We become familiar with soap characters and their family background. We accept unrealistically dramatised situations because they are played out against a background of everyday routine. The family meal table and the public house are particularly important in providing a setting for discussing and resolving problems as food and drink are consumed.

Homer’s writings alluded to recognised feasting practices of the 7th century BC, and from the 6th century BC, pictorial representations on vases reinforced the importance of the Greek symposium. In time, the importance of the feast in social routine necessitated the building of rooms, designed to facilitate banqueting. Accordingly, this chapter will explore mythic heroic accounts, the related imagery of the vases and then the less fanciful medium of architectural evidence, before proposing the role model which was to underpin the ritual of feasting in later Italic and Gallic societies.

Almost three thousand years of storytelling separate Greek myths from television soaps. Similar to their present day analogies, the Greek myths successfully placed heroic warriors or gods within a familiar and realistic framework in order to raise ethical issues before the audience of the day. The actions of Odysseus, the Argonauts, and the pantheon of revered gods provided a comparative scenario to be used in resolving problems.

2. 2 Homeric myths The issue here is to elucidate the realism of feasting as it occurred in the more dubious fiction of myth. As this ritual was a prime component in the definition of social attitudes, behaviour and hierarchical structure, it was a mechanism used in Homeric literature to represent a background of normality against which ethical problems may be presented. Myths originated in a landscape of choice, and the story-like quality of myth provided a conveyance of explanation, which allowed decisions to be reached and justified. It is important to recognise the day-to-day picture of society in order to decide how feasting altered routine and behaviour.

Taken at face value, myths appear to be designed to appeal to audiences as fiction, but there is an underlying function of moral problem solving and etiquette defining. Through myth relation, a social model of correct ethical behaviour was instilled. The mechanism of myth has been investigated by noted leaders in the field of myth analysis. “Myth is but a particular form of communication”, says Burridge (1967:98), and in a similar vein, Vernant describes myth as a “framework of reference”, affecting religious, social and spiritual life (1974:204). The structuralist Levi-Strauss presented the theory of underlying contradictions which are resolved through the medium of myth. Although analytical processes might vary, ultimately theorists agree that the

Homer observed the differences between the land workers and members of the warrior class, thus 7

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN recognising a ranked, structured society. The warrior élite comprised land owners, whose wealth was not only assessed by numbers of animal stock and fertile fields, but by the quantities of stored agricultural surpluses, such as the wine stored in Odysseus’ strong room along with gold, bronze, clothing and oil (Dalby 1994:69, Rieu 1980:42). These surpluses could be displayed and consumed in feasts.

inhibitions. Wedding feasts involved a large number of participants; “all of you were present” [1:31]), and musical entertainment accompanied the ritual; “you too came, with your harp” [1:31], “chorales and dances” [1:23]. Harvest, a celebration of agricultural surplus, required “attendants to work at a harvest banquet, killing an ox” [2: 24]. By contrast the funeral feast was an occasion for displays of grief and lamentation. Even though the grief was tangible, the feasting ritual was symbolic of the maintenance of order, and specified precise roles for the mourning community. The funeral of Patroclus required a feast to measure up to the grief of Achilles. Odysseus asked “How can a fasting belly mourn our dead? Those whom the foul war has left unhurt will do well to remember with food and drink.” [2:25] But it was the prerogative of Achilles to order the feast, albeit after lamentation. He explains that the honour of a feast and funeral afforded to a dead warrior of high station should follow the “relief gained in lamentation” [2: 27]. It was implicit that each follower understood the requirement to prepare a feast [2:28]. The soldiers sat down to feast in their hundreds, before the criers set the cauldron on the fire and men brought in the firewood for a funeral pyre. The feast and the funeral were inextricably linked as part of the ceremony of mourning, and each participant had a defined role, subject to a position in the warrior society.

Feasting was a convenient device for: • Celebrating or marking changes within a group, thereby promoting the strengthening of relationships and underlining hierarchical positions (weddings, funerals, etc.). • Advertising economic stability, and using potlatch gifts to earn respect and favours from members of other tribal groups. • Recruiting men for raiding or warfare. • Demonstrating hospitality, by which knowledge of strangers could be gained and also earned the entitlement of reciprocal hospitality together with the chance of earning gifts. References to feasting and drinking appear throughout The Iliad, and these have been classified in Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 which appear at the end of this chapter. (The bracketed figures in the following text relate to these tables).

The feasting company- who could attend?

2. 2.1 The descriptions of feasting in Homeric myths

The eligibility to attend feasts was an important social marker, and Deitler (1995: 64-71) notes that just as important was exclusion from the feast. Extract [2:7] uses the phrase “bidden to dine” pointing out that the company was contrived, not haphazardly brought together. Often elders or young men [2: 2] were specified and military titles such as ‘commander’, [2: 4], or ‘captains’ [2: 4 designated members of the warrior elite. In these passages it was possible to identify social divisions and order based on rank and age. Hence “the old man burnt prepared flesh on faggots, while the young men stood around” [2:3] suggested that different tasks were allocated to society elders. The order, “Agamemnon, provide a meal for older men, your counsellors” [2:14], recognised the respect afforded to the older generation which the young men, though permitted at the feast, had not yet earned. Agamemnon as high commander his status designated in his title also possessed the wherewithal to entertain as daily shipments of Thracian wine filled his huts, a fact well known to those in his command.

The motivation and occasion for feasting Feasting was part of habitual background; a regular part of the whole fabric of pastoral society and an end product of the pastoral productivity. Its timely occurrence frequently signalled the end of a day, just as “dawn’s rosy fingers” was the phrase which signified the opening of a daily chapter of events. The frequent references to feasting suggest that ceremonial eating and communal drinking were regular occurrences, inspiring no surprise; the importance of the actions lay in their predictability. As night approached, thoughts turned towards communal gatherings. Hector issued the order to “bow to the black night and make an evening feast” [2.1.13], and the preferred time of evening was confirmed by other references [2: 5, 2: 8, 2: 11, 2: 20, 2: 1]7. Indeed the normality of evening feasting at a prescribed time, even allowed the success of military tactical planning, as advances could be made on an unsuspecting, otherwise preoccupied enemy. “At this hour take your evening meal as everywhere in the city” [2. 1. 10].

Attendants, criers, and retainers, [2: 2] were permitted to be at the feast but in a serving role. Present at the preparation stage were the criers and noble retainers who “brought votive sheep or rinse the hands of the commander” [2:4], but were denied access to the routine order of the feast proper.

For the wider community there were special occasions which invited fuller social participation. Weddings and harvests were joyful occasions, giving opportunity for observance of etiquette, but moderating the strictest behaviour codes and involving some dropping of 8

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Oswyn Murray (1990:6) identifies three important elements of Greek symposia, the first of these being that men were the partakers of the symposium feast. This is borne out by the role of women as presented in The Iliad. In no example was a woman identified as joining the feast as a participant. Wives made supper for the hands [1:24]. A girl (not a servant, but a prize captured during a plundering raid), arranged an enamelled- legged table, a bronze bowl and a large cup, (the famous Nestor Cup), in Nestor’s hut [2:22]. The actions of the girl were noted here in relation to feasting, but in the construction of myth, Griffin sees this character as embodying a dilemma, where women in general represented an attractive, easy way of life in opposition to the more difficult heroic lifestyle (1980:6). The girl attended the men at the feast, not as an equal participant.

entitlement of the gods to this share, a precedent set by the actions of Prometheus who tricked the gods into accepting a parcel of bones, while man retained the fleshier portion (Graves 1955:144, Field 1977:41). Misfortune in battle caused self doubt and questioning amongst the Homeric heroes. It was debated as to whether this could be due to incorrect procedure in offering thigh bones to the gods [1:30] or the way in which wine was poured [2:32]. An allocation of cuts of meat was made according to rank; “Lord Agamemnon gave Aias the long marrowy cuts of chine [2:9]. Following this, “loaves of bread were passed around in baskets” [2:16]. After the eating, drinking was a separate ritual. Murray (1990:6) cites this recognition of two different activities as his second element in early Greek feasting, (he also comments on the importance of reclining and that of diluting wine). Wine is occasionally mentioned as a traded commodity, together with iron, hides, oxen and slaves [2:17], but such reference is rarer than the examples which describe wine drunk in ritual acts of feasting or libation.

The seating arrangements Griffin draws attention to the symbolism which pervaded Homeric account, recognising that food was symbolic of honour (1980:15), and that eating together was a token of this. The entitlement to attend feasts depended on status or fighting prowess and in turn this affected “precedence at table” [2:22]. A preferential seat was a mark of status; “O Diomedes, once Achaeans gave you the place of honour”. This declaration of esteem was compounded by a bestowal of “choice cuts of meat and full cups of wine” [2:12]. Honour was thereby shown in rewards of favourable feasting position, but by the same token despise was evidenced by withdrawal of favours. Food was served from left to right [2:3], ands this observance was evident at later symposia, as Davidson notes that wine, song and conversation passed round the andron anticlockwise (1998:44). Feasts in The Iliad often took place in a “great hall” [2:9], as did Hector’s funeral feast in Priam’s hall [2:35], and the Cadmeians who “throng a great feast in the manor of Eteocles” [2:10].

Serving the wine How wine was to be served was an important issue, and one that is going to be a recurrent theme in this study. Murray comments on the importance of serving of wine in diluted form (1990:6). Davidson also insists that adding water to wine was indeed a custom that singled out the Greeks from other wine-drinking cultures (1998:46). If this was indeed a recognisably Greek peculiarity it would be advantageous to identify this in Greek literature as peculiar to Greek feasting in order to compare later cultures. However, Homer is not specific on this point. One request to “use more wine for a stronger drink” [1:16] might suggest the addition of water, but this is a lone reference. A girl in Nestor’s hut brings an onion “to give relish to the wine” and after “mixing the wine, grated a goat’s cheese over the wine upon a bronze grater and sifted in white barley meal [2:22]. The girl, Hecamede later warms water in a cauldron, but this is not part of the wine ceremony, but for bathing the wounds of an injured hero [2:23] Cooking implements, goat skins of wine [2:4], and wine serving vessels fall well within the expected range of procedural evidence, but of particular interest are the accounts and associated vessels involved in the conventions of hand washing, (which preceded feasting [3:14]), as had sea bathing or “warm baths in hot tubs” [3:21]. “The old king (Priam), motioned to his housekeeper who stood nearby with a basin and a jug, to pour clear water on his hands. He washed them, then took the cup his lady held” [3:27]. Items such as cauldrons, ladles, wine bowls, platters, carving blocks and spits [1:16] appeared to be necessary to feasting, but lacked the significance attached to cups, which were often specified as being made of gold. Nestor’s cup was an excellent example of a status cup

Performing the rituals of the feast The feasting rituals followed a definite order. The scattering of grains of barley [2:3] and [2:6], sacrifice to the gods, ritual offerings and libations were familiar routines. Emphasis was placed on descriptions of preparing and cooking of meat, which Griffin insists conveyed little truth in “actual practice of life” (1980:19). “The tripes were spitted to be broiled, the kidneys were tasted and the joints roasted [1: 6], or spitted over the hearth, seasoned with salt [1:16]. The cooking of meat was a declaration of man’s exulted position over the rest of the animal kingdom. However, the act of killing and cooking other animal species had connotations of guilt, and was only marginally distanced from the abhorrence of cannibalism. Raw meat was not to be morally tolerated (Griffin 1980:19-21). Homage was then paid to the gods [2:13] as “Peleus burned thigh bones to Zeus” [1:21], a reference to the 9

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN and the Dove Cup found at Mycenae has been compared with the golden vessel (Luce 1975:116).

present aspect of the warrior her society. Exhibiting prowess at wrestling [2:10], and combative and athletic games after a funeral could earn prizes [1:19}, which in turn gave recognition, increased hierarchical status, while displaying commitment and respect to the community.

“The young men filled their wine bowls to the brim, ladling drops for the god in each cup” There was no passing around of a communal cup as the order “Place a cup for each” [1:16] indicates. Achilles travelled with his own “hammered” silver cup in his sea-chest [2:24]. Griffin understands the symbolic appearance of ‘special’ cups as a means of punctuating narrative at meaningful points (1980:17). The cup described and used by Achilles, was only relevant at that moment in time, and was used to heighten tension, arresting the action at a turning point in the story.

The Homeric feasts involved homage and sacrifice to the gods; hospitality was expected, and facilitated gift exchange. Expectations of pleasure were not the prime reason for feasting, but rather the maintenance of warrior order. Sacrificial practices were a product of natural landscape and a naive community, and were heavily imbued with symbolism justified by the relief from guilt. 2. 3 The Greek symposium

Hospitality From the 7th century BC onwards, the men-only symposium retained a convention of order, but increasingly allowed enjoyment of drinking, feasting and entertainment to colour the proceedings. Davidson (1998: 43) describes the symposium as a near perfect example of “commensal drinking in which socialising is important”. He stresses the importance of speeches and conversations which emanated from the occasion, quoting Solon in Aesop as he describes the “Greek way of drinking and chattering pleasantly” (1998: 52).

Status items, such as silver cups might be won in competition but were frequently exchanged as prestige gifts. The tradition of hospitality required not only inviting guests to eat, but entitled the guest to a worthy gift, and travelling for the purpose of collecting such hospitality gifts was a recognised route to economic enrichment. “They gave each other tokens of amity- a loin guard sewn in purple and a gold two handled cup” [2:13]. Hospitality was a means of ensuring political advancement in the future, when gifts could invoke reciprocal favours (Griffin 1980:27).

The exclusively male symposium only admitted women in serving or dancing roles. Their part in proceedings was of little importance, and as Dalby notes, no playwright has ever credited a serving girl with speech (1967: 6-7). A scene of wine-pouring into bowls by serving girls is quoted by Campbell, who also chooses examples of symposium guests wearing celery garlands to describe the light-hearted spirit of the occasion (1983:37). The afterfeast game of kóttobos was described in the 6th century BC by Alcaueus, and Dalby comments that the Sicilian Greeks even devoted special rooms to this game.

Adventuring was a way of increasing personal wealth, but it was at home that manners were taught. Lord Phoenix, the master-charioteer was tempted with fine food and wine to stay at home [2:17]. The same lord also claimed to have instructed Achilles in the art and etiquette of the feast. An article in the Daily Mail following research at Oxford University claimed that “Traditional meals solve the problem with boys”, explaining that “sharing meals and conversations with parents gives them higher esteem” and trouble is less likely to ensue (Daily Mail 23.11.99).

2. 3. 1 The symposium and vase painting From circa 700 BC Greek pottery developed in response to symposium needs. Amphorae, mixing kraters, jugs and bowls were essentials of the symposium scene, but in a purely functional role; drinking cups however were passed around, used in games such as kóttobos, and even “used to cast dregs toward a fancied boy” (Osborne 1998: 99). Many were decorated with mythic scenes which held personal symbolism for the symposiasts. Some drinking cups showed a scene emerging as the liquid contents were consumed, such as a fish visible beneath the sea. As the cups were passed around and handled, they inspired a special relationship between vessel and drinkers, stressing the spirit of the proceedings and supported by pictorial imagery. Mythic scenes were popular, as was the portrayal of the symposium, and the latter representations alluded to the humour of the occasion, in keeping with pleasurable connotations of wine, poetry and games. Osborne believes that the subject material

Entertainment, competition and discussion After-meal events might involve musical entertainment, storytelling or discussion. One account detailed Odysseus’ after-dinner speech which concentrated on impending defeat and a discussion of tactics which might ameliorate the situation. Agamemnon recalled earlier feasting on “thick beef and bowls a-brim with wine [2:19], when the company had been eager to fight, the euphoria of which had since dissipated when the reality of the battlefield had been encountered. After the satisfaction of ritual eating and drinking, mediation between two parties cemented relationships. Less fraught occasions gave rise to “songs in praise of the gods” [2:2], or storytelling. Post feasting entertainment might spark off competition, an ever10

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig 2.1 Feasting areas; andrones are shaded and couch positions are indicated (after Dunbabin 1998:81).

was particularly applicable to male symposiasts, and that figural scenes denoted a community position in a male group (1998: 32). This was important in a society where ambitions of status were vital.The scenes provided an interesting commentary on the symposium, but gave little information on social order. 2. 2. 3 The symposium environment Feasting ideology was not a static concept, but changes occurred in conjunction with social changes. Two centuries after Homeric feasts, the golden cups had been replaced by painted vessels, and chairs by couches [3:9, 3:10]. In the 5th and 4th centuries BC Greek buildings were planned with feasting provision in the form of andrones, (rooms where built-in seating was provided). This was architectural reinforcement of the value of feasting and its importance in the societal infrastructure. Dunbabin (1998: 81-87) provides examples from Olythtus, Delos and Cyrene as she describes the square androne, with offset doorways. The walls were lined with a kline-band, enabling seven or more couches to face inwards. Each couch would allow a pair of guests to “meet on equal terms, united by common behaviour” (1989: 86). Positioning against the wall meant that all attention was focused centrally, and all took equal part on proceedings. These arrangements could be identified throughout the Hellenisitic period.

Fig. 2.2 Reclining on couches: Athenian relief (after Dentzer 1982: pl. 69).

Dentzer reviewed the images of reclining figures at the banquet tas portrayed on seals, symposium wares, reliefs and funerary architecture. The custom originated in the Near-East, but is a frequent motif in Greek sculpted reliefs from Athens, Attica and Corinth.

11

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Attitudes to wine and societal behaviour were linked. Underlying the protocol of the feast, were the dilemmas of conduct. The feast provided the means to resolve issues by a series of ritualistic acts. As social changes occurred, so did the nature of the feast. However, we can conclude from the elements of mythic literature, classical texts and archaeological observations, that certain properties signalled feasting in a Greek way.

2. 3 The cult of Dionysos Treasured pictorial vases which were deposited amongst other grave goods suggested elevated social position. The large numbers of pots which have been preserved show the importance of such valued items. The vases were linked with the good times of life, and were placed in funerary contexts to ensure access to feasting in the Otherworld.

1) Feasting accommodation : The Homeric banquet was described as taking place in a banqueting hall; a “great hall” (Iliad V 778-8), “Priam’s hall” (Iliad XXIV 741804), and the “manor of Eteocles” (Iliad IV 376-446). Such structures appeared in literary records, but by the 5th century BC, the andron, a room dedicated to feasting, could be archaeologically traced as it was apparent in building plans (see fig.2.1, Dunbabin 1998: 81). The benches, or klines which lined the walls facilitated a reclining posture to be adopted during feasting, and each banqueter was accorded spatial equality, there being no differentiation of level or visual focus. The attempt to achieve equality was a departure from the earlier Homeric banquets in which competition was keenly emphasised.

The cult of Dionysos became popular in the 6th century BC. Dionysos was frequently the theme of poetry written by Pindar and Simomides (Campbell 1983: 35). Dionysian scenes were also popular images on symposium wares. Many cups bearing wild, erotic scenes have been preserved, suggesting that these were valued items. Scenes of satyrs carrying wine skins introduced a sexual overtone, and invited the drinker to participate in the revelry (Osborne 1990: 96-7). The Dionysos Cult leant heavily on the premise that feasting and drinking might lead to pleasure (Bukert 1985: 222-5, 290). The god was fêted in festivals from the mid 7th century BC. The festival of the City of Dionysia was a public display of drinking, while the Anthesteria was a more private, but no less wine inspired festival. Both involved the public in festivities of eating and drinking, and were displays that commanded none of the finesse of the symposium, but gave opportunity for mass involvement.

2) Codes of behaviour- sitting or reclining? Honoured guests at Homeric feasts sat on chairs, their feet resting on footstools. Prince Achilles seated his guests on “easy chairs with purple coverlets” (Iliad IX 174-242). A specially fashioned chair, considered a worthy gift was described as “a noble eternal chair, fitted with a foot rest where you may place your feet while drinking wine” (Iliad 218-290), and a similarly intricate chair was owned by the goddess Thetis, who led her guests to “a silver studded chair, elaborately fashioned with a foot rest” (Iliad XVIII 326-402). Sitting on lavishly crafted chairs was linked with élite wine drinking.

2. 4 Discussion : correspondence with archaeological evidence The presentation of mythic evidence at the beginning of this chapter is accompanied by the reservations as to accuracy, but a clearer definition of early Greek feasting emerges from artefacts and architecture. Feasting was an integral part of mythic background, but real-life situations provided an arena for action, and served as tools for social empowerment and problem resolution. Murray maintains that the change from Homeric feast to the aristocratic symposium was one of the most significant changes in the Orientalising Period, 750 BC 650 BC, and that “feasting in Archaic Greece was an essential activity for a man of influence” (1978: 47). The grandeur of the symposium setting was employed to advertise status. The competitive nature of society was fostered by challenge, and feasting rooms, furniture and serving vessels were all part of the necessary equipment for emerging social élites, who used medium of the feast to advantage. In the Greek cities, the symposium provided unity in group drinking parties, where women were only present to provide music, or in a serving role. Hand-washing preceded the drinking rituals. Wine was not heated, but was mixed with water in specific proportion. Couches, on which symposiasts reclined on one elbow, were arranged to ensure equality.

Fig 2.3 Reclining symposiasts pictured inside the Bomford cup (after Osborne 1998: 135).

By the 5th century BC, the Greeks had adopted a reclining posture at drinking parties, a pose previously

12

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE employed by Near Eastern neighbours (Spivey 1997:15), and in Greece facilitated by the specific properties of the andron, a room with bench-lined walls. This change in behaviour is particularly noteworthy, and is suggestive of cultural contact. Not only did reclining invite architectural innovation, but also heralded the use of a couch as a piece of furniture signalling luxury (fig 2.2).

criterion to differentiate between the combination of drinking and eating at a banquet, and the emphasised drinking activities of the symposium (1990:287). As the developed drinking symposium embraced the pleasures of wine, ritual customs retreated into the traditions of a past ideal. Pleasurable experiences derived from the alcoholcharged atmosphere, combined with stimulating entertainment, (music, poetry, conversation), were not only allowed, but were represented on painted vases expressing an afterlife expectation. Justification for actions, and allaying of guilt which were incorporated in the earlier sacrificial routines were only superficially observed, as the emphasis shifted in a spirit of hedonistic enjoyment of wine. Routines of serving and drinking wine were more expressive of the right and value of fellowship extended to a wine-linked company in which equality was paramount.

3) Women at the feast The Greeks adopted a men-only principle which allowed women to participate only in a serving capacity. The Homeric tales suggested occasions when feasting was enjoyed by a fuller community. At weddings, [2.1.31], and harvest [2.1.24], rules may have been more relaxed. 4) Symposium procedures: Homeric feasting was preceded by rituals of sacrifice and symbolic hand washing, performed to appease and satisfy the gods. Agricultural practices resulted in wealth and status, and were also the basis for ritualistic routines. J.-P.Vernant (1974:182) observes the link between agriculture and sacrifice. Domestic animals are used in sacrificial ceremonies, but wild beasts are hunted. The correlation between domestic and wild also appears in plant form as wild plants are eaten raw but domestic plants are cooked. Here the raw and cooked categories relate to the interconnected guilt issues arising from killing and eating of animals, the sacrifice to the gods being the appeasement for guilt. (Levi-Strauss use the same labels for his work of 1963, The Raw and the Cooked, in which he identified contradictions with social import). The practice of sacrifice was preceded by barley scattering and wine pouring, this being followed by the ceremonial killing and burning of the ritually sacrificed animal. Using the fire stolen from the gods by Prometheus, men cook and eat their portion of meat. Hesiod’s account of Prometheus’ part in stealing fire and unfairly tricking the gods to accept a lesser portion of choice meat underlines the difference between man and the gods, and sacrifice to the gods rids the guilt of killing animals (Vernant 1974:169-204). Man is only entitled to eat the edible parts after roasting or boiling. The god’s share of meat is burnt upon an altar and the smoke rises to the gods. The smoke seems an insignificant portion of the feast compared with that of man, but Burkert explains that this imbalance is outweighed by the sense of community achieved by communal washing of hands, encirclement, strewing, and tasting (1985:58-9). Once the guilt was overcome man could enjoy eating, and pleasure then becomes an element of feasting. Burkert outlines the ritual processes of animal sacrifice, concluding that the members of a society so involved, whether boys, girls, men or women, each play a part according to social order (1985:58).

5) Wine at the symposium- serving and mixing : Sacrifice and libation were important preliminaries to Homeric feast. In Homeric tales we witnessed no dilution of the wine, only the addition of spices, or onion (Iliad XI 593-667). Literary evidence of Greek symposia tells of mixing and serving of wine which necessitated the installation of a recognised banquet host or toastmaster, whose place it was to maintain correct proportions in diluting the wine (Campbell 1983). Murray regards the dilution of wine as a crucial element of the Greek symposium. Having defined the five key elements of feasting accommodation, provision to recline, the role of women at the feast, symposium practices and wine serving, as criteria for comparison, we can look at Italy in the last seven centuries BC.

Murray noticed a growing distinctness between feasting and drinking activities, and accepted the divergence as a result of social change (1990:6). Eating was separated from the drinking festivities, and Rathje uses this 13

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Table 2. 1: References to Food and Feasting in The Iliad Analysis of the following selected passages is designed to give perspective to the social structure described in the Homeric tales (circa 700 BC), and comment is made on social organisation as illustrated by feasting.

1. 2. 3.

Textual Reference Iliad I 29-104 Iliad 1 29-104 Iliad 1 406-78

4.

Iliad 1 551-611

5.

Iliad 1 551-611

6.

Iliad II 356-428

7.

Iliad V 778-852

8.

Iliad VII 247-318

Text

Value of information

If ever in any grove I roofed a shrine or burnt thigh bones in fat upon your altar- bullock or goat flesh- let my wish come true. Would mutton burned or smoking goat flesh make him lift the plague When prayers were said and grains of barley strewn, they held bullocks for the knife and flayed them, cutting out joints and wrapping these in fat, two layers, folded with raw strips of flesh, for the old man to burn on faggots, wetting it all with wine. Around him stood young men with five tined forks in hand, and when the vitals had been tasted, joints consumed, they sliced the chines and quarters for the spits, roasted them evenly and drew them off. Their meal being now prepared and all work done, they feasted to their hearts’ content and made desire for meat and drink recede again. What pleasure can we take in a fine dinner when baser matters gain the upper hand?

Burnt offerings, thighs were the preferred meat A roofed shrine offered little permanence.

So all day long until the sun went down they spent in feasting, and the measured feast matched well their hearts’ desire. So did the flawless harp held by Apollo and the heavenly songs in choiring antiphon that all the Muses sang. As for lord Agamemnon, their commander, a fatted ox he chose for sacrifice to Zeus the overlord of heaven. The senior captains of the Acheaan host stood around the ox and took up barley. When prayers were said, and grains of barley strewn, they held the bullock for the knife and flayed him, cutting out joints and wrapping these in fat, two layers folded, with raw strips of flesh, to burn on cloven faggots. The tripes were spitted to be broiled. When every joint had been consumed, and the kidneys had been tasted, they sliced the chines and quarters for the spits, roasted them evenly and drew them off. The meal now being prepared and all work done, they feasted royally and put away desire for meat and drink. Bidden to dine at ease in their great hall, combative as he always was, he challenged the young Cadmeians.

But now already night is coming on. and we do well to heed the fall of night. This way you’ll give them festive pleasure there beside the ships, above all to your friends, companions at the table.

14

Sheep and goat were available and acceptable as offerings. The grains of barley were strewn as an "agricultural offering" (Visser 1991: 34). The Latin word for grain is mola which relates to the words 'mill' and 'meal'. J.-P.Vernant extends his “raw and cooked” theory to include wine and barley in ceremonies involving ritual sacrifice (1974:182). The above authors both acknowledge the reliance of these theories on the Prometheus myth, whereby the allotment of bones included a divine portion. (Graves 1955:144, Field 1977:41). Feasting identified social orders, and here age differentiation applied in food allocation. Spits have been found in the burials of several cultures, and suggest feasting round the warrior hearth. Five-tined forks are not known. Archaeologically. The feast was opportunity for intellectual conversation, and this was only marred by mundane concerns which might prevail. (The mundane matters contemplated by the gods were human affairs. The fact they were considered trivial highlighted the precedence of gods over humans). Music was an expected accompaniment to the Greek feast. (See Jacquet-Rimassa 1999:37-63 for a discussion of symposium music pictured on Attic and Italian ceramics).

Ritual acts were actions which were persistently repeated. The text highlights this repetition by the use of identical phrases time and again. Repetition adds emphasis to ordered nature of proceedings. (Vernant 1974:182) In this case it was the routine of sacrificing, roasting and consuming an ox. The satisfaction of the company was recorded, implying that the action was justified.

Feasts did not take place spontaneously, and forethought was seen by the invitation to attend in the 'great hall'. There was a reason behind the issue of the invitation possibly to participate in after dinner competition. The 'great hall' was mentioned to imply that a correct convention was followed in preparing a suitable venue. Repetition of practice was observed in the time of day feasting took place (never in the morning). Friends were linked through the action of eating together. The term companions applies to those who eat bread together (from panis= bread).

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

9.

Iliad VII 247-318

10.

Iliad VII 31988 Iliad VIII 35108

11. 12.

Iliad VIII 108179

13.

Iliad VIII 484-558

14.

Iliad IX 32103

15.

Iliad IX 32-103

In the commander’s hut, Agamemnon sacrificed a five-year old ox to the overlord of heaven. Skinned and quartered and cut up in bits, the meat was carefully spitted, roasted well and taken from the fire. When all the food lay ready, when the soldiers returned from work, they feasted to their hearts' content, and Lord Agamemnon, the ruler of the great plains gave Aias the long marrowy cuts of chine. Then hunger and thirst dispelled, they heard Lord Nestor first in discourse. At this hour take your evening meal as always everywhere in the city. At that hour the Achaeans fighting men with flowing hair took a meal by their huts and armed themselves. O Diomedes, once Achaeans gave you the place of honour- Heart of the roast, cups brimming full. But they’ll despise you now. All right, then, let us bow to the black night, and make an evening feast! From the chariot poles unyoke the teams, toss fodder out before them; bring down the beeves and fat sheep from the city, and lose no time about it- amber wine and wheaten bread too, from our halls. Go, gather piles of firewood, so that all night long, until the first-born dawn, our many fires shall burn. This was the speech of Hector, and cheers rang out from the Trojans after it. They led from under the yokes their sweating teams, tethering each beside his chariot, then bought down from the city beeves and sheep in all haste- brought down wine as well out of their halls. They piled up firewood and carried out full-tally hetacombs to the immortals. Off the plain the wind bore smoke and savour of roasts into the sky. Agamemnon, provide a feast for older men, your counsellors. That is a duty and no difficulty; your huts are full of wine brought over daily in ships from Trace across the wide sea, and all provender for guests is yours, as you are high commander. The son of Atreus led the elder men to his hut, where he served dinner and each man’s hand went out to the meal. When they had driven hunger and thirst away, Old Nestor opened their deliberations.

15

The usual account of sacrifice, preparation and meat distribution was followed by a reference to the meat cuts which were given to which participators. The togetherness of feasting was a reward for hard work, but the more important reason was to allow Nestor an opportunity to address the company. The tactical speech followed the meal and did not intrude on the meat sharing.

The evening preference for eating together was well known, and this fact could be used to catch enemies off-guard. As above the evening preference for eating together was well known, and this fact could be used to catch enemies offguard. Respect could shown by awarding favours at the feast, and likewise despise was shown by withdrawal of the same. This was a similar concept to the Champion's Portion, whereby the bravest hero was rewarded by the largest share of meat. The feast followed the usual order, with provisions brought from the city, (possibly extra supplies were needed to ensure all attended). The feast was to last for many hours, and was not hurried. On this occasion the reason for feasting was the necessity for a rousing speech. Hector needed to confirm relationships through the action of eating together, and then call on loyalty of the assembled diners.

The counsellors, the older and experienced men, were respected as such, but feasting committed all ranks to social involvement. The measure of respect afforded to the older men was implied by the allocation of Thracian wine. The son of Atreus acted as host as the elders feast, and social divisions were displayed. Again the reason for the feast was to call on loyalties and speak to the gathered assembly.

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 16.

Iliad IX 174-242

17.

Iliad IX 453-525

18.

Iliad IX 453-525

19.

Iliad X 151229

20.

Iliad XI 667-740

Aias and Odysseus found him taking joy in a sweet harp; he sang tales of old heroes. Achilles made both welcome with a gesture, saying; Peace, my friends, I greet your coming. And prince Achilles led them in. He seated them on easy chairs with purple coverlets, and to Patroclus who stood near, he said; Put out an ampler winebowl, use more wine for stronger drink, and place a cup for each. Here are my dearest friends beneath my roof.’ Patroclus did as his companion bade him. Meanwhile the host set down a carving block within the fire’s rays; a chine of mutton and a fat chine of goat he placed upon it, as well as savoury pork chine. Automedon steadied the meat for him; Achilles carved then sliced it well and forked it on the spits. Meanwhile, Patroclus, like a god in the firelight, made the hearth blaze up. When the leaping flame had ebbed and died away, he raked the coals and in the glow extended the spits of meat, lifting these at times from the firestones to season with pure salt. When all was done and the roast meat apportioned into platters, loaves of bread were passed round by Partoclus in fine baskets, Achilles served the meat. He took his place then opposite Odysseus, back to the other wall, and told Patroclus to make offering to the gods. He did this with some meat tossed in the fire, then each man’s hand went out upon the meal. When they had put their hunger and thirst away, Aias nodded silently to Phoenix, but prince Odysseus caught the nod. He filled a cup of wine and lifted it to Achilles, saying ‘Health Achilles. We’ve no lack of generous feasts this evening- in the lodge of Agamemnon first, and now with you, good fare and plentiful each time. It is not feasting now that concerns us now, however, but a ruinous defeat. Our household (among the Achaeans) and our neighbours, it is true urged me to stay. They made a handsome feast of shambling cattle butchered, and fat sheep; young porkers by the litter, crisp with fat, were singed and spitted in Hephaestus’ fire, rivers of wine drunk from the old man’s store. Peleus, the king, gave me welcome, treated me with love, as a father would an only son. Now, it was I who formed your manhood, Achilles; I who loved you from the heart; for never in another’s company would you attend a feast or dine in hall- never, unless I took you on my knees and cut your meat, and held your cup of wine. Many a time you wet my shirt hiccuping wine bubbles in your distress, when you were small. Godlike Achilles, you were the manchild that I made my own to save me someday, so I thought, from misery. Burnt offerings, courteous prayer, libation, smoke of sacrifice, with all these men can placate the gods. A handsome prize will be awarded to him; every commander of a ship division gives him a black ewe, with a suckling lamb- no token of honour like it. Afterward he can attend all the feasts and drinking parties Afterward we took our evening meal.

16

The background music set a familiar atmosphere. The handed- down tradition of hero stories was already accepted as part of cultural history, and the company obviously enjoyed the familiar tales. Hospitality laws ensured that all visitors were cordially greeted. (Strangers were protected by the gods, especially Zeus who calls himself Protector of Hospitality (Visser 1991: 92)).There was great attention to the feast and the efforts to put the company at ease. The reference to an ampler winebowl implies there was already a wine bowl in use, but more visitors necessitated the use of larger vessel, kept to suit such an occasion. There was a call for more wine but this time a stronger drink was required, so we can assume that the practice of diluting wine was observed. Less water and more wine on this occasion should have warned that company that the reason for the feast was not only for satisfying hunger. Use is made of special equipment for carving. There followed the usual account of roasting the meat. Hearth equipment was suggested by the raking of coals and the mention of spits. The spits appeared to lie on heated stones, and no mention was made of iron hearth furnishings which might have supported the spits. Salt was at hand, and seasoning was performed to taste. Food was served on platters, showing that equipment was provided for specific purposes. Baskets may not have been preserved in the archaeological record. The offering was possibly to allay the guilt of killing animals, but offering was also a conventional signal, equivalent to saying grace before the company sat down to eat. Hunger appeasement and thirst quenching were separate phases from the entertainment which followed, or as in this case a tactical speech. The feast was an important mechanism in time of war when there was a need for reinforcement of social positions. Drinking to ‘Health’ A tactical speech follows, designed to raise fighting morale.

Lord Phoenix was encouraged to stay, tempted by offers of extravagant feasting. The stored wine was saved for a special occasion.

Feasting etiquette had to be taught, it was not an innate skill. Peleus, as a father figure taught Achilles the art of feasting.

The entitlement to attend feasts was a reward for service.

The routine of evening meals was again mentioned.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 21.

Iliad XI 741

22.

Iliad XII 300-377

23.

Iliad XVIII 479-555

24.

Iliad XVIII 556-617

25.

Iliad XIX 147-307

26.

Iliad XIX 231-307

27.

Iliad XXIII 1-65

Then, Peleus, master of horses, burned thigh bones to Zeus, lord of lightning, in the enclosure of his court, and held a cup of smooth gold, pouring dusky wine on the burnt offerings. You two were carving, right and left , the carcass of an ox, when we two reached the entrance way. Achilles rose in surprise, and taking both our hands required us to rest, then placed before us all that a guest should have. We were refreshed by food and drink, and thereupon I spoke, inviting both to go with us. ‘What is the point of being honoured so with precedence at table, choice of meat, and brimming cups, at home in Lycia, like gods at ease in everyone’s regard? And why have lands been granted you and me on Xanthus’ bank: each to his own demesne, with vines and fields of grain? ‘So that we may fight well, and Lycian men say: They are not common men, our lords who rule in Lycia. They eat fat lambs at feasts and drink rare vintages, but their main thing is their fighting power’. He pictured then, two cities, noble scenes; weddings in one, and wedding feasts, and brides led out through town by torchlight from their chambers amid chorales, amid the young men turning round and round in dances. He pictured on one side, under an oak tree his attendants worked at a harvest banquet. They had killed a great ox, and were dressing it; their wives made supper for the hands, with barley strewn. A vineyard then he pictured, weighted down with grapes: this all in gold; and yet the clusters hung dark purple, while the spreading vines were propped on silver vine poles. Blue enamel he made the enclosing ditch, and tin the fence, and one path only led into the vineyard on which the loaded vintagers took their way. Light -hearted boys and girls were harvesting the grapes in woven baskets, while on a resonant harp a boy among them made a tune of longing. Replied Odysseus, ‘let him sate your hunger with rich fare in his own shelter’. Replies Achilles: ‘another time were better for these ceremonies, some interval in the war. Have a feast I’d say, at sundown when our shame has been avenged! Before that, I will not swallow food or-drink- my dear friend being dead. Odysseues answered ‘men quickly reach satiety with battle. How can a fasting belly mourn our dead. Those whom the foul war has left unhurt will do well to remember with food and drink. Meanwhile Achaean counsellors were gathered begging Achilles to take food. He spurned it groaning ‘do not nag me to glut and dull my heart with food and drink. A burning pain is in me. I’ll hold out till sundown without food.’ This is a fit honour paid to a captain fallen. When we’ve gained relief in lamentation, we can free the teams and take our evening meal here.

17

The offering to Zeus consisted of thigh bones. This was in keeping with the Prometheus myth; bones were the recognised offering to the gods. The gold cup was a status vessel. The wine offering symbolised pre-feast ritual. Tasks were allocated to the members of group, thus setting a normal scene. Even though Achilles was surprised by the guests, hospitality laws demanded good treatment, by which the guests could expect the choicest portions. No business was discussed during the meal as etiquette ruled. There was mistrust here of the intentions of the hospitality although there seemed no basis for concern as feasting observances followed normal conventions.

A shield made by the god, Hephaestus displayed idealised scenes of feasting. A wedding was always an occasion for a feast. On this occasion, the feast appeared to be in the open air. In a society that relied on agricultural prosperity, harvest was very important and an n obvious occasion to feast. Amongst the wives, hands and vintagers there were recognised divisions of labour. The woven baskets used by the boys and girls were rarely preserved in the archaeological record, although baskets were frequently mentioned.

Achilles did not consider this period of mourning appropriate to feasting.

As above, Achilles did not consider this period of mourning appropriate to feasting.

There was a correct order in social ritual which may have been changed in times of emotional stress.

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 28.

Iliad XXIII 1-65

29.

Iliad XXIII 807-885 Iliad XXIV 33-104

30. 31.

Iliad XXIV 33-104

32.

Iliad XXIV 33-104

33.

Iliad XXIV 460-524

34.

Iliad XXIV 589-670

Shameless abuse indeed he planned for Hector, and laid the body face down in the dust beside Patroclus’ bed of death. His soldiers now unbuckled their brazen gear, freed the whinnying horses of their harness, and sat down, in their hundreds, all before Achilles’ ship. Then to their hearts desire he made the funeral feast. Sleek oxen, many, bellowed and fell slack on the iron blade in slaughter; many sheep and bleating goats and tuskers rufted in fat. These beasts were singed, then held out spitted in Hephaestus’ flame, and blood ran streaming down around the body. When they came to the Marshal’s hut they bade the clear voiced criers there set a tripod cauldron on the fire thinking Achilles might wash off the blood that stained his body. He would not hear of it, but swore: ‘It is not in order to bring hot water near me, till I lay Patroclus on his pyre, and heap his barrow and shear my hair. Now we’ll consent to the grim feast. At first light we’ll turn the men out to bring in the firewood required that the dead man may reach the gloomy west; then let the strong fire hide and consume the corpse. So he spoke and they listened and obeyed him, busied themselves with dinner, took their meat, and no-one lacked his portion of the feast. When they had put their hunger and thirst away, the rest retired, each to his own hut, but Achilles lay down groaning amongst his men. The armour shall belong to both in common and in our hut we’ll make them a good feast. Apollo spoke among the gods ‘Did Hector never make burnt offerings to you, of bull’s thigh bones and unflawed goats? All of you were present at their wedding- you too came with your harp and dined there!

He never failed in the right gift; my altar never lacked a feast of wine poured out and smoke of sacrifice. Only Automedon and Alcimus were busy near Achilles, for he had just now made an end of dinner, eating and drinking, and the laden boards lay near him still upon the trestles. In one swift movement now, Achilles caught and slaughtered a white lamb. His officers flayed it, skilful in their butchering to dress the flesh: they cut bits for the skewers, roasted, and drew them off, done to a turn. Automedon dealt loaves into baskets on the great board. Achilles served the meat. Then all the hands went out upon supper. When thirst and appetite were turned away, Priam gazed at Achilles’ form and scale. Priam broke the silence ‘Here for the first time I have swallowed bread and made myself drink wine.

18

This occasion for feasting was that of the funeral. The details of cooking were as usual. There was designation of tasks according to station. There was also order in performing the funeral tasks. The cremation represented a journey for the deceased. No-one lacked his portion-, showing on this occasion equality was equality came before competition.

This feast was offered as a way of resolving quarrels; a mediating device The thigh bones were for the gods, other meat for human consumption. (See reference 2. 21) The wedding was an occasion for feasting, and the social membership of the group then present was recalled to be mindful of loyalty and affiliation. Another reference to music in association to feasting. (reference 2. 5) Offerings to the gods would always bring favour. The correct furnishings were important for a well-ordered feast. Here were familiar descriptions of preparation and food preparation. Spits and baskets were also mentioned again. The normality of the feast allowed emotion to be put into perspective and relationships confirmed.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 35.

Iliad XXIV 741-804

When the young Dawn, with fingertips of rose made heaven bright, the Trojan people massed about Prince Hector’s ritual fire. All being gathered and assembled, first they quenched the smoking pyre with tawny wine, wherever flames had licked their way, and then friends and brothers picked his white bones from the char in sorrow, while the tears rolled down their cheeks. In a golden urn they put the bones, shrouding the urn with a veiling of soft purple. Then in a grave dug deep, they placed it and heaped it with great stones. The men were quick to raise the death mound, while in every quarter look-outs were posted to ensure against Achaean surprise attack. When they had finished raising the barrow, they returned to Ilium, where all sat down to banquet in the hall of Priam the king. So, they performed the funeral rites of Hector, tamer of horses.

White bones were specifically mentioned. It may be that these bones were symbolically washed. As with other materials, the purple shroud would not have been preserved. There was status value attached to the shroud, especially as it was dyed purple. (Penelope’s weaving) The funeral banquet took place, not at the graveside but in Priam's hall.

Table 2.2: References to drinking and wine in The Iliad

1. 2.

Textual referenceDrink Iliad 1 180-247 Iliad 1 406-78

3.

Iliad 1 551-611

4.

Iliad III 245-312

5.

Iliad IV 0-30

6.

Iliad IV 30-98

7.

Iliad IV 99-165

Description

Value of Information

Sack of wine, you with your cur’s ears and antelope heart! Then young men filled their wine bowls to the brim, ladling drops for the god in every cup. Propitiatory songs rose clear and song until the day’s end, to praise the god, Apollo. Hephaestus lurched up as he spoke and held a winecup out to her, a double -handed one. He made his mother, Hera smile - and the goddess, white-armed Hera, smiling took the winecup from his hand. Then dipping from the wine bowl, round he went from left to right, serving the other gods nectar of sweet delight. And quenchless laughter broke out among the blissful gods. Meanwhile by lane and wall the criers came with sacrificial sheep and bearing wine that warms the heart, gift of vineyard ground- a goatskin ponderous with wine. And one, Idaues, carrying golden goblets and a winebowl shining reached the side of the aged king. The criers, noble retainers, brought the votive sheep, prepared the bowls of wine, and rinsed the hands of their commanders. Agamemnon drew the pitiless bronze knifeedge hard across the gullets of the sheep and laid them quivering on the ground, their lives ebbing, lost to the whetted bronze. Now dipping up wine from the wine bowls into golden cup, the captains tipped their offerings and prayed to the gods who never die. The Trojans and Acheans prayed: ‘Let any parties who break this oath have their brains decanted like the wine-drops on the ground’. The gods were seated near to Zeus in council, upon a golden floor. Graciously Hebe served them nectar , as with cups of gold they toasted one another Zeus says: 'My altar never lacked a feast at Troy nor spilt wine, nor the smoke of sacrifice perquisites of the gods'. Agamemnon moaned:’” Not for nothing have we sworn an oath and spilt lamb’s blood and red wine and joined our hands and theirs, putting our trust in ritual".

Wine was used in an angry oath.

19

Young men were singled out for comment, implying social ranking among the drinking men. Drinking and singing were complementary activities, and deference to the gods was observed. The double -handed wine cup was special enough to deserve a comment. Ordered ‘ritual’ existed in serving wine to the gods. The description of wine as ‘nectar of sweet delight’, told of the expected promise of feel-good factor (intoxication). Davidson (1998:44) described how in the andron, wine, song and conversation went round the room ‘left to right’, and this order was consistent. Wine was an accepted part of sacrifice. A feeling of well-being was attached to wine. Goatskins may not be visible in the archaeological record, but there were frequent references to golden goblets and wine bowls which may be found. These were familiar vessels, but had status significance. Wine was connected with ceremony. There were ritual preparations to be made before the wine could be drunk. The hand washing ceremony was part of ritual. Wine was tipped in offering to the gods and prayers guaranteed success.

There were similar vessels for gods and mortals, but the gods drank nectar. Essential ritual guaranteed the appeasement of the gods. Wine offerings ensured success.

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

8.

Iliad IV 235-307

9.

Iliad IV 07-375

10.

Iliad IV 376-446

11.

Iliad V 326402

12.

Iliad VI 142-209

13.

Iliad V1 210-285

14.

Iliad VI 210-285

15.

Iliad VI 508-529

16.

Iliad VII 32-105 Iliad VII 45882

17.

18.

Iliad VIII 180257

Idomenus, you are a man I admire, whether in war or at feasts whenever in their mixing bowls our peers prepare wine reserved counsellors. Achaean gentlemen with flowing hair may down their portions, but your cup will be filled up again and again, like mine - to drink as we are moved to! Now the feast is war. You two should be amongst the first in action, in the blaze of combat- as you both are first to hear my word of feasting, every time we Achaeans prepare a feast for our staff officers. There is the fare you like roast meat, and cups of honey- hearted wine, all you desire! Forward he went, and found Cadmeians thronging a great feast in the manor of Eteocles, where he challenged them to wrestling and easily beat them all. Now from the goddess that immortal fluid, ichor, flowed- the blood of the blissful gods who eat no food, who drink no tawny wine. Lycians for their part set aside their finest land for him, vineyard and ploughland, fertile for wheat fields. They gave each other beautiful tokens of amity: Grandfather’s offering was a loin-guard sewn in purple; Bellerephon bestowed a cup of gold two-handled. Wait and I’ll serve the honeyed wine. First you may offer up a drop to Zeus, to the immortal gods, and then slake your thirst. Wine will restore a man when he is weary as you are, fighting to defend your own. Hector answered her, his helmet flashing: ‘No, my dear mother, ladle me no wine, you’d make my nerve go slack: I’d lose my edge. May I tip wine to Zeus with hands unwashed? Someday we'll make amends, if ever Zeus permits us, in our hall, to set before the gods of heaven, undying and ever young, our winebowl of deliverance. One day a man on shipboard, sailing by on the wine-dark sea will point landward. The sun went down and the Achaean labour was accomplished. Amid their huts they slaughtered beasts and made their evening meal. Wine-ships had come ashore from Lemnos, a whole fleet loaded with wine. These ships were sent by Euneus, Jason’s son. To Agamemnon as to Menelaus, he gave a thousand measures of wine for trading, so troops could barter for it, some with bronze and some with shining iron, others with hides and others still with oxen some with slaves. They made a copious feast and all night long, Achaeans with flowing hair feasted, while Trojans and their allies likewise made a feast. Tilting their cups they poured wine on the ground; no man would drink again till he had spilt his cup to heaven’s overlord. Then he spoke to his team; ‘Tawny and Whitefoot, Dusky and Dapple, now is the time to pay for all that delicate feeding by Andromache: the honey-hearted grain she served, the wine she mixed for you to drink.

20

Members of other societies were not only singled out by their appearance but by the way they drink their wine

The possibility of a feast was always a pleasurable prospect.

Feasting and competitive entertainment were linked.

Again it is noted that wine is for mortals. Vineyards had an economic value. The gold cup was a worthy prestige gift.

Correct procedure was important and Hector questioned whether it was wise to make a libation of wine with unwashed hands.

Wine and intercession with the gods were linked.

Wine colour was used for analogy. Imported wine provided the means to feast. A list of acceptable trading commodities; wine suggested a scale of values. Wine offering was observed.

Wine was not served neat.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 19.

Iliad VIII 180257

Agamemnon’s harangue reached all his troops: ‘Shame, shame you pack of dogs, you only looked well. What has become of all our fighting words, all that brave talk I heard from you in Lemnos when you were feasting on thick beef and drinking bowls-a-brim with wine? No altar of yours did I pass by, not one in my mad voyage this way in the ships. On every one I burned thigh flesh and fat in the hope to take walled Troy by storm.

Feasting and drinking was the setting for spirited reinforcement of commitment and alleging service to each other. Sacrifices ensured good fortune. The cut of meat was significant in sacrifice.

20.

Iliad IX 669713

Bread and wine were not merely refreshment but boosted morale. An offering to the gods was detailed.

21.

Iliad X 529-579

22.

Iliad XI 593-667

23.

Iliad XIV 1-71

24.

Iliad XVI 215288

25.

Iliad XX 69-140

As for ourselves, let everyone go to rest. Your hearts have been refreshed with bread and wine, the pith and nerve of men. All gave their assent and when they had spilt their wine, they all dispersed. Wading into the sea, the men themselves splashed at their coats of sweat- shins, nape and thighs- until the surf had washed it from their skin and they were cool again. Then out they came to take warm baths in polished tubs. Being bathed and rubbed down with olive oil, the two sat down to take refreshment. From a full winebowl they dipped sweet wine and poured it to Athena. then entering Nestor’s hut, took their seats in armchairs. Mulled drink was prepared for them by softly braided Hecamede, Nestor’s prize from Achilles’ plundering of Tenedos- Arsinous’ daughter. The Achaeans had chosen her for Nestor, honouring excellence in council. First, the girl pushed up a table with enamelled legs, then she set out a basket all of bronze, an onion to give relish to their wine, pale yellow honey, sacred barley-meal beside a cup of wondrous beauty, brought from Pylos by the old king; golden nails it had for studding, and four handles on it, each adorned by a pair of golden doves who perched to drink, with double stems beneath. Another man would strain to budge this cup once full clear of the table. But not Nestor: old though he was, he lifted it with ease. Now mixing Pramnian wine, for them in this, the servant like a goddess in demeanour grated a goat’s milk cheese over the wine upon a brazen grater, and sifted in white barley meal. Her potion thus prepared, she called on both to drink. Now the two men drank long to get rid of a burning thirst. In their relief they were exchanging talk. Now Nestor heard that tumult while he drank, but finished drinking. He said: 'Be easy, drink my wine till Hecamede has a cauldron warmed and bathed your clotted blood away'. Achilles went to his hut. He lifted up the lid of a sea chest, all intricately wrought, that Thetis of the silver feet had stowed aboard his ship. His hammered cup was there, from which no other man drank the bright wine, and he made offering to no god but Zeus. Lifting it from the chest, he purified it first with brimstone, washed it with clear water and washed his hands, then dipped it full of wine. Now standing in the forecourt, looking up toward heaven, he prayed and poured his offering out, and Zeus who plays in thunder heard his prayer. ‘Counsellor of Trojans, Prince Aeneas, tell me what of your threats and promises, in wine, before your peers, to face Achilles in battle?’

21

There were no servants or girls to assist on this occasion. Cleansing and oiling preceded the partaking of wine; not only was there a code of serving wine, but the drinkers had to be suitably presented. Did the action of dipping imply a dipper or ladle?

A mulled drink was prepared by a woman, ‘won’ in battle, and now acting as slave to the conquerors. The ornate furnishings established a suitable feast setting. It was not clear whether the onion was an addition to the wine or served as an accompaniment. The cup was carefully described and the description could fit a cup found at Troy. Hecamede, the female servant mixed the wine and also adds goat’s cheese to spice up the flavour. Cheese graters are known from some early Greek sites (Ridgeway 1992.)

Nestor was strongly associated with drink and wine. Considered action took place after wine drinking. Hecamede, captured in war, was renowned in a serving role. Metal workmanship was appreciated. A valuable personal possession was used in a ritual order of action; Achilles washed the vessel and then his hands. There was no mention of the wine container from which he dipped, (amphora or flagon), and this was dipped not poured. The place of action was significant. Procedure was being correctly observed by the gods, and Zeus responded favourably.

Wine was used in threat.

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 26.

Iliad XXIV 33-104

27.

Iliad XXIV 247-314

Thetis sat by her father Zeus, while Hera handed her a cup of gold and spoke a comforting word. When she had drunk, Thetis held out the cup again to Hera. So the impatient king and his sage crier had their animals yoked in the palace yard when Hecabe in her agitation joined them, carrying in her right hand a golden cup of honeyed wine with which, before they left, they might make offering. At the horses’ heads she stood to tell them: 'Here tip wine to Zeus, the father of the gods. Pray for a safe return'. The old king motioned to his housekeeper who stood nearby with a basin and a jug, to pour clear water on his hands. He washed them, took the cup his lady held, and prayed while standing there in the walled court. Then he tipped out the wine, looking upwards toward heaven.

The gods also used golden vessels.

Hands were washed before offering. A housekeeper had the task of holding hand-washing vessels ‘and his lady held a wine cup-’ These may be different roles.

Table 2.3: References to feasting utensils and furnishings in The Iliad

1.

2. 3.

Textual referencevessels/ utensils Iliad IX 104-173 Iliad IX 104-173 Iliad IX 174-242

4.

Iliad IX 243-311

5.

Iliad IX 383-452 Iliad IX 598-668

6. 7.

Iliad IX 669-713

8.

Iliad XI 667-740

9.

Iliad XIV 218-290

Description

Value of information

Here before everyone I may enumerate the gifts I’ll give. Seven new tripods and ten bars of gold, then twenty shining cauldrons, and twelve horses. The criers, Odius and Eurybates may go as escorts. Bowls for their hands here! Criers came at once to tip out water over their hands, while young men filled wine bowls and dipped a measure in each cup. They spilt their offerings and drank their fill, then briskly left the hut of Agamemnon. If you will relent, Agamemnon will match this change of heart with gifts. He proposed seven new tripods, and ten bars of gold, then twenty shining cauldrons and twelve horses. A man may come by cattle and sheep in raids; tripods he buys and tawny-headed horses. Each of the emissaries took up a doublehandled cup and poured libation by the shipways. With cups of gold held up, and rising to their feet on every side, the Achaeans greeted them curious for news. Racing horses and their chariot would once have contended in the games and raced to win the tripod. Then I shall make a gift to you, a noble, golden eternal chair: my bandy-legged son, Hephaestus by his craft will make it and fit it with a low foot rest where you may place your feet while taking wine.

Feasting equipment was valued and deemed suitable as a gift earning respect (Barber 1998:34).

22

Allusion was made to the hand- washing ritual. Were bowls for this purpose separate from those for wine? There was allocation of duties to different servants. The implied use of a dipper. Each participant had his own cup; there was no sharing or passing round. The gifts from 2.3.1 were repeated.

These items were traded- and had an economic value. Were the cups only used for libation, or for all drinking? Gold cups were suitable for greeting good news and visitors. A tripod was a coveted prize of value. Was this primarily intrinsic value or economic worth? Furnishings for both comfort and elegance pervaded while drinking wine. An ornate chair and footrest is known from Verruchio, Italy, (Kossack1998:132).

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 10.

Iliad XVIII 326-402

11.

Iliad XXIII 807-885

12.

Iliad XXIV 174-246

13.

Iliad XXIV 390-459

Meanwhile, the silvery-footed Thetis reached Hephaestus’ lodging, indestructible and starry, framed in bronze by the bandy-legged god. She found him sweating, as from side to side he plied his bellows; on his forge were twenty tripods to be finished, then to stand around his megaron. And he wrought wheels of gold for the base of each, that each might roll as of itself into the god’ assembly, then roll home, a marvel to the eyes. The cauldrons were all shaped but had no handles. These he applied now, hammering rivets in. Thetis, the loveliest of goddesses, led the way to seat the guest on a silver-studded chair, elaborately fashioned with a foot rest. Finally, Achilles furnished a throwing spear and a new cauldron, chased with floral figures, worth an ox. To his crier, Talthybius, Agamemnon entrusted the beautiful cauldron. Throwing open the lids of treasure boxes, he picked out twelve great robes of state, and twelve light cloaks for men, and rugs, an equal number and just as many capes of snowy linen, adding a dozen chitons to the lot; then set in order ten bars of pure gold, a pair of shining tripods, four great cauldrons, and finally one splendid cup, a gift Thracians had made him on an embassy. Here is a goblet as a gift from me. Protect me, give me escort till I reach Achilles’ hut. Hermes the Wayfinder said, ‘I may not accept a gift behind Achilles’ back.

23

Craft technique was admired. Hospitality was important and reflected in the treatment of guests.

The description of Patroclus’ funeral games mentions the cauldron and fine craftwork, but it is difficult to judge values placed on such items. Gift exchange was linked with status earning.

There was a recognised and correct procedure in gift exchange. Heroes went adventuring purposefully to prestige gifts.

CHAPTER 3

Italian Feasting as Represented by Paintings and Artefacts of Iron Age and Early Roman Italy The diverse social elements of Roman Italy comprised three main groups, namely the people of the central Italian highlands, the Greeks of the southern Italian colonies and the Etruscans. Etruscan culture evolved from the 8th century BC and relied on Greek ideologies. Greek pottery was imported, and although Stoddart and Spivey warn of the dangers of an oversimplification of the trading ideal, the Etruscans appeared to be motivated by the mineral wealth of their homeland, exchanging the ores for luxury goods, and thereby acquiring a companion cultural ideology (1990: 80).

3.1 Introduction: The problem of defining a Roman style of feasting The aim of this chapter is to define the feasting practices that may be termed Roman. A problem that immediately presents itself is the lack of source material such as banqueting frescoes, painted vases or mythic collections from Rome itself. At the time of Rome’s foundation it is unlikely that a recognisable style of feasting could be attributed to its inhabitants. Over seven centuries Rome expanded from a small city state to a great empire, its supremacy achieved through military skill. Amongst achievements which bore a Roman ‘trademark’ were civic buildings and amenities, and system of roads that linked the outposts of the Empire. The consequences of military, architectural and engineering prowess were evident, but the chronology of social development was more difficult to trace.

Michael Crawford states that the Greeks and the Etruscans were “culturally more advanced than Rome” (1992: 16), and it will be seen that the mode of Roman feasting was largely borrowed from Greek and Etruscan practices. Where appropriate Greek feasting practices, which were the subject of the previous chapter will be

Fig. 3.1 Tomb of the Diver, Poseidonia. c. 480 BC

24

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE referred to, but it is proposed to identify other cultural ‘borrowings’ made by the Romans. The funerary paintings from Etruscan tombs from the period between 750 BC and 300 BC are a main source of evidence. Artefacts from tomb groups of the 6th and 5th centuries BC also show that wine-drinking was not only part of daily Italian life, but in death signalled status amongst hierarchical groups. These examples will suggest the influences which dictated Roman feasting ideology.

The popularity of banqueting scenes was evident in a large number of tombs, the painted references implying that this feasting tradition had been absorbed into the Etruscan lifestyle. Freeman sees direct Greek influence in the ideology of the Etruscan banquet (1996: 302), but in contrast to the feasting artefacts and writings produced for use of a living Greek society, the Etruscan evidence comes from funerary reliefs and burial artefacts. It is therefore important to show that the pictures seen in funerary reliefs are also a correct representation of feasting undertaken by the living. George Dennis was convinced that the Etruscans imitated real-life banquets in portrayals in tombs (in Hemphill 1985: 208).

Wall paintings and artefacts from Pompeii relate to the early years of the 1st century AD, and can be described as Roman in character. A selection of quotes from Roman authors will augment these evidence sources, and show that Rome eventually claimed its own feasting ideology.

(The references to Etruscan tombs which illustrate feasting practices appear at the end of this chapter in Table 3. 1, and will be denoted in the following text by a single number according to position in the table).

3.2 Archaeological sources: Feasting images from the southern Italian colonies

The motivation and occasion for feasting Greek colonists settled in Italy from the 8th century BC. Crawford states that Greek colonisation involved the “transfer of developed society and culture” (1992: 18). From the Greek foundation of Poseidonia, (Paestum), the frescoed Tomb of the Diver, displayed many of the Greek symposium elements.

The banqueting scenes which appeared in the Etruscan tombs did not celebrate military victory, marriage or harvest, but depicted funerary feasts. In the Tomb of the Funerary Bed, Tarquinia, the clothes of the deceased were arranged on the couch to imply the presence of the tomb owner [1]. This was unusual in the tomb iconography, as scenes invariably portrayed the tombowner as a living participant at the banquet. The identity of the deceased was hinted at in details such as the egg held by a man in the Tomb of Lionesses, Tarquinia. An egg was seen as a symbol of life [32]. Though the paintings appeared in funerary contexts, the scenes were joyous and expressed afterlife hopes for the continuation of pleasurable feasting.

Four sides of the tomb were decorated with symposium textile-draped couches and cushion supports for recliners. Tables were set beside each couch, and on one wall a large krater was shown. Greek-style flat two-handled drinking cups were in use, and on one couch the couple aimed their cups in the Athenian game of kottabos. Most of the couches were occupied by two males, and the only female figure was a girl playing a flute. This Greek banqueting scene symbolises the hope of Otherworld life; the underside of the ceiling block shows the diver from which the tomb takes its name. The plunge from land into water depicts the rite of passage from one world to the next. The symbolism which marks the final journey is a common motif in ancient Italian tombs, the message often hidden in the familiar territory of the feast.

Feasting accommodation and furnishing Feasting might take place in the open air, and this is suggested by the painted awnings in some Etruscan tombs. On the ceiling of the Tomb of the Hunter, painted material awnings created the atmosphere of an open-air tent [3]. The representation a tent seems more likely when a series of post-holes near a tomb at Pian della Conserva, near Tolfa, is considered. These relate to a structure erected outside the necropolis, possibly a pavilion tent (Spivey 1997:108). The tent would have provided accommodation for a funerary feast or remembrance meals.

3.3 Archaeological evidence: Etruria and the pictorial evidence of feasting A preoccupation in life, the Etruscans were aware that death was non-avoidable. Nigel Spivey talks of a duality signalled by Etruscans in creating “cities for the living and necropolises for the dead”, incorporating roads and house-like structures in order that the living might ‘commune’ with their forbears (1997: 87).

Indoor rooms were also furnished for the specific purpose of banqueting. Representations of pillars [3] identified indoor architectural features. Couches were visible in nearly all of the scenes [3-33]. Only in the outdoor scene of Hunting and Fishing, Tarquinia [2] where the couple lay on a mattress, and the Tomb of Lionesses, Tarquinia where two men reclined against cushions on the floor [32], were couches dispensed with. Chairs, sometimes with carved legs, footstools [8-11],

“And death to the Etruscan was a pleasant continuation of life, with jewels and wines and flutes playing for the dance”. D. H. Lawrence: from Etruscan Places, published posthumously in 1932

25

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Fig. 3.2 A banquet scene from the Tomb of the Painted Vases, Corneto. (after Hemphill 1985: 359).

tables, [25], cabinets, [6, 34], and candelabra [34] were important in creating the correct environment. Since the reliefs were of 2-dimensional frieze-like quality, we are not permitted to know the exact arrangement of furniture within the room.

Only in “Lost Tomb 3”, was a woman with a rhyton, (drinking horn), seen drinking wine [7]. Although it was accepted that women were allowed to attend the banquet and recline, drinking wine in public was still a prerogative of the men. Sybille Haynes says that in the Archaic period, all females were fully clothed whether wives, servants and slaves. She then goes on to consider the passages of 4th century BC historians, Theopompos and Timaeus. Theopompos wrote that ‘Etruscan women attended the banquet in the nude and drank wine’. He asserted that ‘a male banqueter might share his couch with a prostitute or another man’. This view of lax Etruscan morals was echoed by Timaeus (2000: 256258).

The feasting company; who could attend? The men-only attitude of the Greeks did not appear to be adopted by the Etruscans. Tomb art, whether paintings or sculpture, undoubtedly showed women reclining or sitting on couches, and not just present in a serving capacity. In the Etrucan scenes women were allowed to be present, sometimes reclining with their partner as shown on the nine couches in the Tomb of the Triclinium, Cerveteri [12]. Women reclined on couches with male partners in the Grotto della Pulcella, Tarquinia [13], and in the Tomb of the Triclinium, Tarquinia [25]. In the Tomb of Shields, Tarquinia, a girl sat at the foot of the couch while her male partner reclined [23]. The only female occupant of a chair was seen in the Tomb of the Painted Vases, Tarquinia, where a girl sat with a naked boy on her lap [27]. She did not appear to be the partner or wife of the man on the couch who reclined with a female. The female on a couch in the Grotto Querciola, Tarquinia was the only female in the scene [22]. There is speculation that she was a hetæra, (a prostitute or mistress of a man of rank). In many scenes female slaves, attendants and dancers appeared. In The Tomb of the Funeral Bier, Tarquinia, the ladies were attended by female slaves and the men by male servants. [5]. This distinction was not always made. The female slaves were normally fully clothed, but in The Tomb of the Black Sow, Tarquinia, the serving girl with a lyre was bare from the waist upwards [35]. The various modes of sitting or reclining on couches and chairs surely denoted social differentiation, particularly amongst the women.

The paintings in the Tarquinian tombs, The Tomb of Chariots [28], and The Tomb of the Sarcophagi [21], seem to justify the observation of men sharing couches, as both depict all-male symposia. Similar men-only banquets were depicted on a cinerary urn from Chiusi (Settis 1985:33), and the banqueting scene frieze from Murlo (Haynes 2000:122-3). The seating arrangements Sybille Haynes reminds us that the Etruscan aristocracy first dined sitting on chairs and thrones (2000:122). The Barberini Tomb, Preneste 7th century BC contained a bronze sheet throne, (Settis 1985: 58), and other bronze chairs were found in the Chiusi and Palestrina tomb groups (Pallottino 1974:176). In the two Grotto Della Sedia tombs at Cerveteri, chairs, an armchair, a couch and a footstool have been cut from the rock [9, 10]. Folding stools appear on a frieze plaque from Murlo and a sarcophagus of 4th century BC date. The folding stools symbolised power. A similar stool was carried by a servant in The Tomb of the Augurs, Tarquinia [39]. Although representations of chairs appeared in many

26

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE tombs, both men and ladies usually reclined on couches. Diodorus Siculus (V, 316), and Posidonius (Athen. IV, c.38), tell of daily Etruscan banquets, the participants reclining under flowered coverlets, drinking from silver vessels and attended by many handsome slaves, richly apparelled.

Lionesses [32], and in the Tomb of the Painted Vases, Tarquinia, a boy held a ladle and a strainer [27]. This is the only evidence we have that the wine may have been strained. The drinking vessels used were Greek, kylixes (flat bowls), philia, (drinking bowls), [27] and a rhyton [7].

This is reinforced by the tomb paintings which show brightly coloured drapes and cushions on couches [15, 22, 25]. Dogs under the couches allude to hunting by an élite class (Haynes 2000: 124).

Eggs, bread, grapes and fruit were often shown, although these were provisions for the afterlife, or symbols of life, and do not inform us of real-life feasting fare. Only in the Tomba Golina is food, including meat, prepared for a feast [34]. Drinking is the main concern in the funerary scenes, but there is no evidence of diluting wine, or adding spices. Feasting participants used individual cups, but these were used for games, and did not appear to have personal significance like the Greek trophy vessels.

Feasting ritual The range of entertainment and communal activities featured in the Etruscan contexts corresponded exactly to those of the Greek symposia. The Etruscan symposiasts wore wreaths or chaplets on their heads reminiscent of the celery garlands of Greek symposia [28], and chaplets of gold, ivy or myrtle which were found in warrior tombs of Vulci, indicate that the banquet scene was reconstructed in the burial environment (Hemphill 1985: 456). Musical diversions were provided by male or female players on the flute or double pipes [22, 23], lute [7] and lyre [14, 23]. Dancers, also male and female moved to the rhythm of castanets [25, 27]. After the meal, competitive, athletic displays were provided by wrestlers [39] and boxers [37]. In the wall painting from the Tomb of the Black Sow, Tarquinia, and The Cardarelli Tomb, the Greek game of kottabos was in progress while couples reclined on couches [35, 36].

3.4 Archaeological sources: Pictorial and artefactual evidence of feasting from Pompeii “The savour of good food and good wine is one of the elements of true civilisation, and no man who embarks upon a fine meal in that knowledge can rise from it without thinking that something real had been added to his nature”. Bernard Levin In Pompeii the popularity of wine-drinking was marked by the existence of wine bars and shops. In the thermopolium where hot drinks were served, stoves to heat wine, amphorae of Campanian wine, goblets and mugs remained after the eruption were clues to this. That wine was a commodity pertaining to personal pleasure, was perhaps evident in Roman Pompeii, than has been so far been witnessed in Greece or earlier Italian communities.

Serving the wine Wine was served from a large krater by slaves or servants [32, 33].

The motivation and occasion for feasting A culture of feasting and drinking was evident in Pompeii’s architectural plans. Apart from the city taverns and wine-shops, triclinia in the luxurious villas owned by élite landowners were rooms specifically devoted to feasting in a sophisticated atmosphere. The triclinia contained feasting couches and often painted murals of mythic scenes, garden landscapes, and drinking and banqueting adorned the walls. Fish, birds and fruit appeared in paintings and mosaics, and in contrast to the Etruscan frescoes, there was no subliminal afterlife message. These depictions announced wealth and status, together with the intention to enjoy the good things of life.

Fig. 3. 3. A krater, painted amphorae and kylixes under the table in a painting from the Tomb of the Painted Vases, Corneto. (after Hemphill 1985: 361).

Feasting accommodation and furnishing.

The frieze from Poggio Civitate, Murlo also showed a large wine-serving vessel on a tripod support (Haynes 2000: 123-4). Jugs were filled from the krater [2]. The slaves then filled drinking bowls from the jugs [13, 24]. A dipper hung by the krater in The Tomb of the

The Greek andron almost equated to the Roman triclinium, but not entirely. Dunbabin sees these room spaces as “the clash of two cultures” and interprets the elongation of the Roman version as a move away from 27

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN the egalitarianism which epitomised the Greek andron (1998: 90-98). Larger rooms suggested increased companies at Roman style symposia and in the Casa dei Cervi and the Casa del Menandro, Wallace-Hadrill describes the triclinium in each case to be of “aspiring to regal scale” (1994: 20). Couches might hold three people, such as the example from the House of Gaius Vibius (L’Erma & Di Bretschneider 1992).

Feasting ritual The pictorial evidence indicates modes of serving and drinking wine, but supplies little information on the activities which occurred before or after eating. In fact there are so few references to eating that we can conclude that wine-drinking was the main activity of such gatherings. There are no recorded scenes of handwashing, but the ritual is implied by finds of bronze dishes and jugs. Post-symposium activities are also difficult to trace in wall paintings. There were no scenes of kottabos but this may be because Roman drinking vessels were not flat like the Greek vessels, and therefore could not be used as missiles.

Dunbabin considers that though the term triclinium originally applied to a room containing three couches, this became a generic term for any room designated for eating, regardless of couch multiples (1998: 88-9). The layout of the triclinium varied from the Greek andron, in that a central table served the couches. The placement of the table can be seen in the fresco from the triclinium of The House of the Chaste Lovers, Pompeii, where occupants of two couches reached for vessels at the same time (Nappo 1998: 57). Candelabra, incense burners, bronze braziers and tripod stands were amongst furnishings which have been found in Pompeii, indicating that every possible care was taken in producing a bright and welcoming atmosphere.

Serving wine A range of personal drinking vessels are depicted including ceramic drinking horns, ornate silver or glass cups and bowls. A statue of a satyr pouring wine from a wineskin came from the House of the Menander, though the representation of the wineskin was chosen for artistic purposes as a clear preference was shown for metallic and ceramic vessels. A more believable mode of serving wine is seen in the House of the Chaste Lovers, where a small serving boy pours wine from an amphora into a large serving bowl positioned on a nearby stand. On another table in this scene were glass vessels and dippers.

Summer banquets took place in an outdoor triclinium, as in the House of Sallust where stone benches and tables enabled reclining and feasting (Nappo 1998: 146-7). The feasting company; who could attend?

There is a suggestion that wine may have been cooled, using snow which had been passed through a strainer (Dunbabin 1993:128). According to L’Erma and Di Bretschneider, snow was brought down from the mountains and stored in underground caves until the summer, to be used in chilling wine (1992:51), but Paul Sealey has expressed doubts as to the role of the strainer in the symposium as he points out that none are illustrated in Pompeiian wall paintings (pers. comm).

Again women may be seen in a serving role, but allowing for Pompeii’s preoccupation with the art of living and loving, feasting scenes where the couches were occupied by pairs of lovers present no surprise. The women reclined and drank wine with their partners. Serious attention was paid to wine-drinking and servants were occupied with wine- serving duties rather than providing music or dancing. The seating arrangements.

Great attention was paid to accurate recording of vessels, and this stresses the etiquette of using the correct vessels. Bronze heaters warmed the wine, and a drinks warmer found in Pompeii still had “traces of carbon inside, indicating that it was in use at the moment of the eruption (L’Erma & di Bretschneider 1992:51). The ambience of the occasion was helped by lighting, evidenced by bronze candelabra, of the type found in The House of the Indian Statuette (ibid).

Couches were essential in the banqueting room. In Pompeii finds and pictorial evidence give evidence of wooden couches with ornate legs ornamented with bronze and ivory, as depicted in a scene from The House of the Lararium of the Sarno (L’Erma & Di Bretschneider 1992: 38). The decoration on the couch might be of Dionysiac theme, recalling the Hellenistic world and heroic ideals (Béal 1991: 285-313), but often ornamentation was covered by numerous drapes and cushions. A fresco from the house of Menander showed a poet seated on a folding stool, reminiscent of stools in Etruria. Armchairs of wood and wicker were also depicted in reliefs, but the couch was preferred in the feast (L’Erma & di Bretschneider 1992:38).

3.5 Literary sources: The Roman symposium From the 8th and 7th centuries BC, the expansion of Rome brought about changes in Italian society. These changes included the emergence of clans and powerful leaders, and the means to trade on a greater platform. Trade provided direct contact with the Etruscans together with new ideologies. Etruscan -style feasting was absorbed into the social profile. The refined style appealed to an educated class of Romans and inspired 28

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE comment by classical writers. Petronius wrote Satyricon, (Trimalchio’s dinner party), a play based on eating and living, and which provides excellent contemporary images of the Roman feast.

The seating arrangements The main item of furniture in the Roman home was the couch. Sleeping, reading and eating were all performed in a reclining position. Seuetonius, (Claudius, 32), and Tacitus, (Annals 16) wrote that women reclined alongside their male partners and children sat on a stool by the couch, but Varro reports that the men reclined while women sat on chairs ;

The motivation and occasion for feasting The Romans celebrated marriage with a feast and held funeral feasts in honour of the dead. These could be in the open air with the food spread upon rocks (Servius Æn. V. 92 in Hemphill 1985: 322-3). Pamela Hemphill notes that an open air triclinium was placed in the cemetery for the purpose of funerary feasting. Feasting was a common occurrence, the motive frequently one of displaying status. The Romans ate up to four meals a day, but the only serious meal was the cena, which took place at the eighth hour in winter, and the ninth in summer (Pliny the Younger Epistles III, I, 8-9). The meal could last well into the small hours of the morning: Pliny rose from the table while it was still light in summer (Epistles III, 5, 13), and Nero not until midnight (Suetonius, Nero 27). Trimalchio’s feast lasted many hours.

Viri discumbere ceperunt, mulieres sedere, quia turpis visus est in muliere accubitus. (Valer. Max. II. 1.2). George Dennis believes that the second version is correct as he reminds how Roman deities were depicted, with Jupiter laid on a couch while Juno and Minerva sat upright (in Hemphill 1985: 310). There was a hierarchy of seating implicit in the arrangement of couches. Opposite the empty side of the table was couch named the lectus medius, where the most honoured position was on the right, (locus consularis). The next most important was the couch to the left, (lectus summus), and then the one on the right, (lectus imus), and on these couches it was desirable to recline on cushions to the left, propped on the left elbow. No footwear was required, and feet were washed before taking up position on the couch (Petronius, 31). In the House of the Moralist, a message carved on the stone couches of the summer triclinium reminds guests to ‘wash their feet before reclining, and not steal the napkins’.

Feasting accommodation and furnishing Feasts were held in the triclinium, whose length was twice its breadth (Vitruvius, VI, 3-8), and Pliny included descriptions of the triclinia in his country villas (Epistles 2.17, 5. 6). Outdoor triclinia for summer use might be landscaped. Varro built a triclinium in an aviary and Hortensius set up his dining space in a wild beast park (Varro Rust. 3.4.3, 3.12. 2-3). Wooden or bronze tables in Roman homes were low with tripod- style legs ending in a claw foot, or a trestle support. From the late 1st century AD it was customary to cover the table with a cloth (Martial XII, 29). Guests reclined on couches, although the armchair, (thronus), was reserved “for the divinity", and ladies sat in the chair with a sloping back, (cathedra), (Carcopino 1940: 34-5). Benches or stools were also available, and dignitaries might sit on a folding stool made of ivory or gold, (sella curulis), (ibid). The feasting company; who could attend? Roman women had unprecedented power. They were allowed to own property, control their dowries, receive education and attend public functions, although they could not join legions, vote or hold office. Women attended the Roman banquets as did Etruscan women. Roman women were not always portrayed in the most favourable light, as they occasionally ate or drank too much. One such incident recalls how on arriving late, the lady displayed “enough thirst to drink off the vessel containing three full gallons which is laid at her feet and from which she tosses off a couple of pints before dinner to create a raging appetite (Juvenal 6, 425433).

Fig. 3.4 The layout of the Roman triclinium.

Feasting ritual Food was eaten with the help of knives, toothpicks and spoons, but there were no forks. The Romans ate with their fingers and hands were frequently washed as slaves moved around the couches with jugs of perfumed water. The slaves also carried towels in order to dry hands (Petronius, 31).

29

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN The menu was extensive, and might include fish, a variety of vegetables, pork, spices, fruits including dates, figs and pomegranates, truffles, and mushrooms. In a letter Pliny writes of a feast which consisted of “a lettuce and three snails apiece; with two eggs, barley water, some sweet wine and snow. Besides these curious dishes there were olives, beets, gourds, shallots and a hundred other dainties equally delicious. But the oysters, chitterlings and sea-urchins, it seems, were more to your taste” (Epistles 1, 15). Martial’ s dinner for seven guests comprised “ lizard-fish with sliced egg garnish, kid, meat balls, chicken ham and beans followed by ripe apples”. This was to be served with “wine without lees from an old flagon” (X, 48).

3. 6. Summary In trying to define a Roman style of feasting, it becomes obvious that Roman practices were formulated over several centuries with the aid of ‘borrowing’ from other societies. Differences between Roman and Greek feasting practices, as identified in Chapter 2 were understandably minimal, and the main variations of allowing women to attend, and taking a reclining posture, were copied from the Etruscans, who themselves favoured Greek practices. It is not possible to discount the contribution made by flourishing Mediterranean trade, which enabled the initial transfer of ideologies. A shipwreck off the island of Giglio in 580 BC, was found to have carried a full cargo of wine amphorae, silver jugs for pouring the wine, furniture on which to recline, and instruments to be played during the symposium. This would appear to be a complete, ready-made banquet in transit. (Spivey 1997: 17). Not only was wine carried, but the correct vessels allowed for mixing, diluting, pouring and serving wine in a Greek fashion, thus imposing a set and irresistible routine.

Both Greeks and Romans wore ‘chaplets’ or wreaths. The Greek head-dresses were usually made of myrtle, and Plato seemed to think these would offset the effects of the wine (Symposium 37). Roman chaplets were also of simple materials, though gold may have occasionally been used. Entertainment was an expected part of the proceedings and might take the form of displays from clowns, (Pliny, Epistles, IX, 17), dancing to the rhythm of the castanets, (Juvenal II, 162-4), and Petronius details a wide range of diversions including a lottery, acrobatic displays and a surprise shower of perfumed flasks from an opening in the ceiling (34- 60). Even though these are detailed, there is little chance that there was space in the triclinium for the events to take place.

Feasting accommodation and furnishing As the feast became a routine of daily life, it was not only convenient to have a specific room for this purpose within the Roman house, but this served a great advantage in being one of the best ways of showing possessions and power to friends and neighbours. The feast was important to the Homeric heroes in maintaining warrior status and loyalties, but in the Roman city, power was advertised through wealth and the ability to organise cultural banquets. As late as the 4th century AD an outdoor feasting scene was depicted on a silver plate which forms part of the Sevso treasure (Dunbabin 1993:133), and it is evident that the feasting space, whether indoor or outdoor, was intended to impress compatriots.

Serving the wine Silver vessels were highly desirable and often set with jewels (Martial II, 43, 11). The wine was poured from amphorae through a strainer into a krater from which the servants filled wine -bowls. Water was added to the wine, sometimes as much as four- fifths, but always at least a third that of the wine. The symposium might involve drinking competitions whereby participants drank to the health of a particular guest- the number of wine cups determined by the master of ceremonies, varying from one to eleven (Martial 1 71, VIII 51, XI 36,7, XIV, 170).

The feasting company; who could attend? Greek women were only present at feasts in a serving or entertainment roles. In contrast Etruscan and Roman women, not only attended the feast, but were accorded the same rights as men as they reclined and drank wine. In Etruria this was only noticed on one occasion, [7], possibly because of the view of some, who looked back to Greek ideals, that this was incorrect (Theopompous and Timaeus, in Haynes 2000: 256-258). There is a minor discrepancy between the pictorial scenes which show simple harmonious relationships and literary evidence which describes dubious moral conduct: men changed partners, ladies arrived late and then drank too much (Juvenal 6, 425- 433). Children only attended the feast in a serving capacity.

The quality of the wine was important and best wine was served to the most important guests. Pliny the Younger recounts how at one feast the host had three flagons of different wines, “graduated according to the status of his friends” (Epistles II, 6). Juvenal also comments on how humbler guests drink “coarse wine of this year’s vintage” with their inferior food, while wine from the hills of Albia served from an aged jar accompanies the gourmet spread eaten by Virro and his preferred guests (5, 24155). Guillaumet, in trying to decide the function of strainers, notes how Martial is the only Latin author who refers to these utensils, and casts doubt on their validity amongst the symposium equipment (1997:245).

30

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE The seating arrangements

feast, and was manifest in athletic challenges and combat. Competition at the Roman table was expressed in the richness of the surroundings and the extravagance of the feast. Common factors depicted in the Pompeii feasting scenes are seen in the magnificent furnishings and effects which enhanced the status of villa owners. The frequent portrayal of the licentious nature of Roman-style feasting gives a view of undisciplined proceedings, though this is counterbalanced by the symbolism of vessels and furnishings, which implies an adherence to convention among the élite at least.

Reclining was practised in Etruscan and Roman feasting. In the Roman symposium, this was determined by rank, with the most important guests reclining on a couch opposite the empty side of the table, with the next in order of precedence on the right and left, therefore offering another means to advertise status. Feasting ritual None of the wall paintings show pre-feast sacrificing or offering to the gods. Food preparation took place in other rooms, and although menus were elaborate and competitive, the emphasis of gatherings according to the wall paintings was wine-drinking. The Romans ate with their fingers. Servants carried jugs of perfumed water, so that frequent finger washing might take place, and this explains much about the numerous jugs and pans that were employed in feasting.

The pictorial evidence from Etruria is not reinforced by literary evidence and it may be that the representations are not realistic in regards to portraying the feast of the living, but point instead to the symbolism of afterlife. In contrast, Pompeii’s villas and artefactul evidence are representative of the enjoyment of wine in day-to-day living. In Pompeii wine-drinking was part of daily routine and villa paintings had no subliminal message of afterlife belief, but were emphatic statements of ambition and rank in a living community. This leaves us to wonder if in spite of the apparent similarity of subject material from Etruria and Pompeii, whether the images of feasting were accurately portrayed, or if artistic licence had been employed in producing symbolic feasting scenes which would be applicable to either life or death situations. Even if we cannot be sure of the interpretation of the pictorial evidence, this chapter has shown that the Italian feasting and funerary practices were influenced, changed, and developed by contact with the Greeks. This forms the basis for a more profound and far-reaching claim, in that it is possible to transmit culture and influence social patterns. It is a claim that material goods produced by one society might be the basis of another society’s ritualistic behaviour. It becomes very valid to stress the overall climate of change which pervaded social interaction as later ‘Romanisation’ became a contributory factor in turn-of-the-millennium social change, and the cultural influences which combined to give rise to this term soon become a main issue.

Serving the wine In many of the pictured scenes in Etruscan tombs or Pomeiian houses, great attention is paid to accurate recording of vessels, (more so than on Greek vases). This exhibits the importance of possessing the correct vessels, which may have been aesthetically pleasing, but were necessary to fulfil the requirements of diluting, mixing, warming or cooling the wine. The Etruscans used imported vessels and “borrowed” pot names and shapes from the Greeks (Gill 1995: 2), but the Romans preferred different shapes and styles. Drinking was often from ornate vessels of silver and glass, and this is reinforced by collections of silver such as that from the house of Menander, which consisted of 118 silver items. These were not suitable for simple drinking games, and post-feast activities were apparently more restrained. In the villa environment, where visual conceptions of mythic ideals featured in the pictorial imagery, high status vessels displayed status. The silver vessels from Pompeii were not the only metallic vessels to have been found in large numbers. Finds of bronze ‘gobelets’ or tankards implied that these were a popular choice, although none are illustrated in wall paintings. (Feugerè 1990:53-59, Tassarini 1990 1612). In accordance with the handle position, this was a personal vessel, which may not have been ideal for the etiquette of feasting, but still enjoyed a long term popularity. Settis comments that “after the 6th century AD lavish sets of tableware disappeared, but there was continued use of the ‘table tankard’ ” (1985:66). The writings of Petronius, Martial and Juvenal painted a picture of a sordid and depraved side of Roman life characterised by gluttony and the appreciation rich food and fine wine. Competition was an element of the Greek 31

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Table 3. The portrayal of feasting and wine-drinking in etrurian graves The sites are placed in such an order as to demonstrate the motive for feasting, the feasting accommodation and furnishings, entitlement to attend, the seating arrangements, the feasting rituals, serving of the wine, hospitality and potlatch customs, entertainment, discussion, challenge and competition. The feasting elements may be shown in wall paintings or carved features within a tomb. Name of Tomb Tomba del Letto Funebre/ Tomb of the Funerary Bed

Location Tarquinia

Tomba della Caccia e Pesca/ Tomb of Hunting and Fishing

Tarquinia

3.

Tomb of the Hunter

4.

Tomb of the Lotus Flower Tomb of the Funeral Bier

Tarquinia Corneto Tarquinia, Corneto Tarquinia, Corneto

1.

2.

5.

6.

Tomb of the Ship

Tarquinia, Corneto Tarquinia, Corneto

7.

“Lost tomb 3”, delineated by Byres

8.

Tomba delle Cinque SedieTomb of the Five Chairs (Carved features)

Cerveteri

9.

Tomb of the Shields and Chairs (Carved features).

Cerveteri

10. Grotto Della Sedia, Banditaccia (Carved features).

Cerveteri

11. Grotto Della Sedia, Monte Abatone (Carved features). 12. Tomb of the Triclinium

Cerveteri Cerveteri

Subject material Clothes are symbolically arranged on a funerary bed, to indicate the presence of the deceased at a banquet in their honour. A banquet and funerary games are taking place. The scene is influenced by Attic red-figured vases (Haynes 2000: 238). A lady lies on her stomach on a mattress and hands a wreath to her husband. They are attended by two girls, a lyre- player and two cupbearers. One servant fills a jug from a large amphora. Other banqueting vessels are depicted amongst foliage, indicating that this is an outdoor scene. A canopy suggests an outdoor tented banquet.

Date c. 460 BC.

Patterned textile awnings hang above the scene. Banqueting scenes appear on the side walls of the tomb. The banquet appears to take place under a shelter of white curtains supported by pillars. The men are served by boys, but the ladies are attended by a female slave. Next to one couch one man dances to the double-pipes played by a slave boy, and a pugilist raises an arm above his head. A piece of furniture, possibly a ‘drinks cabinet’ is illustrated. The two side walls were painted with scenes of banquets. Two couches were each occupied by a man and a women. One woman was drinking from a rhyton (drinking horn) . One man played the lute and another drank from a phiale. A drawing of a boar hunt was unrolled by one of the women. The five chairs have stright backs and sloping arms.Two stone tables wereplaced in front of the chairs, possibly for food offerings. Two more seats with curved backrests stood at the opposite end of the room. These were probably for the deceased couple for whom the tomb had been built. A basket was placed by the two chairs , which Haynes likens to the wooden throne from Verucchio (2000: 93). As the title suggests, the main feature of the tomb is the representation of chairs with shields hanging over them which are placed by chamber doors. Each chair has a footstool. An arm-chair and two couches cut from the rock. George Dennis wonders whether the chair designated elevated rank or was perhaps for the use of relatives holding annual festivals in the tomb (Hemphill 1985: 239-40). A rock-cut chair and footstool were found in the tomb which was under a tumulus. A horse skeleton lay by the bier of the deceased. Nine couches, on each of which a man and a woman recline together at a banquet, are pictured. The men wear white tunics and laurel wreaths, while the women wear yellow. One man holds a bowl, (philia), of wine. By each couch three-legged tables carry fruits, eggs and goblets. Two slaves stand by a large table on which are vases, goblets and a candelabrum. Over the door is a bas-relief of a wild boar.

No available information. No available information.

32

th

6 century

Reference Haynes 2000: 237-8

BC.

Haynes 2000: 228-30

c. 500 BC.

Spivey 1997: 109

Hemphill 1985: 318

c. 450 BC.

Spivey 1997:113

No available information.

Hemphill 1985: 398

650- 600 BC.

Haynes 2000: 92-3

No available information.

Pallottino 1974: pl. 81, Hemphill 1985: 255-7

No available information.

Hemphill 1985: 239- 40

nd

Pre 2 century BC.

Hemphill 1985: 276

c. 470 BC.

Spivey 1997:202, Pallottino 1974:179, Hemphill1985: 247-9

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 13. Grotto della Pulcella

Tarquinia, Corneto

14. Tomba Della Due Bighe

Orvieto

15. Tomb of the Alcove (Carved features).

Cerveteri

16. Grotto Torlonia

Cerveteri

17. The Tombs of Bieda (Carved features). 18. Inghirami Tomb (Carved features). 19. Tomba delle Iscrizione/ Tomb of the Inscriptions (Carved features). 20. Tomb of the Leopards 21. Tomb of the Sarcophagi

Bieda

22. Grotto Querciola

Tarquinia, Corneto

23. Tomba degli Scudi/ Tomb of the Shields

Tarquinia, Corneto

Volterra

Banqueting scenes appear on the side walls of the tomb. Two couches on each wall are used by two sets of opposite-sex couples. The men are bare to the waist, but the females wear yellow chemises. Coverlets on the couches are white or blue and footstools are placed by the couches. On the first couch a man holds a lyre and a small naked boy waits with a wine-jug and a drinking bowl. On the next couch the male holds a drinking bowl and standing by, a small girl holds a goblet of wine. On the opposite wall one of the girls offers an egg to her partner and a female slave waits at the foot of the couch. Trees suggest that this is an outdoor scene. Two walls display banqueting scenes. On one wall two male figures are visible Beneath their couch are a footstool, two pigeons and a pair of sandals. On the opposite wall a man and woman listen to a man playing a lyre. In the central recess is a large couch, complete with cushion and pillows, carved from the rock. Many large amphorae are strewn on the floor. These may have held wine for libations. A passage from the tomb entrance leads to a vestibule with bench lined walls. The benches are narrow, suggesting that these might be for the use of relatives participating in the funerary banquet. A flight of stairs leads to a hall containing 54 couches for the deceased to occupy. The tombs are bench-lined. The fronts of the benches resemble the legs of banqueting couches. The walls were lined with couches.

th

5 century BC/ GræcoEtruscan.

Hemphill 1985: 313-315

No available information.

Hemphill 1985: 48- 51

No available information.

Hemphill 1985: 240- 2

No available information.

Hemphill 1985: 277- 8

th

Pre 4 century BC. nd

2 century

Hemphill 1985: 218 Settis 1985: 56

BC.

Cerveteri

Tarquinia, Corneto Cerveteri

Foot stools are painted on the rock cut couches. The name of the tomb is taken from the many inscriptions on the tomb walls which establish the identity of the Tarquin family. Reclining banqueters are depicted on couches.

No available information.

Hemphill 1985: 242- 5

c. 475 BC.

Freeman 1986: pl II Pallottino 1974:179, Hemphill 1985: 242- 5

On the first sarcophagus the figure of a man is depicted reclining on his back. On the second, a man reclines on his side holding a philia. There is speculation that these represent a men-only banquet (Pallotino 1974). A painted banquet scene shows figures reclining on couches while male and female dancers perform. Music is provided by lyrists and pipers. On a central richly draped couch, a woman embraces a man, while other guests drink wine. Trees indicate that the banquet takes place in the open air, but a candelabrum suggests that it is at night. It is suggested that the female on the couch, as the only member of her sex in this scene, is a hetæra. The game of kottabos is in progress (Adam 1992:76-7).

No available information.

GræcoEtruscan

Hemphill 1985: 306, Adam 1992: 76-7

A naked boy carrying a wine jug is painted on the door jamb. On one wall a man reclines on a draped couch, while a girl sits on the couch by his feet. She holds out her hand for an egg, and bread, grapes and fruit are also on the table by the couch . Another couple is depicted on a couch on the next wall and behind them two musicians play the lyre and double pipes.

RomanEtruscan.

Hemphill 1985: 336-9

33

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 24. Tomb of the Sportsman

Tarquinia, Corneto

25. Grotto del Triclinio/ Tomb of the Triclinium

Tarquinia, Corneto

26. Grotta del Veccio

Corneto, Tarquinia

27. Tomba dei Vasi Dipinti/ Tomb of Painted Vases

Corneto, Tarquinia

28. Tomba dei Bighe/ Tomb of the Chariots

Corneto, Tarquinia

29. Tomb of the Reliefs (Carved features).

Cerveteri

30. Tomba dei Demonzi/ Tomb of the Blue Demons

Tarquinia, Corneto

In the inner chamber a painted scene shows a couple on a couch. He holds a goblet of wine. Two slave girls stand at the foot of the couch and a two other servants play the pipes and hold a lyre. A cup bearer seems to be ready to fill a pitcher from a krater. The banquet scene shows a couple reclining on one couch, attended by a female servant with a pot of ointment and a boy with a wine jug. In front of each couch is a four-legged table on which are placed dishes of food. Each couch is covered with a cloth and cushions and each figure lies under a separate cloth. George Dennis observes that this is not a normal Etrurian custom (Hemphill 1985: 320). Men and women dance and the women play castanets. All the banqueters and servants are fully clothed. The banquet may be outside as trees are shown. An old man and are young girl are depicted reclining on a couch. The man wears a white shirt and holds a wine bowl. the couch is draped with red covers and a pair of partridges stand alongside. Traces of a cupbearer are discernible at the foot of the couch. Another couch scene has faded, but it is possible to see a woman reclining. She wears a yellow chiton. Another woman stands at the foot of the couch. On the inner wall a banqueting scene shows a reclining couple. The man holds a kylix. A dog lies beneath the draped couch. To the left of the couch is a low chair, covered with a leopard skin, on which sit a girl and a naked boy. at the other end of the couch a naked boy holds a simpulum, (ladle), and a strainer. Beside him is a sideboard on which are vases. A large krater is painted yellow, specifying clay, and on either side are figured amphorae. Two kylixes lie upside-down under the table. On other walls are dancers and musicians. The end wall features a banquet scene which is unusual in that no females are present, “so it is a symposium rather than a feast” Hemphill 1985: 373). The men, wearing wreaths, recline in pairs on three couches and there are naked slaves in attendance. There is no food on the table which makes it even more likely that this was a symposium. On the adjacent walls scenes of funeral games include wrestling, discus-throwing and boxing. Above the banquet scene two small naked slaves, holding jugs and dippers, stand by a large krater. 32 rock-cut benches line the walls of the tomb. Legs are carved to resemble couches, and low footstools are painted on the bench surfaces. A bronze patera for libations hangs between two bulls’ heads. To the left of the doorway hangs “a flat, quadrangular dish, representing metal, probably for carrying meat” (Hemphill 1985: 250). Other sculpted feasting equipment includes a pitcher, a drinking bowl, 7 spits and a spoon. Weapons and animals, a (goose, a tortoise, a dog and a lizard), also appear among the reliefs. A funerary banquet for four or five couples on couches is set in the underworld. Charon the Ferryman comes to greet the deceased, and previously departed members of the family also wait, surrounded by demons.

34

No available information.

Hemphill 1985: 312-3

GræcoEtruscan.

Hemphill 1985: 318

Archaic/ Etruscan.

Hemphill 1985: 336-8

Archaic/ Etruscan.

Gill and Vickers 1996:175 Hemphill 1985: 358-62

GræcoEtruscan.

Gill and Vickers 1996:175, Hemphill 1985: 373-6

No available information.

Pallottino 1974: 179 pl. 82 Hemphill 1985: 249-55

c. 420 BC.

Haynes 2000: 238-9

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 31. Tomb of Orcus 1

Corneto, Tarquinia

32. Tomba delle Leoness/ Tomb of the Lionesses

Tarquinia

33. Tomba del Morto/ The Dead Man’s Chamber

Corneto, Tarquinia

34. Tomba Golini

Orvieto

35. Grotto della Scrofa Nera/ Tomb of the Black Sow

Tarquinia, Corneto

36. Tomba Cardarelli/ The Cardarelli Tomb

Tarquinia

37. Tomb of Inscriptions

Tarquinia, Corneto

A painting of a draped couch and two reclining figures has survived only in part. A second couch scene is also damaged but it is possible to see a slave girl by the couch. Mythic scenes from the tale of Persephone are the subject of another wall and then in contrast, a painting of a sideboard and five large jars. A naked slave boy stands by this with a wine jug and a drinking bowl. It is possible that further banqueters and dancers have not been preserved. Two draped men recline, not on couches but on the floor, against cushions. one holds a drinking cup and an egg, (symbol of life). A large krater for mixing wine. is wreathed with ivy, (ivy is connected with Dionysos, the god of wine), and a ladle with a duck’s head hangs beside the vessel. A lady and her servants are in various attitudes of dancing, and serving wine. A Bacchanalian scene shows naked men dancing. One man plays the fife and another holds a kylix , (flat bowl). A large krater of wine stands on the floor. Poultry and game are depicted hanging in a butcher’s shop or a larder, representing stores for the final feast. An adjoining wall shows the preparations for the feast: meat is chopped, and slaves place eggs and fruit on tripod tables. In a kitchen scene, a cook uses a knife., and in another room the wines are prepared. A scene showing the banquet in progress depicts four couches. On the first, two men recline against cushions. The faded painting of the second couch only shows a leg and a hand, but on the third couch a man and a woman recline. The fourth couch is occupied by two men holding drinking vessels. A lyre is played by a servant, and on low stool a cat sits. At the end of the couch a small naked boy holds a monkey. A partition wall is taken up by a representation of a sideboard on which stands a mixing bowl, two amphorae and five oenochoæ. Two candelabra stand by the sideboard and slaves move about the table, engaged in wine-serving duties. An open-air banquet is depicted. The only female banqueter occupies the central couch, and all other participants are male, so this may be a symposium. A serving girl stands in front of the couch playing a lyre, while resting her foot on a tripod footstool. She is bare from the waist upwards. The couches appear to be draped in tartan material. Two male banqueters hold kylixes, and two servants are approaching with wine. Two of the banqueters engage in a game of kottobos. A lady dances preceded by a boy with a fan. Haynes points out that fans were status symbols (2000: 226) A servant girl follows with a wine cup. Facing the group is a man wearing a loincloth and sandals. He holds out a large wine cup, while a small boy plays the flute. On the next wall another man dances while a second man plays kottabos. Between them two naked boys (although wearing wreaths ), play a lyre and hold a wine cup. The figures in the scenes are almost entirely naked. Two men sit at a small table playing dice. Two more men engage in a boxing match. On a side wall are eight dancers. Two hold wine vessels as they dance, and theses are followed by two slaves carrying a krater and wine jugs.

35

RomanEtruscan.

Hemphill 1985: 345

530- 520 BC. The painting may have been executed by a Greek immigrant (Haynes 2000: 227). “Early tomb” (Hemphill 1985: 227).

Spivey 1997:113, Haynes 2000: 226-7

st

1 half of 4 century.

th

th

Hemphill 1985: 325-7 Settis 1985: 82, Hemphill 1985: 52- 62, Adam 1992: 78

Mid 5 century BC.

Spivey 1997:113, Hemphill 1985: 396-7

End of the th 6 century BC

Haynes 2000: 225- 6 Fig. 184

Archaic/ Etruscan.

Hemphill 1985: 364-368

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 38. The Temple Tombs

Norchia

39. Tomba degli Auguri/ Tomb of the Augurs

Tarquinia, Corneto

40. Grotta del Barone/ Tomb of the Baron 41. Tomba dei Caronti

Tarquinia, Corneto Tarquinia, Corneto

Possibly a game of chance or gladiatorial combat. This may relate to the funeral of Patroclus, thus referring to Greek myths. Two men wrestler over three metal cauldrons. The cauldrons are of the type used as prizes in funerary games. A servant boy carries a folding stool. The painted frieze shows a man offering a kylix to a female, while a boy plays the double pipes. A depiction of the door to the Otherworld.

36

4th century BC.

Hemphill 1985:200

c. 510 BC (Ionian artist).

Spivey 1997: 110

Archaic/ Etruscan. No available information.

Hemphill 1985: 368-70 Pallottino 1974: pl. 83

CHAPTER 4

The Textual Evidence for Gallic Feasting The generalisations that characterised observations of physical appearance may have been acceptable, but it was unlikely that ritual tribal practices could be justified by such generalised descriptions. The numerous tribes of Gaul were unlikely to have shared identical feasting procedures. My husband’s family are proud of their Yorkshire ancestry, although Worcestershire had been their home for more than twenty years. The first meeting with prospective in-laws took place after an invitation to the family Sunday lunch. In a time- honoured tradition which echoed the Homeric device of using a feast as a reason for defining family relationships, roast beef was to be consumed before formal discussions began. Imagine the surprise when the main course was presented, and was not the anticipated roast beef and accompaniments, but merely Yorkshire pudding and gravy. This was a Yorkshire tradition, alien to my Midland upbringing. Surprised murmurings were subdued and after the puddings had been eaten, the expected roast beef and vegetables appeared, and the rest of the occasion passed uneventfully. This illustrates that basic conventions of seating, serving and conversation occurred routinely in the traditional family Sunday lunch, but the symbolic serving of the Yorkshire puddings denoted regional ancestral and affinity.

4. 1 Introduction: The problems with textual evidence Having identified and compared Greek and Roman feasting customs, the following section will attempt to identify feasting habits that were specific to the ancient Gauls. For this purpose classical and medieval texts have been examined, and the references that have been selected will hopefully throw light on Gallic feasting practices. The classical texts are seen as a contemporary comment on the Gauls, and it will be shown that while these extracts provide a vivid picture of a barbarian society, the portrayal may be marred by prejudice. Similarly, the medieval texts draw on a stylised ideal of a heroic, warrior society, and staying mindful of the romanticised viewpoint, the writings provide a fascinating complement to earlier commentaries. Simon James has described the Celts as the “wide family of people to be found living right across Europe” (1999: 19). A number of recent works which have focused on pre-Roman Iron Age societies of Europe have recognised similarities of cultural behaviour, and this allows these peoples to be collectively described in general terms. In The Celtic World (Green ed.: 1995), The Ancient Celts (Cunliffe 1997), and Celts: First Masters of Europe (Eluère: 1992), aspects of religion, funerary ritual, language and art, settlement and material culture, and military achievements are described and discussed. In these works, the use of the word ‘Celtic’ permits a preconception of the physical attributes of social groups within a particular geographical setting, and also an expectation that ritual activities may be observed that are typical of these people. The following texts are specifically chosen to exemplify feasting behaviour. The texts are generalised, and relate to all European Celts, even though the aim here is to concentrate on the feasting customs of the Gauls.

Unfortunately the classical texts contained no illustrations of varying Gallic tribal customs, though the archaeological evidence which will be presented in a later chapter may throw light on such differences. The description of the Gauls painted by classical writers was that of a barbarian people. Even before feasting customs were mentioned, we had a view of peoples who wore clothes made of rough fabric or skins (BG 5. 14), or rode naked into battle (Polybius Histories 29. 5-9). They styled their hair with limewash (Diodorus Siculus 5. 28. 1) and allowed food to collect in moustaches (5. 27-32). There was little doubt that Gallic behaviour was the antipathy of that of Roman finesse. It is not surprising that their feasting behaviour fell far short of Roman symposium expectations. When Richard Buxton described feasting conventions as ‘classical markers’ or ‘symbolic operators’, he referred to texts which described Arkadians, Eurytanians, Scythians, Thracians and Gauls as “beyond the fringe” in their eating and drinking behaviour (1994 199-200). These societies were judged in accordance with Roman expectation of behaviour. The classical authors who described Gallic society made critical comments on social practices, but very much from a Greek or Roman viewpoint. Miranda Green notes that although classical observers had the advantage of giving a contemporary view, writing was biased and open to distortion or misrepresentation (1993: 8). G. Mansuelli also challenges the accuracy of interpretation, pointing out that “a Greek, even Polybius, would have been in no

Classical authors followed the pattern of identifying the Gauls from their physical appearance, and then commented on cultural activities. Diodorus Siculus described the Gauls as tall and blond. He singled out the “nobles”, who “shave their cheeks and allow their moustache to grow until it covers the mouth. The result is that their moustaches become mixed with food while they eat, but serve as a sort of strainer when they drink” (5.2732). Immediately it can be seen that the comment on physical appearance was qualified by a detail which marked out the Gauls as different from the Romans. The moustache compromised correct eating. Such differences made it difficult to establish common ground, and the Gauls were firmly established in Mediterranean minds as a dissimilar cultural group.

37

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN position to judge, so different was it from what he knew” (1997: 13), and this would have applied equally to Roman authors. Nevertheless in contrast to the sophistication and order of the Roman symposium, the Gallic feast was perceived as barbarian. The barbaric image was over-stressed and possibly at odds with reality, but this viewpoint was slavishly adopted by classical authors.

Phylarchus, writing in the 3rd century BC, told of Ariamnes of Galatia, a noble Gaul of great wealth, who announced ‘that he would hold a yearlong feast for all’ Galatians. The feast-giver exhibited wealth and power, and thereby placed an onus of loyalty on the participators. Ariamnes was said to have built banqueting halls, using poles, straw and wickerwork, at marked out points (Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 13. 576). David Rankin believes that Ariamnes was effectively defining territorial borders (1987:65).

4. 2. The importance of Iron Age feasting according to classical texts

A similar narration concerns the Avernian, Lovernius, who gained the favour of the populace by constructing an enclosure of more than two square kilometres, into which he put vast amounts of food and expensive drink. Again, territory was claimed by the noble, who was able to display the results of profitable agricultural practice. For many days the feast was served continuously to all who would enter (Posidonius). The redistribution of food surpluses advertised accumulated wealth, and drew support.

The Gauls were farmers first and foremost, growing cereals and rearing cattle. Gallic communities depended on effective farming practices, and power and wealth were measured in agricultural returns and stock ownership. Land ownership was often fiercely contested and the warrior-type structure of tribal units led to power struggles amongst the hierarchical groups (Wells 1999: 103). Even during the Roman conquest, local corn supplies were often a factor in military progress. At Vesontio, Caesar took time to secure provisions and corn, relying on the Sequani, Lueci and Lingones to supply corn “which was already ripe in the fields” (BG 1.40). As in Greek Iron Age societies, ownership of large herds of cattle equated to power. Caesar described the barbarians as being “extremely covetous of cattle” (BG 6.35). Warrior élites maintained their position by displays of wealth, sharing out surplus agricultural supplies in sumptuous feasts, which would promote reciprocal favours. Ambitious contenders for power could use the background of the feast to advertise prowess by engaging in single combat. Diodorus Siculus (v, 31) and Strabo (iv. iv, 2) were in agreement as to the competitiveness which led to boasting and fighting. Feasting was a convenient device for: •

• • •

An early account in Gallic history described a feast thrown by Nannus, king of the Segobrigii, on the occasion of his daughter’s betrothal (Justin, The Philippic Histories). On this occasion the feast celebrated the event, but often ulterior motives masked the communal sharing of food and drink. An example of a feast given by the Gallic king Sinorex was apparently to celebrate a wedding. The wedding was set to resolve a love triangle, but proved to be the background of further intrigue and the eventual death of the betrothed couple (Polyanus History 8.39). A motif recognisable from Greeks myths, and also seen in Gallic feasts, was that of hospitality. Hospitality entitled strangers to food, lodging and gifts, allowing an assessment of outsiders under amicable conditions, and a chance for the host to gain news that could possibly be used for political or military advantage. Pseudo-Scymnus writing at the beginning of the last century BC says;

Celebrating or marking changes within a group, thereby promoting the strengthening of relationships and underlining hierarchical positions (weddings, funerals, etc.). Advertising economic stability and using potlatch gifts to earn respect and favours from members of other tribal groups. Recruiting men for raiding or warfare. Demonstrating hospitality, by which the knowledge of strangers could be gained but also earning the entitlement of reciprocal hospitality and the chance of earning gifts.

“The Celts follow the customs of the Greeks, Being on very friendly terms towards Greece On account of the hospitality of those dwelling abroad, With music they conduct public assemblies Using it for its soothing effects” (Periplus 183-7). Even the classical writers therefore recognised the similarities between the Greek and Gallic feasts.

Feasting was never undertaken without reason and these intentions could be recognised in classical accounts of Gallic feasts. Examples of funerary feasting and memorial meals at the graveside appear in a following chapter, and it can be seen that feasts occurring after the death of a community member were necessary in order to redefine social structure. Other forms of feasting were often ways of demanding reciprocal favours, whether in terms of manpower or material goods.

4. 2.1 Classical accounts of Gallic feasting The selected texts which appear below paint a vibrant picture of the Gauls and their feasts, but these must be treated with caution as the authors were very obviously non- ‘Gallic’, and wrote for an audience that was Greek, Roman or Mediterranean. 38

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE hearths and cauldrons with spits of meat. They honour the brave warriors with the choicest portion, just as Homer says that the chieftains honoured Ajax when he returned having defeated Hector in single combat. They also invite strangers to their feasts, inquiring of their identity and business only after the meal. During the feasts it is the custom to be provoked by idle comments into heated disputes, followed by challenges and single combat to the death (v 26).

It is from Posidonius, (the so-called Stoic philosopher), that we have the most frequently quoted description of the Celtic feast. In his Histories, Posidonius made the following observations of social patterns and behaviour: “The Celts place dried grass on the ground when they eat their meals, using tables which are raised slightly off the ground. They eat only small amounts of bread, but large quantities of meat, either boiled, roasted or cooked on spits. They dine on this meat in a clean, but lion-like manner, holding up joints in both hands, and biting the meat off the bone. If a piece of meat is too difficult to tear off, they cut it with a small knife which is conveniently at hand in its own sheath. Those who live near rivers, the Mediterranean or Atlantic also eat fish baked with salt, vinegar and cumin. They also use cumin in their wine. They do not use olive oil because of its scarcity, and due to its unfamiliarity, it has an unpleasant taste to them. When a number of them dine together, they sit in a circle with the most powerful man in the centre like a chorus leader, whether his power is due to martial skill, family nobility or wealth. Beside him sit the remainder of the dinner guests in descending order of importance according to rank. The servers bring drinks in clay or silver vessels resembling spouted cups. The platters on which they serve the food are of similar material, but others use bronze, woven or wooden trays. The drink of choice among the wealthy is wine brought from Italy or the region of Massalia (the Greek colony at Marseille). It is normally drunk unmixed with water, although sometimes a little water is added. Most of the population drinks a plain, honeyed beer, which is called corma. They use a common cup, sipping only a little at a time, but sipping frequently. The servant carries the cup around from right to left. In the same direction they honour their gods, turning to the right”.

This seems to be a likely picture of the Gallic feast, but there must be doubts as to how much of the image was free of the deep-rooted idealised picture of barbarian behaviour. There was an attempt to write an account of the Gauls which would appeal to a classical audience, who envisaged a barbarian group. A key phrase seems to be the assertion that ‘Celts did not like olive oil; they disliked its taste’. This identified the criteria by which the Romans judged the Gauls, and was a criticism initiated by a difference of personal preferences. The mention of cumin, used to flavour fish and wine, also inspired comment and disapproval. However, such social shortcomings could be rectified and contact with the Romans would change social preferences. Although the first contacts with olive oil were apparently unappreciated, oil presses found at Entremont suggested that Mediterranean contact soon changed tastes. The images portrayed above recall Homeric settings. The roasting of meat, spits, and cauldrons conjure up the image of the Celtic hearth in contrast to Roman feasting. The huge cauldrons with “every kind of meat” ordered by Lovernius recall hearth equipment. The cauldrons were made the year before by artisans from other cities, which suggested knowledge of craftworkers from neighbouring communities. The length of time allowed for the manufacture of the cauldrons showed the requisite thought and planning needed for the feast. Lovernius then provided meat, wine and grain in large quantities as proof of his power. Not only did the Galatians in nearby towns and villages enjoy the feast, but even strangers passing by were invited in by servants, who urged them to enjoy the good things provided” (Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 4).

This long passage has been quoted in full as it is considered to be an important description. The description reinforces descriptions of hierarchical social structure, both in references to the choice of drink and seating arrangements. The mention of beer is one of the few accounts to give information on the feasting customs of general society, as most narrations describe élite behaviour. Feasting was the preserve of the élites, and lesser ranks accepted serving or attendant roles. Bodyguards with shields stood close by, while spear men sat across from them, feasting together with their leaders. Children were permitted to attend the feast in a serving role, and this was observed by Diodorus Siculus, who produced an image that typified the barbaric Gauls, with strong overtones of heroic myth: “They do not sit on chairs when they dine, but sit on the ground using the skins of wolves or dogs. While dining, they are served by adolescents, both male and female. Nearby are blazing

The setting up of temporary banqueting halls, or pavilions, is very interesting. According to Diodorus Siculus, the Gauls were happy to sit out-of-doors on skins on the ground, but it is suggested that the intention to feast required a visible and fitting site to be available. Ariamnes raised impressive structures to accommodate his assembled guests, to say nothing of the provision of substantial amounts of food and suitable serving vessels. “He divided the country by marking convenient distances on the roads. At these points he set up banqueting halls made out of poles, straw and wickerwork, each of which held four hundred men or more, depending on the size of nearby towns and communities. The convenient sites which were selected were presumably visible and close to 39

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN access routes. The large numbers in attendance were attracted (perhaps under intimidation), by the efforts of a strong personality. Together the exclusively male company represented a body of fighting men. The overriding quality of exaggeration gives a mythic quality to the account, which masks the political implications.

It would be convenient to suppose that medieval Irish Celts could be descended from, and therefore related to Iron Age European Gauls. Simon James presents an argument which is both strongly opposed to this view and presented with excellent substantiation (1999). As there was no apparent movement of Gallic tribes to Ireland in the early centuries AD, it is difficult to establish a case for transmission of culture by invading peoples.

In common with Homeric feasts, the time after eating was devoted to entertainment, discussion or combat. Caesar told how the Gallic druids “commit to memory huge amounts of poetry and their knowledge of the immortal gods is passed down to their scholars” ( BG vi 14). Although Caesar does not specify poetry narrations as part of the feast, it seemed that as at Greek and Roman symposia, there was an occasion for entertainment or activities after the eating and drinking phases of the feast. The poet played an important role in society and so it is not surprising that his services were required at the feast, as Kenneth Jackson points out that “the Celtic poet and sage was a functionary in society; his prime duty was to praise his chief and to recite his genealogy” (1964: 26). Although eating and drinking were essential characteristics of the feast, the after-meal activities often supplied the material for colourful accounts. Personality and power struggles marked the feast as a setting for catalytic action. The hero, who needed to prove himself, pursued his cause at the feast, challenge being the Homeric way of proving superiority (Jackson 1964: 12). This was also true of Gallic societies as Posidonius informs us that combat between guests was frequently an element of the feast (Histories 23). Barry Cunliffe regards the feast as an essential element of equilibrium (1997: 105), and provided opportunities for obvious manifestation of stratified society. Young men could demonstrate prowess and advance their pursuit of power.

If an oral tradition of mythic belief could transcend the passage of several hundred years until the setting down of tales in the 7th century AD without any major loss of material or undue mutation, then representation of Iron Age ideology could be possible. Although the proposal of such continuity seems unlikely, there is support for the proposition based on the strong role- model emanating from Greek classical texts which is reiterated first in Gallic accounts, and then Irish myths, in which heroic tales are supported by moral subplots. Instead of dismissing Irish literature out of hand, it has been decided to give some attention to the Irish myths, as have other authors. This will be shown to provide an interesting echo of the classical role model, in which Gauls were viewed as a barbarian group, identified by unseemly behaviour. 4. 4. 2 Feasting in Irish myths (The extracts of texts in Table 4 appear in random order. The texts were chosen to illustrate feasting customs in early medieval Ireland, which recall Homeric and Gallic episodes). The reason for feasting is often suggested, and as in Gallic scenes, the feast is often a convenient setting for social conflict. In The Book of Invasions the feast celebrates a victory (Table 4. 5). In this instance, the furnished banqueting hall seemed a typical setting for the victory feast, and it was not unusual to see strangers accepted at the table as rules of hospitality allowed. Underlying the celebratory motives for feasting, the intention was to extract revenge for the death of the hero, Kian.

It is interesting that allusions are made to Homer’s heroes, as the Gallic feast calls forward strong comparisons with the early Greek traditions. This was noted by Chadwick who terms the Gallic history and literature as having the closet and most interesting parallels with Greek Heroic Ages (1926: 427). 4. 4. 1 The relevance of medieval Irish literature

Reminiscent of the Gallic societies described above, cattle ownership in Ireland was a chief source of social power and Timothy Champion reminds us how early Irish records are full of accounts of raids to acquire booty, often cattle (1995: 93). In The Cattle Raid of Cooley, the Big Brown Bull of Cooley was emblematic of power. The bull’s owner was to be offered 50 cows in return for the loan of the bull for one year, and a feast was arranged to seal the bargain. The events of the feast took an unforeseen turn when unfortunate remarks, spoken after too much wine put the negotiating parties on a war footing (Table 4. 18-20).

A later compilation of texts, often cited as evidence of Celtic tradition, is provided by Irish myths. The medieval texts are presumed to relate to a Heroic Irish Age, a time which echoed the warrior societies of Gaul, and Early Greece. Here there are obvious problems of the lapse of time before these tales were set down - a gap of almost a thousand years after the European Iron Age. Irish myths would have been transmitted orally. Some were written down as early as the 7th century AD, but most were not recorded until the 11th and 12th centuries. The justification for a use of medieval texts lies in the similarity of subject material seen in Irish myths, Gallic accounts and the Homeric tales.

In the introduction, it was considered that feasting might occur in a prepared environment. The feast in The 40

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Champion’s Portion, took place in a large hall (Table 4. 9), as did the events of Mac Dathó’s Boar (Table 4.12), and Deidre and the Sons of Usna (Table 4.13). A detailed description of an Irish banqueting hall was given in Kenneth Jackson’s 1964 lecture. The hall was a large wooden-framed building, “with weather boarding, and roofed with shingles”. A vent in the ceiling allowed smoke to escape from the fire on the floor. Such a fire lit the hall at Tara, bathing the entire banqueting hall in a great glow (Table 4. 5).

and death situations. The cauldrons were vessels which were used in ritual activities and were symbolically linked with rites of passage. It has already been seen that social rank was respected at Gallic feasts and this was shown by entitlement to attend the feast, seating arrangements, or allocation of choice food. The Romans did not permit women to attend their symposia, but women were present in serving roles at Gallic feasts. Irish accounts revealed that not only were female servants permitted at the feast, but wives took a part in the planning and supervising the allocation of food and drink. When Cuchulainn was awarded the Champion’s Portion, his wife was present and raised her glass (Table 4.10). In Deidre and the Sons of Usna, Phelim’s wife was responsible for the correct serving of wine, even though she was pregnant (Table 4. 13). In Math, the son of Mathonwy, Lord of Gwynedd, it was Gwdion’s sister, who arranged a feast and then debated with two poets (Table 4. 26). These accounts suggest that noble women at the feast were respected, and frequently shared positions of power.

In The Champion’s Portion Briciu, a chieftain of Ulster, displayed gold, silver and glass vessels on a long oak table (Table 4. 6). Cattle and gold were regarded as portable wealth, and the luxury vessels exhibited at this feast were visible pointers to status. In the same story Maeve presented a series of ornate cups to the contenders for the prized portion of meat. Gold vessels may have been given as gifts or taken as booty in raids. The vessels are reminiscent of prestige items in Homeric tales, especially Nestor’s cup. The feast in The Champion’s Portion was a device for defining social roles (Table 4. 6-9). The episode appeared to be a faithful copy of Posidonius’ s account of the custom whereby a thigh piece was awarded to the best Gallic warrior. The practice was also known from Homeric tales, and had its origins in the myth of Prometheus. The meat was shared between men and gods, to show homage to the gods and distinguish rank among men. In Gallic society, if the choice portion was claimed by another warrior, single combat ensued. In the Irish tale, Cuchulainn earned the Champion’s Portion, but not until he had overcome three contenders. This recurring motif suggests a genuine continuity of ideas, whereby themes from Greco-Roman and Gallic texts were recycled. This makes a good case for admission of the Irish literary evidence.

4. 5 Summary This chapter has focused on the difficulty of identifying a Gallic feasting tradition using textual evidence. The assumption that Gallic feasting rites differed from Roman practices is based on the writings of Greek and Roman authors; but from a classical viewpoint, the Gallic feasting tradition was subject to prejudice. There are no Gallic texts or pictorial representations to counter the classical view, and the classical image was accepted and faithfully reproduced time after time. Moreover, it is known that Athenaeus, Diodorus Siculus and Strabo quoted Posidonius, so in effect we are often relying on only one account. With so little first-hand information it is no surprise that real-life and mythical accounts became interchangeable, and fact became indistinguishable from fiction.

In Mac Dathó’s Pig, reference is made to the quantities of meat that were on offer at a feast, “They went indoors for a great feast, for which Mac Dathó had slaughtered his magnificent boar: servants wheeled it into the hall, garnished by forty huge cows who lay across it” (Delaney 1994: 48-54). In the same account, details were given of “seven cauldrons always full of steaming beef and pork”. Again there is a comparable Gallic example in the huge cauldrons of meat commissioned by Lovernius.

The moral element of myth, which contrasted right and wrong choices, was comparable to the contrasting of Roman and Gallic feasting. In contrasting Roman and Gallic we might as easily compare classical and barbarian, right and wrong or any opposite, so profound is the difference between the two sides of the coin. In elucidating a Gallic feasting tradition it could be seen that Gauls stood out from Roman or Greek societies by displaying predictably different behaviour, based on their classification as ‘barbarian’. In looking for a contrast, classical authors resorted to an expected model, based largely on heroic ideals.

Cauldrons were frequently mentioned in tales of Irish feasting, and were often an essential element of the narration. A bronze cauldron contained the Champion’s Portion (Table 4. 8). The cauldrons were vessels associated with magic, as was the cauldron of Daghda, which contained an everlasting supply of porridge (Table 4. 2), and the cauldron of Pen Annwfn, which was edged with a ridge of pearls (Table 4. 37). Brân gave the gift of a cauldron which restored the dead to life (Table 4. 23), and this is an excellent example of cauldrons linking life

The projected description of the Gallic peoples was compatible with the Roman expectation of barbarian society. The Gallic tribes had access to Roman feasting equipment and wine, but apparently chose to feast in an unrefined manner, preferring the simplicity of handheld 41

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN food served from cauldrons, and shared cups of undiluted wine drunk by the open hearth.

when the men helped Cunon undress, and others brought forward large silver bowls of scented water in which he washed (Table 4. 28), but although there are strong links between ritual washing and feasting, there is no textual confirmation that this occurred at Gallic feasts.

Many of the elements of the Irish feast were first encountered in Homeric tales. Guests sat at tables in the banqueting halls, eating roasted meat which had been cooked on spits or in cauldrons over the hearth fire. Wine was served from luxury vessels by female attendants, and women of rank also attended the feast. Poetry recitals, conversation or single combat took place after the meal. Having earlier justified the use of Irish texts, and commented on correspondence with Gallic accounts, these must now be used to reinforce the evidence given by classical authors. Where there are anomalies or doubts about the accuracy of classical texts, it might be suggested that recourse to Homeric and Irish texts might provide clarification. On this basis the Gallic feast can be assumed to comprise the following components: 1)

The assembled company remained after eating to participate in readings and discussions. Single combat at this time appeared to be a routine way of settling hierarchical disputes. 5) Wine- serving and mixing Posidonius stated that the Gauls drank their wine undiluted. He also mentioned the addition of cumin, a comment which implied that the Gallic practices did not meet with Roman approval. In The Champion’s Portion, we are told that fifty women at the feast had all taken strong drink (Table 4. 8), and this may have suggested the drinking of unwatered wine.

Feasting accommodation Banqueting halls are mentioned in several Irish accounts, and though there is no evidence for such permanent buildings in Gaul, there are references to structures of poles, straw and wickerwork set up by Ariamnes and Lovernius. Although the structures offered little permanence, they still suggested a likelihood of a defined arena specifically designed to accommodate feasting guests.

2)

Codes of behaviour- sitting or reclining Diodorus Siculus claimed that the Gauls did not sit on chairs to feast, but sat on the ground using the skins of wolves or dogs (v. 29), while Posidonius specifies dried grass on the ground and low tables. Homeric and Irish tales both give details of tables and chairs, and it may be that the classical assertions were merely in line with identifying barbarian behaviour, but there is a problem identifying furniture for sitting from classical texts.

3)

Women at the feast Guests at Gallic feasts were served by female adolescents, and this is uniform in the textual sources. The Irish accounts also state that noble women accompanied their husbands at the feast. High status women are known in Gallic society, (Boudicca of the Iceni and Cartimandua, queen of the Brigantes), but classical texts do not confirm the presence of noble women at Gallic feasts.

4)

Feasting procedure There are no precise references to pre-feast rituals of washing, but in the Irish tale of Cormac’s Cup of Gold, servants prepared a bath for Cormac before he attended Manannan’s feast (Table 4. 11), and this is very reminiscent of the servant girl preparing a bath for Odysseus (Homer The Odyssey). A similar account occurs in The Countess of the Fountain,

Jugs and drinking vessels called forth special comment from Posidonius, so it is likely that the clay and silver spouted vessels were unique to the Gauls, but were intentionally chosen for wine-drinking.

Fig. 4. 1 A romantic view of Gallic feasting (Warrior cult of Celtic legends (Mansell Collection) Delaney 1993)).

42

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Social tradition was important whether rooted in heroic Greek myth, or Irish medieval legend, though Irish literature seemed to mirror the Homeric and Gallic tales so exactly that a universal source could be proposed. Feasting was often mentioned in texts, and fulfilled a vital role in social organisation. The strong relationship between Gallic feasting and warrior bonding recalled similar interplay in Greek heroic society. As the social practices of Gallic tribes differed from those of the Romans, it is valid to consider feasting as a point of comparison. What cannot be denied is the element of change and progression which occurred in Iron Age feasting, whether instigated by Roman ideology or a Gallic love of feasting. The adoption of wine and serving vessels suggested that the Gallic feast was subject to change, but only with a preservation of past ideals. Although feasting was a communal activity, respect of rank was evident. Mediterranean drinking imports in burials not only expressed a change in feasting customs, but signalled a weakening of warrior power. Élite burials progressively emphasised wine-drinking, as warrior elements were deposited less frequently, being replaced by drinking and feasting accoutrements. The heroic feast appears to have remained virtually unchanged in mythic accounts throughout the next 13 centuries, but we know that this was a romanticised view and in reality changes occurred that were initiated by contact with the Mediterranean world.

43

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Table 4. References to feasting in Celtic/ Irish Mythic tales The excerpts follow the order used in Chapter 2 in considering elements of the feast. These categories are the motive for feasting, the feasting accommodation and furnishings, entitlement to feast, the seating arrangements, the feasting rituals, serving of the wine, hospitality and post feast activities. The vessels of the feast particularly cauldrons seem to exemplify the importance of the Gallic hearth. 1.

Source Delaney 1994:3 Book of Invasions

Summary of text Partholon had a special barrel of ale brewed for him by the best brewers in the country, exclusively for his consumption and his most favoured guests and statesmen. (A magic tap on the barrel exposed his wife’s adultery). Tuatha Dé Danaan (people of the goddess Dann although the identity of such a goddess is called into question by MacCulloch, who regards this as “mythological as the pagan stories themselves” [1918:39]). The Tuatha Dé Danaan brought four magical possessions1) Fál, the stone of destiny, which cried out when the rightful king trod upon it. 2) The site of the royal palace (Meath). 3) The flashing spear of Lug, which never missed its mark. 4). The great cauldron of the all powerful god, Daghda. Insatiable desires for porridge were satisfied as the cauldron fed to bursting all who ate from it. Cabery called at Bres’ house, (unannounced and unknown), expecting hospitality under Danaan law, as if he were an unannounced king. Bres however did not even invite him to the general meal that evening. Instead the poet was shown to an unlit chamber with no comforts, where surly lackeys served him a late meal of oat cakes and beer that was sour.

2.

Delaney 1994:6 Book of Invasions Maier 1997:274

3.

Delaney 1994: 6 Book of Invasions

4.

Delaney 1994:7 Book of Invasions

Eithne was put in the care of twelve serving women

5.

Dealaney 1994: 10-11 Book of Invasions

After the reburial of the body of Kian, they returned to Tara. The victory celebration was begun. The avenging fire bathed the entire banqueting hall in a great glow. Under Danaan laws of hospitality, the murderers, guests at the feast, could not be attacked by him. He called for his magic to work, requesting three apples, a pigskin, a spear, a pair of horses yoked to a chariot, seven pigs, a young hound, a cooking spit and three shouts from a hilltop.

44

Interpretation The drink was ale, not wine. The special drink was used to denote status and foster prestige relationships. Daghda (the good god), is sometimes linked with the Celtic god Sucellus. His cauldron not only provided inexhaustible supplies of food, but had the ability to bring the dead back to life. (Maier 1997: 90). This important attribute could be considered as a reason for symbolic placing of cauldrons among grave assemblages.

The expectation of hospitality was a feature of the ancient world, and was an underlying theme in Homeric myth. Cabery was not invited to a feast, or even the ‘general meal’. The lack of hospitality was highlighted by the missing elements of feasting, (a lack of furnishings and lighting, uncivil servants and poor quality food). This was a severe insult. Women were also ranked in society. Eithne was an only daughter, (possibly of high birth), and was entrusted to the care of twelve ‘serving ‘women. The reason for the feast was to celebrate a victory, and the event took place in a hall designed for banqueting. The laws of hospitality were given as the reason for obligatory behaviour, which excused actions which might not be popular, (including the acceptance of murderers as guests). In mythical realms, pigs were credited with the gift of magical regeneration, and this has an underlying theme of life after death. The requested items related to categories often noted in the grave goods of Gallic warrior tombs; provisions for the afterlife (apples, pigs), personal warrior equipment, (chariot and horse gear, and a spear), items of hearth equipment (cooking spits).

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 6.

Delaney 1994:1617 The Champion’s Portion

Briciu, a chieftain of Ulster wanted the best for his guests. He could see all the comings and goings from his couch. The castle was laid out in a lavish way- a long oak table gleamed with the gold, silver and glass. Bricriu meets the king and his entourage at a fair where he is received cordially and invited to join them for lunch in the Red Branch pavilion. Seated beside the king of Ulster, Briciu issued an invitation to his own feast, which after a brief conference is refused on the grounds that Briciu would use the occasion to exploit the laws of hospitality.

7.

Dealaney 1994:19-20 The Champion’s Portion

A major intention of the feast had been to stir up trouble. The Champion’s portion alluded to time-honoured ritual of granting the largest portion of meat to the strongest and bravest warrior. He had chosen a huge pot- large enough to contain three big Ulster men. By now the servants had filled it with a strong red wine. To this was added a seven-year old boar, a seven-year old cow and a hundred wheat cakes, cooked with honey.

8.

Delaney 1994:2126 The Champion’s Portion

As each man dismounted, a beautiful servant-girl conducted him to the splendid apartments. Down in the courtyard below, the music began. Briciu pointed to the huge bronze cauldron containing the Champion’s Portion. (The contents of the cauldron led to fierce rivalry and competition as expected). Briciu’s next step was to provoke the ladies. He approached the wife of Leary, Fidelma, who was followed by fifty women, all of whom had taken strong drink. He invited Fidelma to lead the ladies into the feast. This scenario is repeated on encounters with two further groups of fifty drinking women. The women force their way into the hall in three rival columns. King Conor MacNessa banged his silver sceptre on the bronze arm of his chair. Briciu admonished their behaviour saying they would not eat or drink until the house was restored to its former condition. Cuchulainn restored the palace to its original position then resumed his seat at the table. The assembled company returned to their banquet. The hall settled back and now the feast had become greatly adorned by the presence of the many beautiful women.

45

The couch was reminiscent of furnishings from Greek and Roman symposia and was eminently suited to a person of status. Luxury serving vessels of gold, silver and glass were already placed on the oak table at which guests would sit, not recline. Hospitality rules were again cited as the reason for invitations which seemed contentious. The feast was a hoped-for chance of tactical discussions. Unfortunately the discussions did not materialise, even though Bricui was intentionally seated by the king to this purpose. The laws of hospitality allowed him to avoid discussion. The pavilion was an acceptable alternative to a banqueting hall. This calls to mind the feasting pavilions built by Lovernius. As always there was a motive for the feast, in this case defining relationships. The largest portion of meat was a recognised prize and status reinforcement. As in ancient Greek warrior society, competition was encouraged, and the strongest and bravest were duly rewarded and defined. The ‘huge pot’ equated to a cauldron, and these vessels are synonymous with magical properties. Wine was significantly chosen rather than beer, but further elements of the superstitious, magical associations with the cauldron were achieved by the inclusion of the boar and cow, both connected with significant number, ‘ 7’. The feast took place in a hall with elegant furnishings, (the King’s chair had bronze arms). The feast was attended ladies, but we first hear of serving girls, so a distinction was made between different ranks in female society. The ladies were allowed to participate in feast, and were welcomed for their decorative qualities. (Women were entitled to attend Etruscan symposia, but were not permitted in the Roman symposia unless in a serving or entertaining role). However, though their presence at the feast was not unusual, it was noted that the ladies had ‘taken strong drink’, which may have been considered out of character. The drink may have been responsible for spirit of competition which was shown by the wives, though this was then taken up by their husbands on their behalf. The episode throws light on the role of females in society. Female rank is denoted here through marital ties, but the women are also acclaimed as strong personalities, (even if motivated by drink), and Fidelma is named as a leader. This fits in with some high-status female burials in Gaul (Vix, Primelles, Neuvy Pailloux, Arras, T.1, Dorton, Goeblange, Nospelt “Scheierheck”).

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 9.

Delaney 1994:33The Champion’s Portion

10.

Delaney 1994:41 The Champion’s Portion

11.

Delaney 1994:46 Cormac’s Cup of Gold MacCulloch 1019:118

12.

Delaney 1994:4854 Mac Dathó’s Boar

13.

Delaney 1994: 66 Deidre and the Sons of Usna

Maeve gave Leary a cup, beautiful bronze goblet with a white bird portrayed on the bottom. The cup would prove to Ulstermen a chosen, undisputed champion. Maeve instructed Leary to hide the cup until the right moment at the feast, then rise, hold the cup high and show the bird. Maeve filled the cup with deep red wine and Leary, standing before her throne drained it at one gulp. Conall was given a cup of white gold with a portrait of a golden bird on the bottom. Cuchalainn was handed a cup of rich red gold, and the bird at the bottom was fashioned from jewels. Cuchulainn was awarded the Champion’s Portion and his wife the right to raise her glass first.

Inside the palace Cormac found two people sitting on oaken chairs; a beautiful woman and a champion. The servants prepared a bath for Cormac. Cormac bathed, the hot stones going into the bath-water of themselves, and the men brought in a boar, while Cormac prepared the fire and set on a quarter of the beast. His host proposed that he should tell a tale, at the end of which the meat would be cooked. Manannan produced a table cloth on which appeared whatever food was demanded, and a cup. A pig is killed, quartered and tossed into a large bubbling cauldron. They all feasted merrily amid much music. During dinner, Cormac, the perfect guest, admired his host’s exquisite drinking chalice made of beaten gold. Mac Dathó possessed a tame boar reared for the table fed for seven years and seven days on cow’s milk. In the palace were seven doors, and seven cauldrons were always full of steaming beef and pork. It was considered insulting to the host for a guest to walk past a cauldron without eating. They went indoors for a great feast, for which Mac Dathó had slaughtered his magnificent boar: servants wheeled it into the hall, garnished by forty huge cows that lay across it. Mac Dathó ordered more wine and much more music and then, after all had feasted well and had begun to loll about, he beckoned the ambassadors. Cet reached for the carving knife. The men began throwing things; bread at first, then spoons and goblets. They overturned chairs and knocked rush lights from the pillars. Blood ran on the stone floor. The pig’s front feet were offered to the westerners, a gesture of contempt.

Throughout one feast at Phelim MacDell’s, his pregnant wife moved among the guests, pouring wine, calling for servants to attend to food, should a warrior want for anything. At the end of the evening as Phelim’s wife walked slowly down the centre of the banqueting hall, with all the wine now ceremoniously poured, an ear piercing shriek made the drinking cups ring in echo.

46

The cups or goblets were status vessels, recalling the description of Nestor’s cup (Iliad XI see Table 2.2 .22). The cups were symbolic of power, and the reason for this feast was to define this power. Maeve, a woman of status, (with her own throne), controls the cup and wine, and therefore is able to manipulate actions. Leary drinks the wine in her presence in order to seal a pact. This passage reinforces the concept that women were rightful participators of the feast. Cuchulainn’s wife earns status from his achievement, expressed in raising her glass, (rather like a loyal toast), and also denoting a customary ritual of wine drinking. A bath was prepared for the visitor; this scenario is reminiscent of an episode in the Odyssey. The feasting hall contained chairs and a table, which was covered by a cloth. Storytelling and music gave the correct feasting atmosphere, (these elements are featured in Greek symposia see Table 2.1.16). The cauldron, pig and fire are features of the hearth. Yet another status drinking vessel is reminiscent of ‘Nestor’s Cup’, and conveys prestige through ownership. In the true vein of myth, “Cormac’s Cup of Gold” is a moral tale. The boar was a valued possession, the animal of Celtic feasts, and was suitable for gods and heroes. This boar had been fed for seven years and seven days, the number seven being significant. In order to stress the special qualities of the magnificent boar, the number seven implies magical qualities. Even the already significant cauldrons were present in a this quantity. The correct elements of the feast have been provided. The feast took place in a stone-floored hall, which was obviously a permanent feature. Apart from the sumptuous food, music played in the background, and hall was lit with rush lamps. The men were provided with chairs, spoons and goblets. The occasion of the feast and the lack of deference to rules of hospitality rules incites action. Particularly significant was the allocation of cuts of meat. Whereas the largest or Champion’s Portion denoted high status, the animal’s front feet were regarded as an insult. Maier states that Mac Dethó was one of six owners of an Irish banqueting hall, or bruiden (1997: 49). Not only were women allowed at the feast, but on this occasion, a pregnant wife. As the host’s wife she was responsible for the correct serving of wine. This ceremony followed laid-down procedures which was also true of Roman and Greek symposia.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 14.

Delaney 1994:7576 The Love Story of Diarmaid and Grainne

On the night of the wedding feast the warriors asked for shelter and were made welcome. Just as they sat down to dine, a sheep jumped on the table and pranced about kicking the plates and goblets. (The sheep represented the world). The old man led them to a large and beautiful room with four couches, resplendent with furs and tapestries.

15.

Delaney 1994:79 The Love Story of Diarmaid and Grainne Delaney 1994:83 The Love Story of Diarmaid and Deidre Delaney 1994:87 Oisin and the Land of Youth

He tried to convince Finn he had not made love to Grainne by leaving symbols- an unbroken piece of bread and a wine vessel full to the brim.

16.

17.

Diarmaid recited a list of favours Finn owed him- for saving his life when Finn suffered treachery at a banquet.

The banquet in question was planned as an occasion for treachery.

Fianna began to speak in verse; Wild honey drips from the forest’s trees We have endless stocks of wine and mead No illness comes from across the seas Nor death, nor pain , nor sad decline. They got up from their couch of luxurious furs and animal hides and ran an inventory whether jewel, utensil or jug.

Wine and mead were different drinks and expressed different symbolic messages.

18.

Delaney 1994:99 The Cattle Raid of Cooley

19.

Delaney 1994:101 The Cattle Raid of Cooley Delaney 1994:123 The Cattle Raid of Cooley Delaney 1994: 144 The Lord of Dyfed

Ulster’s finest hospitality- drink and goodwill poured like a tide over the night, and they ate excellent food and talked a great deal. Maeve used the persuasion she found effective, the promise of gifts- wine, a chariot and horses, a valuable brooch. For the next seven days great feasting and bestowing of patronage took place, and when the feast had ended the two men had reached an understanding.

22.

Delaney 1994:147 The Lord of Dyfed

Tiernan asked for permission to address the banquet, and as one person the hall rose. They banged goblets against shields.

23.

Delaney 1994:152 Branwen, the daughter of Llyr. MacCulloch 1918:100-1

Upon completion of the building of an iron house, the courtiers would lay on a feast for the man and his wife, and during it the couple and his awful family was to be locked in. Vessels arrived bringing the King of Ireland as a suitor for Branwen. He was accepted and a feast was made for him in tents, for no house could hold Brân. Brân gave him gifts including a cauldron, which restored the dead to life although they remained dumb. This cauldron was obtained from two mysterious beings that came out a lake in Ireland. They were so troublesome that they were imprisoned in a white- hot iron house

24.

Delaney 1994:158 Manawyddan, The son of Llyr MacCulloch 1919:102

In the castle larders they found enough food to make a new feast every day for a month. Pryderi tried to lift a golden cup, but found his hands stuck fast to it and he could not move his feet.

20. 21.

The wedding was the reason for a feast. The warriors were assured of shelter under the laws of hospitality. A normal feasting scene was suggested by the table, goblets and plates, but the sheep was unusual, and this was a turning point in the plot. The couches in this narration were not in the feasting room, but were for sleeping on. Wine provided a symbolic message.

47

Animal hides were mentioned as items traded by the Gauls, though skins and furs are rarely preserved in archaeological contexts. The hospitality theme occurs again, and the feast has all the expected ingredients of drink, goodwill, food and talk. Prestige gifts put the receiver under obligation to repay the favour. In this way power was achieved. The feast was held in order to cement relationships. This was no light task, and the feast lasted seven days. The feast organised by Loverius also lasted over many days. The banquet provided an opportunity to address an assemblage, and eloquent speech was greeted with heightened emotion. The company was made up of warriors, who kept their shields to hand even when feasting. The reason given for this feast was ostensibly to celebrate a marriage but in reality, treachery was planned. The place for the feast was important and this is unusual in suggesting a structure that was not a permanent building. The Gaul, Lovernius set up tents, or pavilions. Miranda Green (1998: 64-81), discusses the life and death symbolism attached to cauldrons. Men that were brought back to ‘life’ were transformed, i.e. dumb. This was not a true bringing back to life, but a ‘zombie’ state. The lake, which was the origin of the water, was also symbolic in Celtic religion as a sacred place. MacCulloch believes this tale to be borrowed from an Ulster tale, the Mesca Ulad. Feasting was basically a way of distributing surpluses, so the detail here was a crude version of stock-taking. As so often occurs, the golden cup possessed magic properties.

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 25.

MacCulloch 1918:104

26.

Delaney 1994: 170 Math, the son of Mathonwy, Lord of Gwynedd Delaney 1994: 180 The Story of Lludd and the Llewelys MacCulloch 1918: 107 Delaney 1994:203 The Countess of the Fountain

27.

28.

29.

Delaney 1994:206 The Countess of the Fountain

30.

Delaney 1994:225-6 Tristan and Iseult

31.

She 1990:115 Gwynedd and the Fairy-Folk

32.

MacCulloch 1918:31

33.

MacCulloch 1918: 37-8

34.

MacCulloch 1918:51 Book of Fermoy 1918: 54

With Pryderi is Lord of Annwfn in a Taliesin poem. “Complete is my chair in Caer Sidi; Plague and age hurt not him who is in it, They know Manawyddan and Pryderi ; Three organs round a fire sing before it, And about its points are oceans’ streams, And the abundant well above itSweeter than white wine the drink of it”. Gwdion’s sister arranged a feast and had much good conversation with the two ‘bards’.

The poem related to Elysium. The reference to white wine is unusual as red wine was the often quoted preference.

The dragons will have adopted the shape of pigs and both will fall into the pit and land on the silk covering the cauldron of mead. The dragons were made to be drunk with mead and then buried. A wizard casts spells over the dinner table.

Shape-shifters, seen here in the forms of dragons and pigs were found in the mythology of some immature cultures. The feast was a background for magical events, and a cauldron was suitable vessel for this scene. Servants helped with robing tasks as befitted Cunon’s status. The custom of cleansing or ritual washing before the meal was known from Greek mythology. The cushions suggest that Cunon may have reclined against the cushions, but this is a tentative suggestion. The careful descriptions of a variety of rich materials, (gold, silver and especially ivory, linen, and saffron brocade, suggest status, but furthermore trade contacts. There are two features in that passage which are familiar. The female attendant is reminiscent of a servant girl in the Odyssey, while the large dinner served to Owen is called the ‘champion’s portion’. The beggar’s disguise recalled Odysseus’s homecoming. Just as a gold cup denoted high rank, a wooden beaker implied lowly status. Food and drink was offered by noblemen observing the laws of hospitality As in Greek myths, the powers of magic, (whether gods or fairies), could be appeased with offerings or libations. (See Table 1.2).

The men helped Cunon off with his clothes and others brought forward large silver bowls of scented water in which he washed; they handed him towels of green and white linen. Helping him to don linen shirt and trousers, tunic and short cloak of saffron brocade, they led him to cushions of crimson linen and served a lavish meal in vessels of gold, silver and ivory.

In this chamber, with walls of red and gold, the girl lit a fire, heated water and in a silver basin bathed Owen’s wounds, drying them with linen towels. On a table of solid silver covered with yellow linen, she served him dinner, a champion’s portion all to himself. Tristan disguised as a leper, a wooden beaker in his hand. Some travellers hit him several clips upon the head with their staves, others hurled abuse at him; a few gave generously- meat and drink from noblemen, peasants tossed him coins. Fairy influence could be averted. They could be kept friendly or neutral with ritual offerings of food and drink: a cake dropped in a furrow when ploughing, a libation poured on the ground at harvest. As charms against them objects made of iron were potent. Goibniu (Old Irish Goba, “smith”), - his immortal ale, like the nectar and soma, made the gods immortal, so that he is the equivalent of the Greek Hephaistos, god of craftsmen, who poured out the nectar for the gods at their banquet, and of the Vedic deity Tvastr, who made the cup from which the gods drank. Why divine smiths should be associated with the drink of the gods is unclear, but probably we have here different forms of a myth common to Indo-European peoples. The unmoved son sang of a divine land, where beer fell in showers, and every army was of a hundred thousand warriors, while as one went from kingdom to kingdom, the melodious music of the gods was heard. He told his goddess wife and those of his comrades of the cauldrons and drinking horns taken from the fort. Through Manannan’s magic power Elcmar was expelled, and Ones gained the Sid, where he dwells invisibly, eating the swine and drinking the ale of immortality. Immortality is said to be given to them by Manna through their drinking Goibnui’s immortal beer. “All those who partook of Goibnui’s banquet, nor pain nor sickness troubles them”. Elsewhere this immortality seems to be dependant on the eating of certain fragrant berries, of which it is said “no disease attacks those who eat them, but they feel the exhilaration of wine and old mead.

48

The feast provided an opportunity for discussion.

This passage provides reinforcement of the early reasoning that there was much repetition of tales from earlier cultures. The Greek myths formed a long-standing role model.

Cauldrons and drinking horns were regarded as worthy spoils .

Eating and drinking were important factors in the passage to the afterlife.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 35.

36.

MacCulloch 1918:80 Leabhar na hUidre MacCulloch 1918:109-10 Hanes Taliesin

37.

MacCulloch 1918:95, 111 Taliesan poem

38.

MacCulloch 1918: 112 Hanes Taliesin

39.

MacCulloch 1918:120 Fionn Tales

40.

MacCulloch 1918

41.

MacCulloch 1918:

42.

Maier, B. 1997: 30 Baile in Scáil

Midir invites Etain to the Mag Mór- a marvellous land wherein is music. The plains of Ireland are fair, but fairer is this plain, its ale more intoxicating than that of Erin. There is a choice of mead and wine. Cerridwen prepared a cauldron of inspiration and science to boil for a year. While she went to gather herbs of virtue, she set the blind Mordu to kindle the fire and Gwion to stir the pot; but three drops from it fell on his finger, which he then put in his mouth and found himself master of knowledge. Arthur and many other companions go overseas to Caer Sidi for the spoils of Annwfn, including the magic cauldron of Pen Annwfn. Round the cauldron was a ridge of pearls; it would not boil a coward’s food.

Tegid is a god of the world under waters. He and Cerriden , possessor of a cauldron, are perhaps parallel to the giant pair in Branwen, Cerriden being a local goddess of inspiration as her cauldron of knowledge shows. The Celtic mythical cauldron, bestowing knowledge, plenty and life is recognisable as a property of the gods’ land; but it was dangerous, and a bard sings of his chair being defended from Cerriden’s cauldron. In the síd of Oengus were always two pigs, one always living and one always cooked, and a jar of excellent beer. The Elysian ale is doubtless a form of cuirm or braccat, made from malt, of which the Gauls had a divinity, Braciaca, and it is also analogous to the Vedic soma and the wine of Dionysos. Cauldrons were used by the Celts for sacrificial as well as domestic and these gave rise to myths of wonderful divine cauldrons like Dagda’s. Manannan is chief on the island of Elysium (he is also connected with Magical Pigs, the flesh of whom restored health and happiness); in that land he had a stone fort with a banqueting hall. Slaying the horses, he cooked their flesh on rowan spits, and a part, uncooked was brought to Fionn, but refused by him. Lug mac Ethnenn predicts the names of future kings of Ireland; meanwhile the personification of “sovereignty” pours out beer in a golden pitcher.

49

Ale, mead and wine were differentiated between. The familiar motif of magical powers was associated with the cauldron.

The cauldron was a prestige item, worthy of striving for. Overseas adventuring was practiced by the Greek heroes. Hospitality encountered during journeys realised expectations of prestige gifts. Adventurers returned to enjoy increased status through prizes, booty and contacts. Again, the emphasis is on the symbolic, magical properties of the cauldron; Maier says the cauldron gave the gift of poetic powers to the drinker (1997: 69).

The familiar motif of magical powers associated with the cauldron.

Special mention was made of the place for banqueting. Horse flesh was cooked to eat. Rowan spits do not sound as practical as metal spits; Rowan may have been significant in folklore. The allocation of uncooked meat was not welcomed by Fiann. Maier suggests that the pouring of the beer into a status vessel could symbolise the transference of power.

CHAPTER 5

The Vessels and Equipment of the Gallic Feast in Text and Practice medium was used by the Gauls to fashion huts, fences, effigies, baskets and even shields, which were then covered with skin (Caesar BG 2.33). It is reasonable to suppose that temporary structures could be erected from such materials.

5.1 Introduction: An examination of the relationship between the literary sources and the archaeological evidence This chapter aims to review the archaeological evidence of Late Iron Age feasting in north-western Europe. Having built a picture of Gallic feasting from textual sources, a concern is now to approach the archaeological evidence with an open mind and not manipulate facts to fit the literary account. The classical texts presented a biased view which gave the impression that all Celtic peoples adhered to a common barbarian behaviour code, most accounts being based on the original observations by Posidonius. Archaeological sources have the advantage of drawing from a wider selection of geographical sites, with a varied selection of artefacts. By identifying the material evidence of feasting and winedrinking, the classical accounts will be verified or discounted. Nevertheless, artefactual examples have been chosen with verification in mind, and this must be balanced by impartiality in response to the texts.

The vast proportions of Lovernius’ feasting are best equated with the numerous sanctuary enclosures of Late Iron Age Gaul and Britain. The ditched quadrangular enclosures developed through the Hallstatt period were replaced by smaller compounds in the La Tène era, often surrounding a pile construction (Chossenot 1989: 107). Ritual was undoubtedly a feature of the sites, and although precise activity is not recorded, feasting is mentioned: “All this they did to the accompaniment of sacrifices, feasting and orgies in their various sacred places”. Dio Cassius, Epitome LXII 7 (in Smith 2001:14). At Corent, Poux interpreted the amphorae fragments and animal bones found in sanctuary ditches as evidence of ritual, and likely feasting. Coins also found in the sanctuary area carried the motif of a fox, which was especially significant in that the Gallic name ‘Lovernius’ means fox-like (2000: 217- 232, 2002 b): 52-3). The evidence of post holes reminds of the Lovernius text and the erection of temporary structures. Matthieu Poux’ investigations have led him to consider the possibility of structures within these sanctuaries which may be linked to memorial meals.

The previous chapters gave a perspective on the feasting practices of living societies, but much of the available archaeological evidence of feasting is from burial contexts. Many of the examples come from élite burials, though feasting and wine-drinking no doubt occurred in other settlement contexts as part of the celebration of weddings, victories etc. Feasting debris may also be preserved within simple grave deposits, but without permanent banqueting halls, frescoed walls or hoarded vessels, the ephemeral atmosphere of celebration and ceremony has disappeared without trace. The frequent recourse to burial archaeology may give a false account of the feasting practices of Celtic society in general, and caution must be allowed to temper optimism when reviewing the overall picture. 5.2 Feasting accommodation: Banqueting halls, temporary structures and hearths Few Gallic individuals have the distinction of being recorded by name, but Ariamnes and Lovernius were immortalised in feasting accounts. “Lovernius enclosed a square over two kilometres on each side,” Posidonius in Athenaeus IV. 36 (Koch 1997: 10) “The rich Gaul, Ariamnes, set up banqueting halls using poles, straw and wickerwork” Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 4 (Koch 1997: 6-7). The poles, straw and wickerwork which formed these structures did not survive in the archaeological record. However, there was a tradition of wickerwork, and this

Fig. 5. 1. The sanctuary at Corent (after Poux 2002: 52).

50

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 5.2.1 Furnishings Tables “Wooden tables raised only slightly from the ground” is how Posidonius describes the use of low tables (in Athenaeus IV. 151). Few indications of such furniture are found. In an exhibition which took place at CharlevilleMézières in 2001, was a reconstruction of the interior of a Gallic house. Based on fragments found in Wederath, the tableau featured a low table (l’Archéologue 55, 2001: 31). Roman tables from Pompeii survived mainly because they were made from metal or stone marble, and would therefore stand a better chance of preservation than wooden Gallic tables. The tables used by the Greeks and Romans were positioned close to couches so that food and vessels were within easy reach. Food was transported from kitchens by servants. Apart from the poor preservation qualities of wood, the rarity of Gallic furnishing is linked with the non-use of couches, and the proximity of the eating area to the hearth which negated the need of tables.

Fig. 5. 2. A ditched enclosure at Écury-le-Repos showing post settings (after Piggott 1968: 57).

When Anne Ross described the square-ditched enclosure which was used as a burial site for family groups over several centuries at Écury-le-Repos, she also drew attention to traces of a possible roofed structure (1967: 68). The structure could have been a feasting pavilion, but was most likely to have been a shrine.

Stools In Jutland, the “universal chiefly symbols were a golden arm ring and a folding stool of wood” (Collins 1979:122). This is suggested by a few stools from burials. A folding stool was also indicated by metal fragments at Lexden (Foster 1986), reminiscent of the status stools known from Etruria and Rome. The stools denoted rank, but were inconsistent in the Gallic feasting environment.

“The Celts placed dried grass on the ground when they eat their meals” Posidonius in Athenaeus IV. 36, IV. 40 (Koch 1997: 9). The poor preservation rate of poles and wickerwork applied equally to dried grass which was said to provide a seating material together with the skins of wolves or dogs;

Oil lamps and candelabra Joyce Toynbee believes that the purpose of candelabra in Roman burials was to light the darkness of death, or to symbolise of the perpetual light of paradise (1971:27928). Candelabra were present in the burials at Boé, SaintRémy-de-Provence, Tomb VI, and Beaucaire Marronniers Tomb 17 (Table 7.1), but no associated symbolic function or belief in an afterlife can be testified with certainty. Oil lamps appeared frequently in domestic and funerary contexts. Four oil lamps were found in the rich burial at Boé, and one in each of the burials of SaintRémy-de-Provence, Tomb V, Beaucaire Marronniers, 17, Beaucaire Marronniers, 19, Beaucaire, Colombes 1, and Clemency (Table 7.1). Oil lamps were also found in pits at Cavaillon and Vieille-Toulouse, (Table 9.1). Lanterns were present in the burials of Beaucaire, Marronniers 1, Neuvy-Pailloux and Antran (Table 7.1), and were of Mediterranean, not Gallic origin.

“When they dine, they all sit, not upon chairs, but upon the ground, using for cushions the skins of wolves or of dogs” Diodorus Siculus V. 28. 4 (in Koch 1997: 11). Dog bones were present in assemblages of Lamadelaine (Metzler-Zens et al. 1999: 270-2), and instances of dog skeletons in ritual pits were recorded by J.-P. Petit (1988: 171,179). A burnt bear claw found in tomb 112, “La Croisette”, and a similar find at Clemency (Lambot 1994: 189), suggested that if bear claws were present, bear skins were available. However, while these examples demonstrate that animals and skins were existent, this does not verify the use of skins for seating. Logically, skins are an appropriate choice of seating material.

All of the above lamps were of Mediterranean origin, but in a network of caves on the Rue de la Roche Albéric, Couvin, (Belgium), two flat- based vases were found. These vases were from a category that appeared in 51

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN northern Gaul in the Late Iron Age. They were intended to contain oil, and as many were found in caves, it was assumed they were associated with lighting (Cattelain et al. 2002:29). Oil lamps were small and ideal for lighting small areas, but perhaps did not produce enough light at a feast.

in the centre of the tomb. Grills were also discovered at Dun-sur Auron and Stanway, “The Warrior Burial”. The Arras frame was termed an ‘offering table’, and this is unique in Gaul (Piggott 1971: 247). The firedogs and grills were obviously hearth equipment, although Brailsford suggested that the firedogs might be wine rests, against which amphorae could lean (in Piggott 1971: 246). Piggott was able to discount this suggestion, pointing out that firedogs and amphorae would have to be found consistently together in the same cultural environment for the wine apparatus suggestion to be valid, and this was not so.

The hall in the tale of Mac Dathó’s Boar was lit with rush torches which stood on the pillars [4.1.16]. Vegetative material was plentiful and rush torches could have been employed during feasts. This likely possibility was put forward by Charlette Arcelin (1979:80), but as rushes perish without trace, this is still conjecture. The blazing hearth would also have provided an important light source.

In a house with a central hearth, the firedogs could be placed close to, or over the fire. It is assumed that the firedogs were used to support spits for roasting meat, although four ‘spits’ found in conjunction with firedogs in the Stanfordbury ‘A’ grave did not seem suitable for this purpose. Hooks on some firedogs enabled spits to be placed across the hearth (Piggott 1971: 253).

5.2.2 The ‘Celtic’ hearth In reconstructing a feasting model, it is essential to include the Celtic hearth, which was a focal point of assembly and the means to satisfy culinary requirements. The blazing hearth, hung with cauldrons of steaming food, and festooned with spits of meat, conjures up a tangible picture of the Gauls; a vision of rough warmth, fierce comradeship and an important feature of the home and family. “Nearby are blazing hearths and cauldrons with spits of meat” (Diodorus Siculus 5. 27-32, in Koch 1997:11). The classical writers might have attempted to discredit the so-called barbarians by suggesting a lack of civilised eating and drinking manners, but around the ‘Celtic’ hearth, traditional values defied the changing world. As the encroachment of the Roman world changed burial and ritual practices in Gaul and Britain, elements of the hearth, visible in burial goods and ritual pit deposits, hint at the stubborn retention of traditional codes.

Fig. 5.3 The distribution of firedogs in Europe (after Piggott 1971: 261).

Firedogs have been found in non-funerary contexts over a widespread area; the firedogs in the Museum of Laon are paralleled in Britain, Germany, Switzerland and Bohemia (Gaudron 1955: 275). The iron frames, often featuring ‘bull-headed terminals’ have more often been preserved in burials than settlement contexts, where perhaps items were melted down for reuse.

Firedogs, spits, tripods and hearth equipment “Meat, either boiled, roasted or cooked on spits” Posidonius, in Athenaeus IV. 36 (in Koch 1997: 9). As early as the 2nd century BC, a burial from Marcelcave contained not only firedogs, but other items associated with food preparation and serving, including a cauldron, a bucket and a selection of pottery (Poux 2002:346).

There are also more firedogs from British than Gallic burials. This shows that insular Celtic ideals and links with the hearth remained strong through the period of Roman advancement.

In the Late La Tène tombs 2 and 3, Arras, amphorae and bronze vessels point to the occurrence of sophisticated Roman style wine-drinking practices. The vessels were accompanied by Celtic-style firedogs and a cauldron. Similar ambiguous Celtic-cum-Roman depositions of amphorae and firedogs occurred at Boé, Welwyn Garden City, Welwyn A and Mont Bures, Stanfordbury A, and Lord’s Bridge. An unusual iron frame came from the Welwyn B burial and at Clemency a grill was positioned

Cauldrons, suspension chains and ladles The ornate Greek ceremonial cauldron may have been the inspiration of the flat-bottomed ‘Atlantic’ cauldrons which were produced in Europe and Britain from c.750 BC (Hawkes & Smith 1957: 184-5). Cauldrons were “typical finds in ‘princely burials’ of the western sphere 52

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE of Hallstatt” (Frey 1997: 86-8), and remained popular throughout the La Tène period, as shown by examples from the burials of Armsheim and Wincheringen, (Germany), Baldock, (England), Arras, Tombs 2 & 3, Fléré-la-Rivière, Neuvy-Pailloux, Mailleraye-sur-Seine and numerous pits in Toulouse, (France). (See Tables 7.1 and Table 9.1 for details).

middle like a chorus leader, whether his power is due to martial skill, family nobility or wealth. Beside him sit the remainder of the dinner guests in descending order of importance according to rank. Bodyguards with shields stand close by them while their spearmen sit across from them, feasting with their leaders” Posidonius in Atheaeus IV. 36 (in Koch 1997:9).

Cauldrons hung on chains were suspended over a fire, and Piggott informs that the cauldron chains of the “Great Chesterford type were in use in Roman Britain as late as the 4th century AD (1971: 255). Cauldrons and ladles were found in several amphorae burials, and provide excellent confirmation of literary accounts of Celtic feasting customs. Miranda Green (1998: 63- 83) strongly believes that Celtic cauldrons were more than just utilitarian vessels. The cauldrons were believed to possess magical properties which bridged the gap between worldly knowledge and speculation about an afterlife in the Otherworld, thereby advocating a case for a link between archaeology and myth (Table 4.3, 4.16, 4.35- 41).

The circular seating arrangement is a motif found in myth, forming an important element of Arthurian legend. While there is no reason to dispute that this also occurred at the ‘Celtic’ feast, the strong mythic image may colour the accounts. Without pictorial representations we have no way of confirming the description, but it seems likely that this would have been a logical arrangement as examples of such a spatial arrangement are also known from cemeteries and sanctuaries. At both Welwyn Garden City and Baldock, a central burial was marked out by goods and treatment as a prestige grave, around which other satellite burials were arranged. Possibly these signified spearman. There are many instances of swords and lances in burials, which allude to warrior status. Single shields or bosses have been found in the amphorae tombs of Berry Bouy, “Tomb de la Placette” and “Jeu du Mail”, Nimes, Antran, and Wederath Belginum grave 25 (Table 7.1). The coincidence of amphorae occurring with weapons emphasises the important association of feasting and warrior activities. Multiple shields in burials at Vernas (Perrin 1990:13) and four shields in the deposit at Mailleraye-sur-Seine (Lequoy 1993:121-33) indicate that shieldsmen may have attended the feast, although these may have been personal equipment. Helmets, shields, scabbards and lance heads together with amphorae have been found in small measure in funerary pits and swords in greater numbers in sanctuaries, but artefact finds are powerless in attesting the relationship of a feasting company.

5.3 Seating arrangements: sitting or reclining? The Roman tombstone of Marcus Valerius Celerinus depicts the tomb owner reclining on a couch during a banquet, while his wife sat on a high-backed chair (Toynbee: 1971: 215). This was indicative of Roman feasting which required the correct furniture; the Romans reclined on couches during the symposium, and when Diodorus Siculus refers to ‘sitting on the ground’, he is commenting on the barbarian nature of the Gauls. The Hallstatt burial at Hochdorf preceded Roman but not Mediterranean influence. Here the deceased was laid on a couch, although not in a reclining posture. Couches are known from the Late Iron Age burials at Folly Lane (Niblett 2000), which also contained amphora, and in the “Colchester Child’s Grave” (Echardt 1999:55-81). At Folly Lane, Verulanium, the burnt decorated remains of a couch had been at first incorrectly assumed to be handles from cups etc., but were all part of the couch. Both burials showed traces of feasting and drinking, but the couches indicated Roman influence. Carved pieces of bone from a couch found in Cambridgeshire suggest that this was also an élite piece of furniture which mirrored Graeco-Roman lifestyle (Nicholls 1979: 1-32). There are also Gallic examples of funerary couches from the end of the last century BC and Bettina Arnold believes that such luxury pieces may have had use other than funerary, but this is difficult to prove (1999:89). Couches were not utilised in Gallic feasting practices, and neither was the reclining pose. Inward-facing Greek and Roman couches allowed banqueters equality in the symposium. In the Gallic feast, hierarchical positions were respected.

5.4 The feasting company: who could attend? Rich female burials confirm that noble women had a revered place in Gallic society (Table 7.1). Personal feasting equipment included in ‘female’ tombs gives support for a theory that women could be present at Celtic feasts. Irish myths related the right of women to attend, but we are given no information by the classical authors. “For many days the feast was served continuously to all who would attend” Posidonius in Atheaeus IV. 36 (in Koch 1997:10). The numerous animal bones found around the pits of Argenton-sur-Creuse indicated a feast enjoyed by a large number of people (Petit 1989:133), but specific feasting

“When a number of them dine together, they sit in a circle with the most powerful man in the 53

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN numbers are not suggested. In Greek and Roman contexts the number of places on a couch determined how many made up a feasting company, and with no formal Celtic seating, this information is unavailable.

5.5.2 The Menu Bread “They eat only small amounts of bread, but large quantities of meat, either boiled, roasted or cooked on spits. Posidonius, in Athenaeus IV. 36 (in Koch 1997: 9).

5.5 Feasting ritual This study aims to provide an interpretation of Gallic feasting, which encompasses the behaviour surrounding wine-drinking at the funerary feast. Confusion may arise as to which service vessels can be genuinely regarded as appropriate to wine. It will be appreciated that imported bronze vessels in Gallic graves are equally cognate with Roman symposia. Though Roman symposium vessels may have had no use, or a different function in Gallic feasting, the possibility of a wine- association is explored.

Cereal crops were grown by the Gauls, and millstones found in burials (Table 7.1) and pits (Table 9.1) indicate that flour was available for bread-making. Domestic open-top, (tannur), ovens are well represented on urbanised sites of southern France in the Late Iron Age. “The ovens were principally used to make bread” (Pion & Genty 2002: 225- 6).

5.5.1 Hand-washing

Meat

It has long been accepted that bronze jugs were luxury imports relating to the Roman symposium. Powell explains that from the mid 6th century BC the wine trade could be testified in Hallstatt culture from the presence of Rhodian bronze wine jugs. The jug formed “an important archaeological horizon” (1980:109), occurring not only in the in princely wagon graves such as Kappel am Rhein in Baden, Vilsingen Württemburg, but also important strongholds such as The Heuneberg. It has often been assumed that their purpose was wine related. Collis (1984: 141) refers to “bronze drinking vessels”, stating the most common to be the jug, and giving the example of the “Kelheim type”, from northern Italy, and Roymans (1990 :254) also assumes these “were used in the preparation of wine”. It is more likely that Kelheim jugs and Aylesford pans employed in Roman hand- washing practices (Fitzpatrick 1993: 237).

Faunal data from cemetery contexts also reinforces the literary evidence (Lambot 1994, Metzler-Zens et al. 1999, Méniel 2001). Having made this point, this section will only receive general treatment in order to acknowledge the perceived difference between Roman epicurean tastes and the Gallic preference for meat sharpened by wine and beer!

The bronze jugs recovered from Late Iron Age burials were prestige items, manufactured in Italy (Boube 1991: 23-45). It is difficult, if not impossible to deduce a chronological pattern from bronze jugs, strainers, dippers, pans and bowls, and many were likely to have been deposited as heirloom items. Boube details all known finds of Kelheim jugs from the last two centuries BC, and suggests that in common with other late republican jugs, their manufacture echoed earlier Etruscan stylistic traditions (1991: 42). A bronze jug from Goeblingen Nospelt B was stylistically paralleled at Pompeii, where 21 similar vessels were found.

Posidonius did not specify the type of meat cooked in the cauldrons, but evidence from burials and pits in Gaul confirms that by the end of the La Tène period more pork than beef was eaten in feasting rites. Many Late Iron Age burials of Gaul contained burnt animal bones indicative of funerary feasting, and amongst these pig bones were present in the burials at Acy-Romance, Fléré-la-Rivière, Hannogne and Tesson. Half a pig was deposited at Wincheringen, and four complete boars lay on the floor of the Clemency tomb. In the cemeteries of AcyRomance, and Lamadelaine pig bones outnumbered those of any other animal. A few burials contained evidence of the consumption of other animals; sheep and pig bones were found among the animal bones in the Arras tombs, but no cattle bones were found at these sites (Table 7.1). This is the opposite of settlement evidence, where cattle bones were retrieved in greater number.

Poux’s work on sanctuaries and feasting has led him to conclude that vast quantities of meat and wine were indeed consumed (2002:347), and two examples given by Patrice Méniel of huge quantities animal bones found in the Oise valley also confirm large feasts. Near Verberie the remains of three cows and four horses testified to the consumption of great amounts of meat, and in an enclosure near Chevrières were the remains of six cows and three pigs (2001: 67-8).

Bronze jugs were often found in burials which also contained amphorae, but this is not an indication of wineserving use. In the previous chapter it was stated that the Romans ate with their fingers and that servants were on hand with jugs of perfumed water and pans, so that fingers could be frequently washed. Though the jugs are indicative of Greek and Roman symposia practices, they do not represent wine serving.

“The best warriors received the thigh portion during feasts”. If another man were to challenge

54

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 5.4 The comparison of animal offerings in the cemetery of Lamadaleine, and the culinary evidence from the oppidum of Titelburg (after Metzler-Zens et al. 1999: 371).

his right to the choicest portion, a duel was fought to the death”. Posidonius Histories 23 4-40 in Athenaeus (in Koch 1997: 10).

Faunal evidence from the Titelberg oppidum shows cattle were important in the economy (Metzler-Zens 1999: 371), but in feasting situations, pork was preferred to beef.

The ‘Champion’s Portion’ was a familiar motif of Gallic and medieval Celtic hierarchical feasting. There are signs that some joints of meat were more acceptable than others. Older cattle were left to decompose at Gournaysur-Aronde, while the ribs and shoulder joints from younger animals had been selected for consumption.

“Their flocks of sheep and pigs are so large that they supply an abundant quantity of salt meat to Rome and Italy” (Strabo, Geography 4.4.3). The use of salt was alluded to by Strabo and Posidonius, and was an essential commodity in Gallic food preparation. Fish “Those who live near rivers, the Mediterranean or Atlantic also eat fish baked with salt, vinegar and cumin”. Posidonius IV. 36 in Athenaeus (in Koch 1997: 9).

Fig. 5. 5. Meat selection. The animal on the left is an older beast. The highlighted portions were left to decompose. The highlighted parts of the younger animal on the right were selected, butchered and consumed. (after Méniel 2001:82).

Cooking practices using salt can be indirectly identified by the cracked internal surfaces of some vessels and evidence in the form of hearths and

55

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN shells testifies to the salting and drying of seafood at Goulvars à Quiberon (Daire & Quesnel 2002:182-4).

Wine-drinking is primarily confirmed by the presence of amphorae. Amphorae are the subject of later chapters (6 & 7), so at this point the reporting will be minimal. It is enough to acknowledge that amphorae finds from settlements and burials, (Table 7.1), justify accounts of wine-drinking. The ingredients for beer-brewing were present in the cereal crops grown in Gaul, so it was natural that this would have been a popular drink until the advent of wine. As in the cuts of meat, social ranking was shown in the choice of drink.

5.5.3 Eating utensils “They eat in a clean, but lion-like manner, holding up joints in both hands, and biting the meat off the bone. If a piece of meat is too difficult to tear off, they cut it with a small knife which is conveniently at hand in its own sheath” Posidonius IV. 36 in Athenaeus (in Koch 1997: 9).

5.6.1 Mixing and diluting: Buckets Individual stages of serving of wine can be itemised to show Roman-style drinking. The presence or absence of functional vessels which enable particular practices show Roman influence or Gallic traditions.

Knives were found in many of the 251 corpus burials and are too numerous to be listed individually (Table 7.1). N. Metzler regards the knife in the Clemency tomb as “playing a sacrificial role” (in Lambot 1994:164). The ubiquitous presence of knives surely indicates how useful the tool was, having relevance in eating, hunting, agricultural and many other functions. It makes perfect sense that this should be the regular implement, ready to hand at the feast.

“The vats filled with expensive liquor” Posidonius in Athenaeus IV. 37 (in Arnold 1999: 76) In the famous burial at Vix, the function of an immense krater was assumed as for mixing wine. Nothing of this dimension has been discovered in any other Late Iron Age amphora burials. The largest containers were buckets which appeared in eight corpus burials. These would serve as an ideal container if wine was to be mixed in the Roman way. However the buckets were not always found in conjunction with amphorae as can be seen from the burials at Acy-Romance, “La Croisette” and ThugnyThugny (Lambot et al. 1994: 125).

5.5.4 Serving food Food was apparently served on vessels made of a variety of media including clay, wicker and wood, none of which established a particularly Celtic or status precedent. In the early Iron Age Grave VI in the Hohmichele tumulus, there was a cauldron, cups and the possible remains of a wicker basket. The basket had probably held fruit (Frey 1997: 86). It is unusual to find such an item, and this suggests that with improved survival conditions, other similar examples could have been found. There was an example of a wickerwork basket in a pit at Ashill (Ross 1967: 55). If serving vessels of metal and pottery seem “over-represented”, this can be explained by the perishable nature of horn, wood and wickerwork which makes them less likely to survive (Arnold 1999: 88).

Buckets were found in 9 amphora tombs, and of these, four contained two buckets (Table 7.1) At Compiègne a bucket and firedogs were found in a non-funerary context. At Swarling and Aylesford buckets were used to contain the funerary deposit, but in the amphora tombs, this did not occur. Many more buckets were deposited in ‘funerary’ pits (Table 9), and were obviously important as they appeared in the deepest levels, symbolic of ritual.

The meat from ‘steaming cauldrons’ was undoubtedly a type of stew, which could not be satisfactorily eaten with fingers. In addition to a knife, a personal bowl of wood or pottery would seem invaluable, although Posodonius made no mention of such items.

A problem in assuming that buckets might be the “vats” described by Posidonius is the size of the vessels. The Aylesford bucket is only 250 mm. (10”) tall. Likewise other buckets are small, their heights being Baldock, 218 mm, Great Chesterford 160 mm, Vieux Toulouse XXVI 268 mm, Goeblingen Nospelt, tomb 11, 285 mm, and from Goeblingen Nospelt, Tomb 12, 290 mm. The minimal size renders the buckets highly unsuitable containers for large amounts of wine.

5.6 Vessels associated with wine serving; mixing, diluting, straining, pouring and drinking “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, but most people drink it plain. It is called corma” Posidonius IV. 36 in Athenaeus (in Koch 1997: 9).

Kruta believes that buckets were definitely part of the Celtic wine service, and that metal ornaments on the wooden vessels represented Celtic deities, appropriate to the ceremonial use of the bucket (1986: 32). Lambot suggests that the wooden bucket with bronze decoration from Goeblingen is older than the other grave goods, a sort of heirloom (1986-9: 223). The bronze fittings on the 56

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE bucket survived better than the wood, so it is possibly that only the élite ornamental buckets have survived, and many more wood-only buckets have perished. This is a shame, because it might have been valid to make comparison with buckets and their function from a later period.

5.6.2 Straining “They also use cumin in their wine” (Posodonius in Athenaeus, 4. 16, in Koch 1997: 9). Unfortunately there seems to be no way of corroborating or disproving this statement without an analysis of wine residues, although mixing brews did not have to be just a Roman prerogative. Celtic infusions using plant material are alluded to by Paul Sealey with reference to strainers (in litt: 10.9.98) and it is quite likely that experimentation took place. Strainers found in Armorica could have been used in the production of cheese or beer (Daire & Quesnel 2002:184-5).

Interesting comments were made on Time Team, August 28-30 2001, regarding the finding of three wooden buckets and a bronze Byzantine bucket, all from one Anglo-Saxon grave. These were assumed to be drinking buckets, used in a feast, but it was noted that at least one of the wooden buckets was made of hazel wood, which is poisonous.

Strainers were found in Early Iron Age sites to the north of the Alps before the wine trade was developed, implying that function could not be related to wine (Adam 2002: 143-156). Guillaumet also comments on use before the Roman conquest, and the subsequent decline in Gaul and Italy which implies that strainers were of Celtic world importance rather than a feature of Romanisation (1977:245).Use of strainers in Gallic winedrinking practices is therefore questionable. 5.6.3 Warming: Pans Aylesford pans are so-named after the vessel found in Tomb Y at Aylesford. The bronze pans are flat based with an elongated handle which may bend to end in a ‘swan’s-neck terminal. These may have been the vessels used for wine warming in the Roman ceremony; though the pans found at Pompeii were slightly different in form and showed signs of having been exposed to heat. However, most examples from Italy and Gaul are from funerary contexts and accompany other items of handwashing equipment (Feugère & De Marinis 1991:108).

Fig. 5.6 The distribution of bucket finds (after Vidal 1979: 176).

Basins The bronze basin from Clemency brings forth the comment from Metzler, that the function of basins in burials is not known. He suggested that maybe the basins were associated with wine serving, but it was more likely that basins were part of the ablution rituals preceding sacrifice or the symposium (1995:99). 5.6.4 Serving A study of the “Lenaia Vases” by Peirce (1998: 59-95) shows repeated scenes of wine being ladled from a Skyphos, indicating that dippers were standard wineserving items in Greek symposia. In the Marronniers, Tombs 12 and 15 from Gard, there are no amphorae but dippers are present, which implies that the function here was not related to wine-serving. It is however tempting to consider these implements, together with buckets, as likely wine equipment, especially as no alternative use has been advanced.

Fig. 5. 7. The distribution of strainers (After Guillaumet 1991: 94).

57

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Fig. 5. 8 Distribution of Aylesford pans (After Feugère & De Marinis 1991: 105).

5.6.6 Drinking “The servers take around the drink in earthenware or silver jars like spouted cups. They use a common cup, sipping only a little at a time, but sipping frequently. The servant carries the cup around from the right to the left. In the same direction they honour their gods” (Posodonious Histories XXIII 4.36 in Athenaeus in Koch 1997: 10). Bettina Arnold interprets the ‘spouted jars’ as Schnabelkannen, naming burials from Dünberg, Marne, and the Heuneburg among references of proof (1999: 756). Posidonius suggested that the clay and silver spouted vessels were particularly relevant to the Gauls, who used them specifically for wine-drinking. Although the upper echelons of Gallic society acquired luxury goods by trading with the Romans, the spouted ‘cups’ were not vessels used by the Romans who, according to hoards and wall-paintings from Pompeii, preferred stemmed wine glasses and silver drinking bowls.

Fig. 5.9 Dippers used in the Greek symposium (Peirce 1998: 98).

Cups were the only pottery vessels mentioned by Posidonius, but a wide variety of local and imported 58

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE pottery wares are commonly found in complete or fragmentary form on settlement sites and in amphorae burials and ritual pits. The vessel forms relate to all the functions of preparation, serving and storing of food, together with eating and drinking. In conversation, Martin Schöenfelder stated that a large flat dish from Boé, was an imported item (pers. comm. April 1999). It had a lid and was identified as a cooking vessel, a sort of steamer, the lid being important to this process.

Feasting accommodation and furnishing

Silver vessels, spoken of by Posidonius, only feature in the British Welwyn burials; bronze vessels are found in Gallic burials and pits, but no silver vessels (Tables 7 & 9). The silver cups found in the Welwyn burials were of Italian manufacture.

With the absence of purpose-built feasting buildings, it is concluded that feasting was outdoors, utilising grass and available animal skins for makeshift seating. There are considerable pointers to the likelihood of temporary feasting structures, particularly in connection with enclosures that have produced other feasting evidence of meat and amphorae. However, it is almost impossible to associate any form of furniture that would be Gallic. Only one table, and that probably from a house, and one possible stool. All the lamps and lights were Roman equipment, which only gives an impression of revered prestige gifts, and no clue to the ambiance of Gallic feasts.

Drinking Horns

Seating arrangements: sitting or reclining?

Several burials, (Hochdorf, Goeblingen Nospelt D, and Boé), contained drinking horns which seem more suited to the barbarian temperament, although many classical authors seem unaware of these vessels. Drinking horns were evident in the Hochdorf burial of the Hallstatt period, where the each of the nine horns would have held 1.1 litres (Arnold 1999:76). “It is impossible to domesticate or tame the aurochs even if they are caught young. Their horns are much bigger than those of our oxen and quite different in shape and appearance. They are much sought after by the Germans who put silver round the rims and use them as drinking cups at their grandest banquets” (Caesar BG VI.28).

Couches were not adopted by the Gauls to be used in feasting ceremony, and neither was the reclining pose. However funerary couches were occasionally used in Celtic burial rites and this leads Bettina Arnold to speculate on “usage in drinking and feasting activities during the life of the individual” (1997: 89). Feasting ritual Although the evidence of fish products from northern Gaul and bread ovens in the south, reinforces the description of Gallic diet, these components were anticipated. Knives were plentiful in burial and pit contexts, and together with quantities of bones it is not unreasonable to accept that these reinforced the use of a knife while eating meat as Posidonius suggested. However, knives were not only used when feasting, but were employed in agriculture, hunting, craftwork and numerous everyday tasks.

This fleeting reference to banquets by Caesar indicates that drinking horns were still in use, together with the cups and vessels named by Posidonius. Apart from the drinking-horn adornments were found in the élite burials of Boé and Goeblingen Nospelt D, cow horns were found in a pit at Montmaurin.

Pottery wares were plentiful and could be grouped into local assemblages that exhibited variations in form, decoration and function. It is said that Greek pottery forms related to specialised function, especially in the symposium environment. Gallic wares were less elegant, but were entirely suitable for the purpose for which they were employed. Unfortunately much of the material evidence of Gallic life is susceptible to a poor rate of survival. Wooden-poled structures with wicker walls, rush torches, baskets, wooden bowls, skins, straw and horns are likely to have been part of a substantial, vanished catalogue of Gallic feasting equipment.

5.7 Summary This chapter has shown how slight is the evidence for the Gallic feast, which is incredible in the light of this being one of the great institutions of Celtic society. While it is possible to present examples as ‘proof’ of the feast in Gaul, by only selecting minimal examples in order to validate a text, this sample may not be large enough to prove beyond doubt that this is how the feast was practised. Distribution maps show that finds do not conform to a pattern that confirms or refutes the textual sources. Neither does the piecemeal archaeological evidence suggest regional adoption of Roman practices or resistance to Romanisation. Firedogs were found in many European regions, but not the southern Gallic coast. Strainers were plentiful on inland oppida sites, but rare in Britain.

Firedogs, cauldrons, and an occasional post-hole are but tantalising glimpses of the Gallic feast that was described and without manipulation to fit textual accounts the scene remains a shadowy image. The classical accounts of Gallic feasting conform to a barbaric ideal, and it is tempting to reinforce the accounts by adding archaeological examples as above. While these may be valid pointers to feasting practices, many feasting 59

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN furnishings and utensils served other purposes in everyday life. The examples used above may not confirm the nature of the Gallic feast, but neither do they disprove the likelihood that the feast was exactly as Posidonius stated.

60

CHAPTER 6

Iron Age Society and the Feast in Social Ritual 6.1 Introduction: Social organisation in the Late Iron Age

practices were adopted at the choice of each individual community, and adapted according to individual needs.

The aim so far has to justify the act of feasting and identify the literary and archaeological evidence for feasting mechanisms within Gallic society. This has been accomplished with only passing reference to the hierarchical organisation, settlement pattern or economic policy. The following sections will investigate those components of social structure which enabled feasting to become an instrument of Gallic social organisation and ritual in a climate of change. It is also appropriate to discuss significant features of burial and feasting practices which are evident through social organisation.

Changed eating and drinking habits were evidenced in styles of vessels, ovens and altered food preferences. These innovations impacted on settlement and burial contexts. 6.2.1 Greek influence Greek influence on the European mainland was apparent at the beginning of the Iron Age. The Mediterranean coastline of Gaul saw a plethora of Greek foundations, beginning with Marseilles in 600 BC. Although true Greek colonisation occurred in the south of Gaul, (Marseille, Olbia, Hyeres, Nice, Entremont, Ensérune), new dimensions in dressed-stone building which copied Greek practices were known in other European settlements. The Heuneberg on the Danube, was first occupied in the late Bronze Age, and followed a pattern of abandonment and rebuilding throughout the Iron Age. In period III the rampart construction featured bricks dried in the sun and laid on a limestone foundation. These were elements found in the Mediterranean world, and were perhaps “introduced by a Greek” (Collis 1984: 88).

Changes in social organisation throughout the Hallstatt and La Tène periods, were marked by productive periods punctuated by times of stagnation or slower development. In the Late Iron Age the emergence of powerful individuals and groups seemed to indicate a new social maturity of Gallic peoples. This maturity coincided with the prominence of the Roman world. Trade contacts enabled wine to become a significant element of feasting and ritual practice, regenerating deep-rooted Celtic traditions. 6.2 Identifying change

In the 4th century BC Greek pottery including Attic wares and Greek amphorae indicated Greek-style drinking and feasting at Olbia, Nages and other southern sites. The vessels were suitable for a diet of fish, bread, and puréed vegetables, though M. Bats states that at this time meat was a luxury (1988:75). In the 2nd and 1st centuries BC Italian vessels showed that Roman style drinking and eating was favoured (Bats 1988: 208). Joints of meat, especially pork, cooked on spits or boiled, were served with bread and Italian wine. This required a different range of vessels from those of Greek cuisine.

The aftermath of the Gallic Wars of 58-51 BC created a profound transformation in a society that was already undergoing change. In subduing the Gauls, Caesar was able to make firsthand observations of more than a hundred named ‘barbarian’ tribes, who were involved in conflict not just with the Roman Army, but also a sophisticated Mediterranean world. Using the evidence presented in De Bello Gallico, this chapter will review the effects of Mediterranean contact on the hierarchical, warrior-based society. “Caesar, fearing the fickle disposition of the Gauls, who are easily prompted to take up resolutions, and much addicted to change, considered nothing was to be entrusted to them” (BG IV.5).

Even though Greek customs were largely supplanted by Roman ways, Greek ideology remained part of an underlying tradition. “In the Helvetii camp lists were found drawn up in Greek characters” (BG 1.29), and the Gallic Druids “ did not think it right to commit their teachings to writing, although for almost all other purposes they use the Greek alphabet” (BG VI.14).

Caesar’s observation suggested that change was something peculiar to the Gauls, but change was a symptom of the Iron Age, and heightened contact with Mediterranean groups increased the rate and amount of cultural change, which was particularly dramatic in the 2nd half of the last century BC.

If Greek language remained part of Gallic culture, it follows that knowledge of Greek myths, the Homeric tales and feasting ideologies were unlikely to have been erased from social memory.

The chronology and rate of social change in Gaul was initially dependent on proximity to the Mediterranean contact zone. Changes swept across Gaul generally from south to north but at unequal rates. Ideologies and

6.2.2 Italian influence It was inevitable that southern Gaul would also become 61

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN an early trade and military target for Roman ambition. Italian-manufactured goods consisting of bronze vessels, fine table wares and wine-amphorae permeated southern settlement and cemetery environments in the last two centuries BC. Soon similar enthusiasm for Italian wares in mainland Gaul was displayed by the appearance of goods in settlements and burials. In contrast, there were few amphora burials in Armorica. Even though Armorican tribes were heavily involved with the amphora trade, supplying wine to British tribes via Hengistbury Head, the Mediterranean products had little impact on burial practices. It can be assumed therefore that all changes were at the discretion of individual tribal communities. Some Germanic tribes refused to import wine, remaining loyal to their traditional warrior beliefs.

succeeded, but (any such movements are extremely difficult, if not impossible to trace archaeologically. Power struggles not only occurred between tribes, but also within tribes. Individual personalities emerged during the last stages of the Late Iron Age, distinguished by ambitions of power. The aspiration of Orgetorix, who wanted to become king of the Helvetii led him to start a conspiracy among the nobles of his tribe. Caesar noted that he was “by far the richest and most distinguished man among the Helvetii” (BG I.2). In the case of Viridoramus of the Aedui, a lowly state of birth made him dependent on Caesar for advancement as he contested the claim of Eporedirix.

“The Suebi are the largest and most warlike of all the German tribes. The import of wine into their country is forbidden; they think it makes men soft and effeminate” (BG IV.2).

“Eporedirix, the Aeduan, a young man born in the highest rank and possessing very great influence at home, with Viridomarus, of equal age and influence, but of inferior birth” (BG VII. 39).

The Nervii, a Belgic tribe adopted the same standpoint. Both tribes showed fierce resistance to Roman conquest.

The Gauls Lovernius, Dumnorix and Vercingetorix, named by Caesar and other historians, were not only important in their own tribal world but were held in respect by the Romans. Élite female burials at Primelles, Neuvy-Pailloux, Arras tomb 1, and Dorton indicate that highborn women were held in esteem. However, no European women are known by name, though Cartimandua, Queen of the Brigantes and Boudicca of the Iceni were renowned as British tribal leaders (Dillon & Chadwick 2000:25).

“The Nervii lived beyond the boundaries of the Ambiani. Traders were not given access to their country: they did not allow wine and other luxuries to be imported because they considered that things of that kind softened men’s spirits and weakened their courage” (BG II.15). 6.3 The hierarchical tribal societies of Late Iron Age Gaul and Britain

Status was inherited and maintained through the control of visible wealth. Cattle stocks were indicators of wealth and those tribes bordering the territory of the Eburones were aware of the large amount of cattle, “of which barbarians are extremely covetous” (BG VI.35).

Late Iron Age Gaul was peopled by numerous small social groups. Kingship units combined to form territorial political groups, identified by tribal names. In his Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar recognised over 100 tribes, and described their part in the conflict. Although Patrice Brun believes that in the last century BC a move was made towards state formation, the tribal units did not form a cohesive society (1995: 13-25). Differentiation between the groups could be measured in terms of size, wealth, degree of nobility, power and political influence. These differences inevitably resulted in power struggles, which contested the hierarchy of intertribal precedence and respect.

As they emerged from the shadow of obscurity it could be seen that these powerful men, and some women of status would command respect, empowered by the ceremonies that celebrated rites of passage. Ceremonial occasions, valid particularly for society élites, might include celebrations at the coming of age, (especially for a male warrior), marriage, birth and death. These observances, no doubt including feasts, but were not described by Caesar. Feasting occasions were condusive to strengthening powerful positions, enlisting labour, and mobilising battle troops. The Gallic élites were all committed to a warrior-style of life.

Caesar relates how; “The Hevetii, are the bravest of all Gauls because they have almost daily skirmishes with the Germans” (BG I.1).

“The other order is that of the knights. These, when there is occasion and any war occurs are all engaged in war. And those most distinguished by birth and resources have the greatest number of vassals and dependents on them” (BG VI.15).

Weaker groups were overwhelmed, moved on, or incorporated into other groups as more powerful groups

62

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 6.1 Tribal map of Gaul

Titles were awarded to the more powerful leaders, marking out not only individual power, but community prestige. Kings, such as the Arvernian King Lovernius, “who in the second century BC, tried to expand his prestige and influence by giving lavish feasts and redistributing his wealth”, used their position to empower a community (Roymans 1989: 34).

“Prompted by Orgetorix’s influence, they made preparations, securing peace and friendly relations with the neighbouring tribes” (BG 1.3). The intertribal quarrels and skirmishes were interrupted by Caesar’s campaign, and alliances were sought in the face of the common enemy. Caesar was aware of the possible combined strength of the Gauls and monitored their coalition plans. Several times Caesar records projected figures of fighting men. Each tribe suggested

Only occasionally was influence brought to bear for peaceful reasons; 63

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN the number of combatants it would provide for the common fighting cause (BG II.5., BG VII.75). Vercingetorix’ bid to resist the Romans was supported by thousands of men from tribes across the whole of Gaul. Only the Bellovaci, who promised 12,000 men, did not provide the quota. Vercingetorix was able to gain support because of his elevated rank, the chieftain son of Celtillus leader of the Averni, even though his bid was unsuccessful (Bunson 1994: 441).

“Dumnorix has great influence and for the sake of strengthening this influence has given his mother in marriage among the Bituriges to a man the most noble and influential there; that he himself has taken a wife from among the Helvetii, and has given his sister by the mother’s side and his female relations in marriage into other states” (BG I.18). Ariovistus likewise sought marriages that would gain a tribal alliance.

The Gallic Wars united the tribes against Rome, bringing some semblance of state emergence. The Veneti even sent for auxiliaries from Britain (BG III.10), as this longdistance contact was an established trade partner. Brun believes that long-distance exchange and the use of coinage paved the way for the change from chiefdom to state formation (1987: 19-21).

“Ariovistus had two wives, both of whom died in that rout. One of them, a Suebian by birth, he had brought with him from Germany; the other, a Norican, had been sent by her brother King Voccio to Gaul where Ariovistus married her (BG I.53). Though noble women were undoubtedly revered among in Gallic society, they were virtually invisible in Caesar’s account of war tactics. Apart from marriage settlements, they were always referred to in the company of children and the aged. Their role appeared to be one of childbearing and minding. “All the older men came out. With hands outstretched they cried out that they were putting themselves at my mercy. The women and children came onto the wall; with outstretched hands, as was their custom, they too begged us for peace” (BG II.13). The Gallic warriors always tried to place their dependents in a place of safety before battle ensued. Sometimes the women and children are protected by oppida walls, and at other times removed to wood or swamp areas, safe from Roman cavalry. “The Nervii, Atrebates and Viromandui put their womenfolk and those considered too old or too young to fight into a place where marshes made it impossible to approach them” (BG II.16).

Fig. 6.2 The monument to Vercingetorix on the site of Alesia.

Children were important as inheritors.

6.3.1 Family relationships

“They resented having their children taken from them in the name of hostages” (BG III.2).

Political ties were often established by marriage among members of leading aristocratic families. Roymans suggests a belief in “sacred genealogies, in which entire peoples, subgroups or individual families traced their descent from mythical ancestors, usually gods or demigods” (1990: 24). Great importance was therefore placed on advantageous marriages into unions of proven ancestry. Dumnorix not only improved his own position through marriage, but arranged propitious unions for his mother and sister.

Family units were often recognisable in cemeteries. In Normée, Champagne and Lamadeleine in Luxembourg, the arrangement of graves meant that organised family and social units could be determined. Within these cemeteries, the deposition of luxury goods and winedrinking equipment served to mark out the high- status burials of tribal leaders. Luxury grave goods placed in

64

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 6.3 Map of Late Iron Age oppida (after Cunliffe1992:64).

child burials confirm that these were kinship-based societies, where status was inherited, not earned.

However, the threat of German occupation was overshadowed by that of the Romans. The communication between tribes who united against Caesar suggests that there was a basis for state formation. This was also seen in the trend towards nucleation as large groups came together in settlement areas.

Roymans describes the Treveri as one of several tribes with aristocratic leaders, and names Indutiomarus and Cingetorix (1990: 33). In Lamadeleine at Titelberg, highstatus tomb 163 is a prestigious tomb but no name is supplied. The status burial under Lexden Tumulus was surrounded by an extensive urnfield and this may have been the burial site of the Trinovantian leader Addedoramus, but this is supposition, and without inscribed monuments, burial archaeology cannot reinforce the texts pertaining to individual personalities (Foster 1986, Peacock 1971).

Caesar categorisesd settlements as oppida, villages or single farms, but was little interested in the open villages of Gaul. In a passing reference he tells that “The Carnutes deserted their towns and villages, which were small buildings, raised in a hurry, to meet the immediate necessity” (BG VIII.5). Strabo says that Gallic houses were “ large and domeshaped, made of planks and wicker, throwing over them quantities of thatch (Geography 4.4.3). This tells little of village plan, and even less of village life. The village appeared to be a place of shelter with some agricultural structures: Caesar mentions the “burning of the barns” (BG VII.17).

6.4 Changes in settlement patterns Fertile land was prized. Tribes whose territory was poor in natural resources were constantly looking for other territory. The “Helvetii were still looking for territory in which to settle” (BG I.I ) and Diviciacus was only too aware of the threat from German tribes, forecasting that;

6.4.1 Oppida culture and a move towards urbanisation

“Within a few years, all the Gauls would be driven from their own lands, and all the Germans would come across the Rhine” (BG I.2.31).

The society described above was hierarchical, poweraware, ambitious and restless. Threat of war brought 65

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN greater interaction and co-operation among the tribes and in order to satisfy the needs of a society that was tending towards nucleation, sites, termed by Caesar “oppida”, sprang up across Gaul in the last century BC.

houses were constructed, but were themselves abandoned as the town of Augustonemetum was founded (1975:1845). The founding of hill settlements appeared to be a response to a particular need at a point in time, possibly for defensive reason or trade distribution, but in each period these installations also signalled a change in social organisation. The number of oppida did not mean that the Gallic population only lived in these communal sites, and not all indigenous settlements were deserted in favour of oppida and differently structured communities.

Hilltop sites were known from the 10th century BC to the conquest period, and represented ‘periods of great energy’ (Fichtl 2000: 30). Though the oppida were usually protected by impressive ramparts, they were not primarily built to fulfill a defensive role, and neither did they develop from open large open villages. Anne Colin states that the oppida “were the product of a centralised political and economic system” (1998: 190).

‘Community’ can be seen as a keyword, for as technological and economic influences of Mediterranean became apparent in Gallic areas, response was to clarify community relationships refine social organisation.

The striking form of the oppida has aroused much interest. Besançon was the largest oppidum of the Sequani and was surrounded by the river Doubs and a high wall (BG I.18), and while under siege, the oppidum of Avaricum was able to give shelter to 40,000 people (BG VII.28). Defined as more than hillforts, oppida are termed “proto-towns “ by Henry Cleere (2001: 42), and were generally larger than their forerunners, with areas of occupation and craft, defined by a network of streets. As in the open villages, houses were usually constructed from timber, thatch, rush and mud, although stone buildings are known from some post-conquest sites. Temple enclosures, stables, granaries, workshops, underground structures and wells suggest a wide range of activities, but we know little of life within the oppida.

the the the and

6.4.2 Trade and oppida The installation of large numbers of sites on river routes verified the interest in trade. The earliest Greek trade was concentrated in the southern coast with limited internal contact, but in the last two centuries BC, all Gallic peoples had access to Mediterranean products and ideologies. The volume of Italian imports, particularly amphorae increased throughout those final centuries BC, with oppida acting as hubs of trade distribution, serving economic needs in the new- found climate of exchange and competition.

Material evidence points strongly to the artisan nature of these sites, as forges and kilns are found together with tools and finished goods. Workshops were identified together with a wealth of material finds. Metal, leather and bone working, pottery manufacture and textile production, took place at Bibracte, Joevres, Essalois, and Montmerle suggesting that many of the occupants were craft workers (Maier 1991:413). This intensification of craft production suggests increased complexity in community structure. Although the stimuli for oppida and settlement changes are attributed to Greek, then Roman contact, the latter appears to be the cause of the final disruption in settlement patterns. Abandonment was as much a part of the pattern as usage (Fichtl 2000: 30). Oppida such as Cras Murcens suffered a final abandonment soon after the conquest. Oliver Büchsenschütz describes this movement to the oppida followed by subsequent abandonment, as “both the outcome and end of the Celtic world”, recalling Caesar’s observation that ‘oppida played a role in the destabilisation of Gallic society’ (1995:62).

By the time Caesar began his Gallic Campaigns in 58 BC, the presence of Roman traders was commonplace. Merchants were found at Besançon (BG I.2.39), and Caesar described how “in towns the common people throng around the merchants and force them to state what country they come from, and what affairs they know of there” (BG IV.5). Information from traders was not only sought by the Gauls, but also by Caesar to assist his battle planning. That there were traders in Gaul leads us to believe that imported goods were exchanged for an equal amount, or bartered. Wells identifies five categories of trade mechanism, bartering being the first type (1995:238-40). Diodorus Siculus stated that the barter rate of an amphora of wine was equal to one slave, explaining “for in exchange for a jar of wine, they receive a slave, getting a servant in return for a drink” (V, 26. 2-3). Powell’s second category is gift exchange whereby special objects are obtained by high status individuals. This type of exchange was also practiced as witnessed in Caesar’s comment;

John Collis describes the Late La Tène disruption to settlement patterns in the Clermont Ferrand region which was occupied by the Arverni. Some of the minor settlements were abandoned early in the 1st century BC in favour of three hilltop sites, namely Corent, Merdogne (Gergovie), and Côtes de Clermont. The hill sites continued in use into the Roman period when stone

“He selected a certain suitable and crafty Gaul. He induced him by great gifts and promises to go over to the enemy” (BG III.8).

66

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE The prestige gifts offered included bronze vessels and wine-drinking equipment. The new wine-feasting tradition was orchestrated by powerful tribal leaders who bid to maintain power by influencing social behaviour, and the desire to secure luxury goods was evident throughout Gaul.

including Entremont and Baou-Roux, (Feugère 1991 & Rolley 1991) and also in élite burials (Table 7). Powell recognises wine as a valuable trade commodity, but also sees wine as the stimulus for the “flowering of La Tène art” (1958:108). Gold terminals on drinking horns, and bronze fittings on buckets which may have been used to serve wine, marked them out as suitable for ritual purpose rather than domestic use.

“The Gauls living near the Roman provinces being familiar with goods that come in from overseas, are well supplied with luxuries and necessities” (BG VI.24).

The import of Mediterranean products continued beyond the conquest. Imported quantities appear to be greater as is indicated by the Dressel 1B amphorae being better represented than the somewhat older Dressel 1A in northern Gaul (Roymans 1980: 155).

The Germanic tribes, distanced from the source of imported goods resorted to seizing booty in order to have items display and trade. The Suebi “admitted traders into their country so that they will have purchasers for their booty”, booty being Powell’s third trade category. Cauldrons found in the area of the Elbe and Saale rivers are thought to have been obtained during German raids into Celtic territory (Wells 1995:239). The famous Gundestrup cauldron was believed to have been looted (Bergquist & Taylor 1987). The British tribes also looked for opportunities to plunder goods;

6.4.3 Coinage Even before the appearance of oppida, the adoption and development of Celtic coinage was another element derived from Mediterranean contact. Some Celtic peoples were minting their own coins as early as the 3rd century BC. Coinage was an expression of the social and economic power of élites. Coins featuring the portrait of the king who issued them, were symbolic of leadership power, rather than monetary worth. ‘Coinage was treasure and belonged to the sphere of élite circulation”, comments Daphne Nash (1995: 245). The Celts were eager to import wine, and the slaves that Rome needed were purchased from the Celts with amphorae of wine. In this sense, the amphorae themselves became the exchange unit, while the pictorial images of amphorae or kings, which featured on the coins served to draw attention to the newfound tools of power.

“The (Britons ) barbarians dispatched messages to all parts, and reported to their people the small number of our soldiers, and how good an opportunity for obtaining spoil and liberating themselves forever” (BG IV.34). Mercenary activity, which is “well documented in ancient historical sources”, and 'exogamy as exchange’ complete Powell’s categories (ibid.).

Strabo says that the Ruteni were renowned for trading in silver (Geography 4.5.2). Coins might be of bronze or silver. It appeared that tribes traded with whatever was most convenient.

As at least three of these mechanisms can be identified, it can be concluded that though the oppida suggested progress towards state formation, the Gauls were loath to relinquish warrior-style methods of obtaining spoils.

“The Britons for money use bronze or gold coins, or iron ingots of fixed standard weights. Tin is found there in the midland area and iron near the coast. The bronze they use is imported. (BG V.13).

Oppida were especially noteworthy as centres for wine traffic (Wells 1999: 42). Michael Dietler insists that Mediterranean imports were “almost entirely restricted to drinking paraphernalia” (1999:141). Wine was eagerly accepted and quickly assimilated into patterns of everyday life as the large numbers of amphorae from oppida contexts clearly indicate. Woolf refers to the change in the patterns of consumption as the “most tangible and common traces of everyday experiences of the mass of the Gallo-Roman population” (1998: 171). The high level of amphorae finds suggests that not only was wine consumed in a domestic context, but such great amounts must imply ritual ceremonies carried out within the oppida.

Coinage was another factor in the move towards state formation. 6.5 Ritual practices and religious beliefs Few images testify to the Celtic gods, but just as the Homeric Greeks believed that battle success would be ordained by the gods, so did the Gauls. “They did not believe that the Romans waged war without divine aid” (BG II.31). Animal sacrifice was much favoured by the Gallic and Germanic tribes (Ross 1995: 441). Caesar’s description of warrior spoils is replicated in sanctuaries of Gournay-

The popularity of luxury goods associated with wine and the Roman symposium is attested in settlement and burial finds. Bronze vessels were found in many oppida 67

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN sur-Aronde and Ribemont-sur-Ancre where weapons, tools and animal bones fill the ditches;

the drink served was not wine. Traces of mead were found in the large cauldron, combining an indigenous element with imported vessels.

“When they have decided to fight a battle, it is to Mars they dedicate the spoils they hope to win; and if they are successful they sacrifice the captured animals and collect all the rest of the spoils in one place. Among many of the tribes it is possible to see piles of objects on consecrated ground” (BG VI.17).

At Apremont drink was served in a set of cups, but at Hochdorf, a set of drinking horns again stressed indigenous choice. At Hochdorf there was provision for eight guests, each supplied with a large platter-like dish for the meat, and a drinking horn (Biel 1997: 125-8). The inclusion of feasting equipment in the status burials at Vix, Waldalgesheim, Somme Bionne, and La Gorge Meillet testifies to the concept of a funerary banquet reserved for a privileged, upper class of society.

6.5.1 Burial practices in the Iron Age

From the 6th century BC wine was available in the Greek foundations of the southern French coast. At the end of the century the tombs at Mailhac demonstrated Greek wine- drinking association. Tombe de CornoLauzo contained an amphora, which acted as the container for the cremated bones. An Attic dish, a small Ionian dish, weapons, a bronze helmet, possibly a breast plate, a fibulae and bracelets, a bucket and a ladle were symbolic representations of warrior importance and the tribute of a funerary feast. (Taffanel 1962: 8). A second prestigious tomb at Mailhac contained ceramic vessels including an oenochoe, amphorae fragments, Attic vases and other vessels. Animal bones pointed to the remains of a feast (Py 1993: 250).

“Celtic Gaul provides evidence for a wide range of funerary practices” is how Wait summarises Gallic preRoman burials (1995 : 506). Pottery grave goods were common to all areas and phases, but otherwise no uniformity can be agreed except an awareness of the Otherworld. “The Druids attach particular importance to the belief that the soul does not perish” (BG VI.14), and this was implicit in offerings which provided for an afterlife. Prestigious funeral ceremonies were rites of passage determined by belief and tradition. Tradition was deeprooted in social structure. At times of emotional susceptibility, tradition strengthened innate social bonds and helped to reaffirm loyalties. Dim and distant burials of the Hochdorf era belonged to social history, but as in the oral tradition whereby Homeric tales were passed on, a memory bank of warrior tradition provided a foundation of cultural ideals. This prototype was vital should an identity crisis arise. Contact with the Romans produced recourse to the warrior-society cultural model, as Gallic peoples confirmed social affinities through ritualistic feasting behaviour.

In the 5th to 4th centuries BC, wagon burials from the Champagne area indicated the presence of an active élite warrior society. In the following centuries ‘flat’ burials, (with no tumuli) became the norm. Cemeteries were spatially organised; men and women were buried separately. Warrior status was still denoted by swords and lances in the tombs (Perrin 2000:92). At the end of the Iron Age the traditional inhumation cemeteries were abandoned and cremation became the dominant rite. The cremated remains were interred in small cemeteries or isolated tombs. Franck Perrin believes this change was possibly due to the establishment of oppida and subsequent population movement (2000:94). Caesar tells us that;

6.5.1.1 Feasting evidence in burials of the Hallstatt era Hallstatt burial examples might be considered too dim and distant to show continuity, but certain prestigious graves indicate the importance of feasting in ancient tradition, so it was not surprising that this element should be continually reworked.

“Gallic funerals, considering the state of civilisation among the Gauls, are magnificent and costly; and they cast into the fire all things, including living creatures, which they suppose to have been dear to them when alive; and a little before this period, slaves and dependents, who were ascertained to have been beloved by them were after the regular funeral rites were completed, burnt together with them” (BG VI.19 ).

The burial tumulus of Monceau-Laurent (Côte d’Or), contained a drinking cup, a ladle. There was also a sword and razor which were symbols of high rank, and these were accentuated by the presence of the drinking set. O.H. Frey believes that the set may have been manufactured locally, though the inspiration was clearly Italic. The powerful tomb owner adopted the Mediterranean custom of a funeral feast, incorporating imported wine (1997:117). A funeral banquet was suggested by a cauldron, wicker basket and bronze plates at Hohmichele (Frey 1997: 86-7), and at Hochdorf the Mediterranean feasting idea was also implicit though here

These cremation ceremonies marked the passing of élite, not general society. Burnt bones found in burials testify to Caesar’s affirmation that animals were also placed on the pyre, and in some rich tombs complete animal 68

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE offerings have also been found. Although Caesar says ‘all things are cast into the fire’, a range of luxury items which accompanied the deceased into the next life were not subjected to the pyre. Hearth furnishings (firedogs, cauldron), hand-washing vessels, (jug, pan, basin), winedrinking equipment, (jug, bucket, dipper) were placed in tombs together with horse gear (Perrin 2000:94). Single burials seemed to be preferred, although if full cremation occurred it was not possible to determine how many individuals were represented from the resulting pyre debris. This does not indicate whether slaves and dependents were indeed sacrificed on the pyre.

krater, Attic wares). Collis says that until the conquest of Gaul, all Celtic coins were inscribed in “Greek” (1984:145), and the Druids only wrote in Greek. The representation of ancient Greek Homeric society had close parallels with that of the hierarchical Gallic society. Conventions of potlatch and hospitality were observed in both societies. Caesar remarked that: “the Germans think it sacrilegious to wrong a guest: anyone who has come into a house of theirs for any reason is shielded from injury and treated as sacrosanct: such guests are welcomed into any man’s home and given a share of food there” (BG VI.23).

The élite burials were often in isolated locations. Tombs of a more modest nature featured in cemeteries near to oppida or open villages. Grave goods in simpler burials included weapons, fibulae and pottery vessels. In conjunction with changes in settlement and economy, it was understandable that new categories appeared in grave assemblages. Amphorae appeared in over 200 tombs, some of which were élite and others modest. The feast, which had been a ritual marker of rank, was no longer the sole preserve of the élites. Wine in plentiful supply allowed fuller community participation in funerary practices, as shown by the likelihood of funerary feasts at Lamadeleine, Folly Lane and many of the Champagne cemeteries.

Animal sacrifice preceded the Homeric Greek feast as did offering spoils to the gods, both of which are seen in Gallic funerals and sanctuaries. The similarity in conduct of the hierarchical warrior societies presents the likelihood of a similarity of feasting in Gallic society. Strong personalities in powerful positions emphasized the hierarchical nature of Gallic society. Gaul was composed of tribes ruled by warrior élites. Woolf refers to Caesar’s description of the Aedui, which he believes to be an accurate representation of “the power of nobles derived from birth, wealth, clients and reputation among peers” (1998: 8). The rallying of forces against Rome was a prime example of leaders calling in favours as each tribe was asked to supply thousands of men. A feast, in Lovernian tradition, placed guests under obligation to respond favourably with the requirement of fighting men, and this would be an ideal way to confirm communal warrior strength.

These are generalised comments on Gallic burial practices which as Perrin notes were diverse but governed by strict rules and beliefs (2000: 102). 6.6 Summary The impact of Roman contact affected social equilibrium, adding a new dimension of unrest, tempered by the challenge of technological innovation. As new experiences became evident through changes in material culture, beliefs and ritual acts were affected.

The high level of amphorae finds on oppida sites suggests that not only was wine consumed in a domestic context, but that great amounts were consumed in ritual ceremonies and gatherings held within the oppida. Oppida were centres of economic control where traders and travellers met. The components for feasting were therefore present; a meeting place on well-known routes, travellers who would be entitled to hospitality, nobles who needed to extract information and discuss strategies, bronze vessels to be exchanged in potlatch customs and large amounts of wine. However, oppida do not represent a total picture of social practice. It would be wrong to think that the entire population of pre-Roman Gaul lived in hilltop settlements, drinking wine. Mediterranean contact made the material requisites for feasting available to a larger feasting public than ever before.

Ruptures in social structure are shown by changes in settlement patterns. Regional settlement sites that were prominent in one Iron Age phase were eclipsed by other sites in subsequent phases. Oppida were peopled then abandoned. Similarly cemeteries saw periods of use and disuse. Often it seemed that the population was reluctant to recognise permanence by installing a cemetery. A sporadic pattern of rich burials followed by poorer burials could be observed. Warrior life-style was a constant, and continuity was observed in the popularity of feasting. Caesar does not actually say that feasting took place, but there are clues in the description of Gallic society that suggest feasting was inherent.

New burial practices were accepted, which appeared in localised forms, as different regions adapted the foreign ideologies. Much effort would have been employed in the cremation preparation, and we can only guess at how complicated or elaborate the graveside rituals must have been in accordance. Large gatherings at status burials would be sure to involve feasting, especially as these occasions defined social order.

6.6.1 Indications of Gallic feasting There was a long association with Greek culture. Greek foundations occurred on the south coast from 600 BC. Greek wares were found in rich Hallstat burials (the Vix 69

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Cultural changes occurred during the Late Iron Age, during which social self-image was questioned. Even though changes took place, tradition was still important and this was apparent in the continuity of feasting ritual. The ideology of the feast was an important concept, vital in the maintenance of social structure.

70

PART II THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

INTRODUCTION TO PART II The following three chapters present the findings of the primary data collection. The table that follows at the end of Chapter 7 comprises 265 examples of burials which contain wine amphora or wine-serving artefacts. Chapter 8 is a detailed account of the burials in the Champagne region which contain amphorae, and Chapter 9 similarly gives examples of pits containing amphorae. However it is not the amphorae themselves which link these chapters, but the fact that all relate to evidence of practices involving the disposal of human body material in conjunction with amphorae. When the information was gathered, it was with the intention of evidencing a feasting ritual in Late Iron Age Gaul. It is highly probable that feasting did occur, but in the light of findings from the Champagne cemeteries the focus of the study has changed. In this area almost 100% of burials only contain amphorae in sherd form, the only region where this high proportion occurs. Accordingly, the emphasis of this section relates to the extraordinary ritual activity observes in Champagne. Chapter 7 presents the corpus of evidence, by which regionalism is explored enabling the Champagne burials to be seen in wider context. The pits of Chapter 9 not only reinforce the nature of local practices and differences, but highlight the importance of landscape. Territories, boundaries and sacred places govern the implantation of deposition sites, and together the three chapters of Part II give an overview of ritual deposition at the end of the Iron Age, while setting into perspective the highly-developed ritual practices of Champagne and the symbolic role of the amphora.

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

72

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

CHAPTER 7

The Corpus of Evidence and an Inventory of Iron Age Amphora Burials of Gaul and Britain used for transporting wine from production sites in Italy and Spain to Gaul and Britain in the last two centuries BC and the first quarter of the 1st century AD. When the amphorae appeared in burial assemblages, the functional

1.1 Introduction: Amphora burials Even in pre-Conquest times wine amphorae were in plentiful supply. From the second half of the second century BC the volume of traded amphorae is confirmed by the number of wrecks found off the French Mediterranean coast. Wine was no longer the prerogative of an élite hierarchy, and finds in settlement areas showed that the commodity was available to entire communities. At Bibracte, Essaois, Vieille-Toulouse and in the river Saône, thousands of amphorae fragments have been recovered. Amphorae were consistently found in large numbers on oppida sites, though these were easier to explain than their appearance in burials. Fanette Laubenheimer describes wine as a “constant evolution mover” in Antiquity, (1989: 5), and as large quantities of wine in the public domain brought about changes in communal feasting activities, wine was also the catalyst for changes in local funerary practices. Amphorae were intentional inclusions in funerary deposits, and the presence of these vessels or sherds suggest that wine-drinking practices were incorporated into the Late Iron Age funerary practices of Gaul and Britain. The ever-increasing catalogue of Late Iron Age burials which contained amphorae provides an exciting area of study, yet no preceding study has looked at amphorae-related burials on the wide scale that is used here.

Fig. 7.1 Parts of an amphora (after Sciallano & Sibella 1991: 12).

transport vessels took on an entirely different symbolism. We can only guess at the symbolic nature of amphorae and wine contained, but a clearly association with ritual is apparent and the vessels were therefore eminently suitable to funerary practices. This assumption stems from the evidence retrieved from 251 Late Iron Age burials which contained either complete vessels or sherds of amphora, and it is from this body of information that this chapter is constructed. In selecting the burials to be considered, the chief criteria is the presence of amphorae in any form, whether this be one or more complete amphorae, large amphora pieces, or sherds of amphorae.

Amphorae were sturdily constructed two-handled pottery vessels, which were designed to transport large quantities of wine from production sites. During amphora construction four sections of the vessel, the neck, body, spike and handles, were combined to produce the familiar form that allowed maximum storage onboard ship, and easy handling on the dockside. The shape of the amphorae changed periodically, and when these variations coincided with historical events such as shipwrecks, dating evidence could be constructed. This is not the place for a complete history of amphorae, so only the vessel types which appear in the corpus of burials will be described in any detail. The chronological variations of amphora form, combined with knowledge of a country of origin allow us to gain a perspective on the influences which governed the changes in pre-Roman burial ritual, and especially in graveside feasting.

The amphorae and serving vessels provide visual evidence of the presence of wine, but it is more difficult to reconstruct the graveside funerary ritual and define the exact role of the amphorae and wine. An amphora could contain from 20 litres, and in exceptional circumstances, up to 80 litres of wine (Tyers 1996: 91). It can be deduced that vast quantities of wine are represented by the amphorae from the recorded 251 burials. The evidence from these burials is presented in Table 7.1

7.1.1 Recognising wine as a symbolic agent The amphorae which are the focus of this research were

73

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN which appears below. Using this information the aims of establishing a relationship between feasting where wine is heavily implicated in funerary tradition in the Iron Age will be realised. The incorporation of wine in the act of burial is of interest, whether introduced during the act of interment of bodily remains, (cremation or inhumation), or consumed at the graveside during ritual ceremonies.

7.2.2 Amphora classification and chronology Graeco-Italic amphorae In spite of its name, the Graeco-Italic wine-carrying amphora was an Italian vessel, originating on the Tyrrenian coast of Italy, the Campania region, or Sicily, produced from 300 BC. The typology was in circulation until 125 BC, after which Anne Colin comments that the vessel seemed to disappear (1998: 34). This typology was rarely found in central Gaul, (Gruel, Vitali et al.1999: 789), so it is no surprise that examples were found mainly in the tombs of southern Gaul. The late 2nd century to early 1st century BC tombs of “Octroi de Beaucaire” and “Rue d’Alphonse”, Nîmes, each contained a single, complete Graeco-Italic amphora (Py 1981:141-8, 153167), making these the earliest burials among the corpus sites. Both burials were associated with a sword, implying that these earliest amphora burials were placed by a warrior society.

The priority then, is to investigate pre-Roman burial ritual where wine-drinking and feasting is indicated by the presence of amphorae. Where there are burnt animal bones, drinking vases, eating platters, cooking and serving vessels, this will make an interpretation of feasting practices more likely. It may be that tomb furnishings, such as couches or firedogs, will point to a feasting ritual connected with a particular society, and this will be acknowledged. In addition to the amphorae burials, 11 burials without amphorae are recorded in the corpus of evidence. This is because these burials contained vessels which suggested that Roman symposium practices were mirrored in Gallic burials.

A tomb at Armsheim in Germany also contained a complete Graeco-Italic amphora, though it is difficult to explain why this amphora was found in the northern burial (Fitzpatrick 1985: 329). Parker suggests that Graeco-Italic amphorae were no longer shipped after 150 BC, when they were immediately succeeded by Dr 1A and Dr 1B amphorae (1992: 32). This emphasised a change in Gallic economic relationships, as it was obvious that Rome had replaced Greece as a major trade partner.

7.2 The amphorae in the burials of Late Iron Age Gaul and pre-Roman Britain The Late Iron Age burials, detailed in Table 7.1, are amphorae burials from Gaul, (France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany) and Britain. The burials relate both to the pre-conquest and the post-conquest periods of these countries, but elements in the burial suggest that indigenous groups were performing the funerary acts even when Roman influence was observed. The amphorae burials are catalogued at the end of the chapter, following the text and assumptions which derive from the information gained from these burials.

Dressel 1. The Dressel 1 transport amphorae were named after Heinrich Dressel (1845-1920), whose classification provided a model for later amphorae studies. The large Italian vessels held an average 24 litres of liquid, and were most likely to have carried wine from Italy to Gaul.

7.2.1 Amphorae: “The jerry cans of antiquity” (Parker 1992:31)

Amphorae were designed as heavy-duty transport vessels, but the Dressel 1 series vessels appeared to be the sturdiest of all the Late Iron Age amphorae (Sealey 1985:11). Paul Sealey recognises that the robust quality of these vessels made them ideal for secondary use, and this may also explain why Dressel 1 amphorae were more often reused in amphorae burials than any other typology. In a total of 251 amphorae burials, 119 contained complete vessels or sherds of identifiable Dressel 1 amphorae.

Several important studies have resulted in a substantial body of information relating to the typology, origin, fabric, chronology and provenance of amphorae, notably those by Callender (1965), Laubenheimer (1989, 1990), Sciallano & Sibella (1991), Sealey (1985) and Tyers (1992). The classification and the chronology of amphora forms are very closely linked. As each form was produced and circulated for a limited number of years, an approximate date may be deduced from the recognition of the form. The amphorae are linked to a reasonably precise chronology, not absolute, but well-enough established to support a time scale of appearances in burials at the end of the Late Iron Age. The burials in the corpus relate to the last two centuries BC and some to the first half of the 1st century AD, a time when the societies of Gaul and Britain could not be described as Romanised, although Roman influence was undeniably a factor of a wine-drinking culture.

A group of 13 burials at St.-Rémy-de-Provence was analysed by P. & C. Arcelin, who dated the tombs at the last century BC, (Arcelin 1975: 90-1). Of the three which contained a single Dressel 1 amphora, Tomb II appeared to relate to the first half of the century, a classification made on the evidence of an associated vase (ibid 90). Tombs V and VI together with Nimes, Tomb 10 are more generally ascribed to the last century BC.

74

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE remains. The burial was placed in the La Tène C phase (Galliou & Jones 1991: 60-1). The inhumation from Saint-Georges-les-Baillargeaux, Vienne, contained a single Dressel 1A amphora and was dated to the end of the 2nd century BC, and the cremation tomb at “Mas de Jallon”, Beaucaire, which contained a pair of Dressel 1A amphorae was of early last century BC date (Garmy, Michelozzi & Py 1981: 71-87). However the chariot burial at Tesson and a cremation at Baldock, Britain belong to the final years in the last century BC, a time when the production of Dressel 1A had ceased. This suggests that the amphorae were unlikely to be in current use, but had been put aside for eventual employment in ritual ceremonies. Dressel 1B. The Dr 1B amphora had a taller neck and longer spike than the A form, and appeared around the middle of the 1st century BC. The form was produced throughout the early years AD. A positive identification of Dr 1B was made in 51 tombs, and generally the tombs containing Dr 1B can be said to belong to at least the second half of the final century BC, but more often to the years at the turn of the century or the beginning of the 1st century AD. 35 burials contained complete Dressel 1B amphorae, and a further 17 contained large pieces or sherds.

Fig. 7.2 Dressel 1 wine amphorae (after Scialliano & Sibella 1994:108).

Dressel 1 amphorae sherds from the Champagne cemetery of Hauviné were ascribed to La Tène III, probably the beginning of the last century BC. In Belgium, Dressel 1 amphorae were recorded in the tombs of Bonnert, and these could also date to the La Tène III period. The amphorae burials of Luxembourg appeared to be generally later than those recorded in Belgium, and here Dressel 1 amphorae were still apparent in GalloRoman burials. The Dressel 1 amphorae burials of the Champagne-Ardennes and Marne regions are placed within the La Tène D phase. It can thus be stated that Dressel 1 amphorae were utilised in funerary ceremonies for over 100 hundred years, outlasting the period in which the amphora form was distributed as a traded item.

Most of the Dressel 1B amphorae were found in the tombs of Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Britain. In the three tombs at “Des Marronniers”, Beaucaire, Dressel 1B amphorae represented early burials in the studied sequence. Tombs 2, 17 and 19 each contained two amphorae, and are thought to relate to the first half of the last century BC (Dedet et al. 1976: 88, 99; Py 1981: 1231). In the south of Gaul, Dressel 1B amphora burials were less frequently recorded in the later years BC. The only specific references to Gallic tombs containing Dressel 1B amphorae are those of Chateau-Porcien, Houillon, Pommacle and Prunay II, 55, in the Champagne region, and it can be seen that by this time amphorae burials were more likely be found in northwest Europe than central Gaul, where the many examples pointed to contact between communities and the circulation of ideas.

The Dressel 1 typology has been subdivided into A, B and C classes, giving a more precise chronology. Where identification is possible from a rim, handle or spike, the subtype evidence adds further information to our knowledge of burial circumstances. Dressel 1A. The tall, elongated Dressel 1A amphorae with shortish spikes were in circulation from the end of 2nd century BC to first quarter of 1st century BC (Scialliano & Sibella 1994), and were gradually replaced by the Dressel 1B form in the first three quarters of the 1st century BC (Scialliano & Sibella 1994). For a time both classes were in production and both Dressel types were found in the wreck of the “Grand Congloué” (Parker 1992: 32-3).

Some of the Luxembourg and British tombs can be dated specifically on account of associated grave goods: 15 BC was proposed for the deposition date of the Goeblingen Nospelt A tomb, and likewise in the case of Goeblingen Nospelt B, the date of 10 BC was indicated by the presence of a beaker made by the potter, Aco. The production of these beakers ceased in 10 BC (Thiel 1988: 14). Similarly the burial at Hertford Heath was placed between 25 and 10 BC (Hussen 1983), and the three élite burials from Welwyn, between 50 and 10 BC (Stead 1967: 1-67).

Nine tombs contained 1A amphorae, and if circulation dates for this typology are applied, these can be dated to pre-100 BC being “a product of the 2nd century BC” (Tyers 1996:89). This theory can be proved in the tomb of Kerangouarac, Brittany, where a bed of Dressel 1A amphorae sherds provided a base for the cremation

75

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Dressel 2-4 Dressel 2-4 were the “direct successors on Italian kiln sites to the Republican form Dressel 1B” and occurred in a similar range of fabrics (D.F. Williams in Stead 1989: 115). Tituli picti suggest that the contents were wine, although fish products or olive oil could have been transported. The amphorae contained approximately 30 litres, and were widely distributed from the end of the 1st century BC until sometime in the 1st century AD. (Scialliano & Sibella 1994). Sealey terms these as “very important” amphorae. With the exception of Prunay II, 53, all the amphorae burials which contained Dressel 2-4 occurred in Britain, which reinforces the chronology suggested for the form, and the northward spread of Roman imports and wine ideology across the English Channel.

Dressel 1C Dressel 1C was in circulation from the middle of the 2nd century BC to beginning of 1st century BC (Scialliano & Sibella 1994). There is only one instance of a burial containing a Dressel 1C amphora: In “La Catalane”, Beaux-de-Provence, (Gard), a complete amphora appeared with fragments of ten other vessels. The burial is from the last century BC, probably between 75 and 25 BC, which is late in the history of the form. There is no suggested reason for the lack of this form in burial contexts. It can be seen from Fig. 7.3 that Dressel 1 was certainly the most prolific amphora type in burial contexts, occurring in more than 60% of amphora burials, with Dr 1B being identified in around half of this figure. (This proportion could be greater as the A, B or C typology is not always certain). The emphasis on the Dressel 1B typology implies that in accordance with the suggested Dressel 1 dates, many burials relate to the close of the final century BC and the early years of the 1st century AD, when this form was in current circulation.

Pascual I Fitzpatrick warns that a “relatively recent recognition of this type means it was less likely to be identified correctly”. With a similar capacity to Dressel 1 vessels, the form appeared in Gaul around the middle of the 1st century BC and was in circulation for just over half a century before being superseded by Dressel 2-4 amphorae. Even taking this into account, only four burials contain just Pascual 1 vessels, and another six contained the form along with another typology. From the middle of the 1st century BC, together with the Italian Dressel 1 and 2-4 forms, amphorae from other wine producing countries were found in burials. From the middle of the 1st century BC to the 1st quarter of the 1st century AD, the Pascual 1 amphorae transported wine from Tarraconaise in Spain. This is an obvious pointer to a further change in trade relationships.

150 130

100 81

The Goeblange Nospelt “Scheierheck” funerary chamber contained a Baetican amphora of fish sauce, and there was an outer pavement of amphorae sherds (Metzler & Bis 1998). The appearance of Dressel 20 and Haltern 70 amphorae in burial contexts emphasised the strong links which now existed between Spain and trading partners in Gaul and Britain.

50

9

0

6 6

2 1 2

10

4

11

Haltern 70 There is considerable discussion as to the contents of Haltern 70. Williams suggests that the Camulodunum 185A form (Haltern 70) from the Port Vendres II shipwreck contained defrutum, a sweet liquid (in Stead & Rigby 1989:115). Paul Sealey believes that Haltern 70 amphorae usually contained non-alcoholic syrup used in culinary preparation, but it is also possible that wine could have been transported from southern Spain. The Haltern amphora could hold up to 70 litres of liquid (Tyers 1996:92). In Gaul this form appeared towards the middle of the 1st century BC (Dangréaux & Desbat 1987:121), but was not incorporated into funerary practices. In Britain the grave fill of burial 241 in the King Harry Lane cemetery contained amphorae sherds from a Haltern 70 amphora (Stead and Rigby 1989: 334).

Baetican/ Spanish Dressel 1 Dressel 2-4 Dressel + other types Dressel 7-11 Gallic Haltern Fig. 7.3 Amphora typology Italic in the Late Iron Age burials Pascual 1 of Gaul and Britain. Unknown No amphorae

76

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Dressel 7-11 amphorae The Spanish amphora may have been imported into Britain in the pre-conquest period, as manufacture was from the late first century BC until the 2nd century AD (Tyers 1996:98). An example of this type was found in the King Harry Lane cemetery in burial 206. The amphora would probably have contained fish sauces, but occasionally this type was used for transporting wine or defrutum. Gallic The only Gallic amphora to be recorded in a burial context was in Lamadaleine, Tomb 73, Luxembourg. The vessel was described as a flat-bottomed amphora, and as the name suggests was produced in Gaul. This type of amphora could hold up to 37 litres of wine. Rhodian This amphora form was used as the cremation vessel at King Harry Lane, Burial 369 between AD 43 and 53. This form was produced throughout the first century AD and carried wine from Rhodes. Unidentified typologies In a number of cases, such as the burials in the cemetery of Fère Champenoise, it has not been possible to state with certainty which type of amphora occurred. In 81 burials the Italian amphorae could not be formally identified by type. As the burials related to the time when the Dressel 1 sequence was in circulation, there is a strong likelihood that at least some of these were Dressel 1 amphorae.

Fig. 7.4 Dressel 1 Distribution in Late Iron Age Gaul (after Cunliffe 1997: 312).

The incidence of typologies being unknown is higher in the case of burials containing amphora sherds than those where complete amphorae were found. David Peacock has explained that as amphorae have a high “body/ rim ratio”, fragments will consist of many “featureless body sherds” (1977: 261). As less information can be accurately obtained from sherds, their significance may be overlooked.

mainland. The founding of Gallia Narbonensis in 124 BC allowed a permanent Roman presence on Gallic soil, and following Caesar’s campaigns of 58 to 52 BC, central and northern Gaul became part of the great Empire. Both in the pre-Conquest and aftermath years, it is entirely realistic to anticipate the diffusion of Roman material culture throughout Gaul, so the amphorae evidence for this period should come as no surprise. The coincidence of amphora dating evidence with the expansion of the Roman Empire signals the theory of Romanisation, but the distribution of amphora burials proposes a more uneasy hypothesis.

7.3 The distribution of amphorae burials As seen in Fig. 7.4 amphorae find-spots by rivers and a well-defined clustering around the Mediterranean and Brittany coasts suggest circulation routes of the wine trade. However, the finds shown are not restricted to burials, but include those from oppida, sanctuaries, domestic and military sites. In the last two centuries BC, amphorae began appearing among grave goods, and it is noticeable that the distribution map of amphorae burials is very different from that of all amphorae finds. (see Fig. 7.15).

If the chronology of the Late Iron Age amphora graves in Gaul merely reflects the encroachment of Roman contact, it would be expected that the same might be true of the geographical distribution. The comparison of different areas of Gaul nevertheless serves to highlight an uneven distribution pattern, which proposes varying responses to Romanisation. Boé and Antran are among the rare isolated amphora burials of south-western Gaul, and only two burials are known from Brittany, (Kerangourex, Arzano and Kerné, Quiberon). However, more than 50 individual burials containing amphorae were discovered in the Champagne-Ardennes and Marne areas of France,

The amphorae burials were encapsulated in a time period spanning little more than 150 years at the end of the Iron Age in Gaul. These were the years that saw the first establishment of Roman power on the European 77

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN mostly from the cemeteries of Fère Champenoise, Hauviné, Normée and Prunay II. Clusters of amphora burials were also found in Luxembourg, and a few in neighbouring Germany in the Saarbrucken region.

By contrasting and analysing regional reactions, seen in the deposition of wine amphorae and symposium wares, changes in Celtic belief and behaviour may be elucidated. 7.4 Funerary ritual in the amphora burials of Late Iron Age

In the cemetery at Bonnert-Arlon, 250 tombs were excavated. Fairon (1986: 9-87) itemised the contents of 101 tombs, but only five contained amphorae. Of these, there were no further inclusions other indigenous pottery, the amphorae being the only Mediterranean imports. The Bonnert cemetery graves, and one burial at both Weiler, (Metzler 1991: 123), and Sampont, (Roymans 1990: 149), were the only wine-related burials in modern Belgium, though at Horion, a burial assemblage contained a cauldron, a tenuous link with feasting, but no with evidence of wine (Destexhe 1981: 97-110).

It has already been stated that the presence of amphora in a tomb was an obvious signal of wine-drinking practices, but it is now the intention to show that amphora deposition might be the result of a number of complex stimuli, which encompassed feasting and symposium ideologies. The condition of the amphorae at the time of deposition, whether complete or in sherd form, was very important, as this factor was most likely to suggest symbolic or ritual intent. Some amphorae were deliberately broken or altered before deposition in order that the vessel could serve in a functional capacity or as part of ritual ceremony. Some amphorae which have been retrieved in fragmentary form may have been complete on deposition. It is valuable to be able to confirm any damage sustained during excavation, pillaging, or ploughing in order that the amphora’s ritual history may be ascertained.

In the Luxembourg cemetery, Lamadeleine, 43 burials contained amphorae. A number of élite amphorae tombs were also found in Luxembourg at Goeblingen Nospelt and Clemency. The burials lay within the tribal territory of the Treveri, which extended towards the Rhine into present day Germany, by which it can be judged that the Treveri were eager participants in wine-drinking practices, and this was translated in funerary practices.

At Heffingen, Luxembourg, a broken amphora had originally been deposited as a complete vessel, as all the pieces were present. The amphora was discovered by agricultural workers, who may have been responsible for the damage. The original report of the amphora find in 1857 mentioned burnt remains, but these were lost. Other amphorae finds from the area suggested several amphorae burials, and this is realistic in the light of Metzler’s description of Heffingen as being “rich in archaeological finds” (1995:119-21).

Reinert believes these burial groups represent the formation of a privileged social class which was distinguished even in death by the practice of solitary burials away from the community cemetery, or in a small cemetery such as Nospelt, “Kreckelbierg”, which was dedicated to élite burials only (1993: 181). Similar groups of prestigious burials containing amphorae occurred in the tribal territory of the Bituriges, central France, and in the “Welwyn-type burials” of England. The latter were clustered to the north of the Thames, and many common elements can between these burials and Gallic counterparts. Similarities in tomb construction, assemblages, and chronology suggested cross-Channel tribal interaction. The widespread diffusion of amphora burials is witness partly to the availability of wine, but also to the spread of an ideology which combined wine and amphorae in funerary practices. However, there are some areas where no amphora burials have been found, and there are also incidences of Roman symposium wares in areas of Gaul where no amphora burials have yet been found, so the choice to place wine equipment in tombs was regional.

Matthieu Poux put forward a theory that the wine contained in the amphorae might symbolise blood, spilt as the vessels were ritually broken (2002: 53). A woodlined burial chamber had protected the grave goods at Vieux-les-Asfeld until tomb robbers entered in antiquity. It was not possible to know what may have been removed, but it is probable that as in the Clemency burial the amphorae had been placed intact in the tomb. Pieces of amphorae were found outside the chamber. The wooden structure of the tomb had collapsed inwards, so the amphorae would become fragmented even without the intervention of robbers. However, it is still important to understand why complete or sherds of amphorae may be placed in a tomb, this being crucial to the interpretation of the burial rite and the ceremony involved.

The tombs of Bonnet in Belgium, are likely to predate some of those from central Gaul. There is no explanation why the area of Luxembourg adopted Roman material culture as exhibited in amphora burials, before some areas of Central Gaul. Equally, there is no explanation why such phenomena are virtually absent from Brittany, unless we take into account the preferences of local tribal groups. Prolific finds of amphorae sherds from Brittany are evidence of traded wine, but amphorae are rarely placed in burials.

7.4.1 Complete amphorae At the time of deposition, 83 of the 265 burials contained at least one intact amphora. Roymans believes that the amphorae contained wine on deposition, but no stoppers or corks were found in the tombs, so we can theorise that 78

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 7.5 A reconstruction of the funerary chamber at Clemency (after Metzler 1995: 160).

40 35

30

19

20

10

0

7

8 5

3

2

3 0

Dressel 1 Dressel 1A Dressel 1B Dressel 1C Dressel 2-4 Dressel 7-11 Gallic Unknown typology Italic Pascual 1 Haltern 70 Baetican/ Spanish

0 0

Fig. 7.6 Complete amphorae types placed in Late Iron Age burials.

the amphorae were empty. It could be that the wine had been consumed long before the burial occurred, in unrelated circumstances (1990).

Amphorae typologies in complete vessel burials Out of the 119 tombs with Dressel 1 amphorae, only 47 contained intact vessels, but this was still the most frequently found complete amphora typology, which confirms the popularity of the practice within the last 150 years BC. Pascual 1 burials serve to reinforce the evidence for a recognised convention of amphora deposition throughout the early years of the first century AD. In Gaul, three inhumations containing complete Pascual 1 amphorae were those of Fléré-la-Rivière, Neuvy-Pailloux and Antran, there being none in Britain. By converse, complete Dressel 2-4 amphorae were found in the three British burials of Aston Clinton, The Towers and King Harry Lane, 272, there being no continental parallels containing this vessel form. At Berry-Bouy, Palluau-sur-Indre Dorton, Goeblingen Nospelt B, the amphorae were complete, but there was more than one

Fig. 7.6 shows that the earlier burials were most likely to contain complete amphorae and those later amphorae typologies were most likely to be deposited in sherd form. The amphora or amphorae were saved for an appropriate ceremonial occasion. The wine may have been drunk by graveside mourners as they participated in a funerary feast, though it is equally possible that the contents of the amphorae were poured over the pyre remains in a ceremonial quenching of the flames. It is unlikely that we can reconstruct the way in which the wine was disposed of, but the amphora placement in the tomb, empty or not, was a symbolic act.

79

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN typology present, which implies that the symbolic presence of the amphora was important, whatever form was used. It also implied that the vessels had probably been collected together over a period of time and from different sources.

with wood. Both materials were available so personal preferences may have played a part in the decision. The wooden chamber at Clemency was constructed to resemble a room and this effect was reinforced by fabric hangings. A more elaborate effect was achieved at Neuvy-Pailloux, where the walls were painted in Italian villa style and a ramp led to the entrance. Elaborate arrangements might be amplified by covering an already large tomb with a tumulus, such as that of Lexden. The low, round barrow was composed of mixed gravels and was surrounded by a ditch (Foster 1986). The Brittany tomb of Kerangouarec, Arzano was covered by a tombelle, a mound of earth and rubble (Galliou & Jones 1991: 66- 1). These features would only have involved special effort by the burying community, and the barrow or tumulus produced a clearly visible marker in the landscape. It is possible that the intention was not only to provide a monument in honour of a deceased élite, but was also a boundary marker.

Geographical distribution of complete amphorae burials Burials containing complete amphorae occurred in all of the areas which have produced amphora burials, although there are more in some areas than others, so this was an ideology that was well represented. It is notable that at least five Luxembourg tombs in the Treveri territory are regarded as élite burials. At Goeblingen Nospelt six tombs with complete amphorae can all be describes as élite burials, together with that of nearby Clemency. The four Arras amphora burials were also prestige burials and these high-class amphorae burials occurred in close geographical proximity. It cannot be coincidence that the greatest number of intact amphorae occurs in burials which are described as élite.

Several élite burials were some distance from a local cemetery. It might be that the burial was intentionally placed on a territorial border as a method of defining the boundary. Nico Roymans comments that solitary burials in remote settings were not part of a regular pattern and were most likely to indicate an élite tomb (1990: 149). Most of the known 251 amphorae graves were in cemeteries or small burial groups, with less than 15% occurring as solitary depositions. Amongst the isolated graves were the inhumations of Fléré-la-Rivière and Neuvy-Pailloux. The purposeful exclusion from a communal burial ground, deferred to the élite profile, but at a time when the community was undergoing hierarchical disruption. Georg Kossack wondered how long such graves were held in respect, and whether this led to short term settlement shifts (1998: 24). Throughout the Late Iron Age settlements and cemeteries saw abandonment and reuse of settlements and cemeteries, and continuity was hardly encouraged if the placement of noble graves was away from the settlement areas.

7.5 Élite burials and the criteria for élite burial In identifying 265 amphorae burials from Britain and Gaul, it is apparent that just over 70 of these exhibit additional elements which mark them as prestigious tombs. There are a number of elements which mark out certain burials as prestigious. 7.5.1 Elaborate funerary arrangements Tombs may have exhibited monumental proportions. At Boé the burial which included a room-like construction occupied an area of eight square metres. A large chamber was carved to accept the funerary remains at Primelles. Wood was readily available and the cremations at Clemency and Goeblingen Nospelt ‘A’ and GoeblingenNospelt, “Scheierheck” were preserved by a wood-lined chamber. The wood-lined chamber at Clemency replicated a room laid out for a feast. The evidence of nails led to the supposition of a wooden coffin or chest at Dun-sur-Auron while at Fléré-la-Rivière a wooden ‘tub’ within the already large chamber may have been supplied for the corpse to be laid within. A wooden plank appeared to have been part of the tomb casing. At BerryBouy, Sampont, Tomb 42, and St.-Rémy-de-Provence, Tomb V, wood-lined pits protected the burials. The wooden fragments at Welwyn Garden City were interpreted as a door which separated the funerary remains from the luxury grave goods.

The elaborate nature of many élite tombs seemed proportional to the quantity of goods deposited. Seven amphorae stood upright against the walls of the Clemency chamber, as did the 57 vessels from NeuvyPailloux. This was the greatest number of amphorae in any burial, and the elaborately painted funerary chamber was well complemented by such an impressive number of vessels. Other élite burials contained large numbers of amphorae in impressive surroundings; at Fléré-la-Rivière 13 Catalonian Pascual I amphorae were in the deposit and Berry-Bouy contained ten amphorae, including two Pascual 1 and one Dr 1 amphorae.

Stone was less often used in northern Gallic tomb construction, but at Beaucaire, Marronniers Tomb 19, and St.-Rémy-de-Provence, Tomb II, stone blocks lined the burial pits which were covered in each case by two large flagstones. At St.-Rémy- de-Provence, two tombs differed in that one was lined with stone, and the other

The tombs at Clemency, Fléré-la-Rivière and NeuvyPailloux each contained a large number of complete amphorae, which were not only assigned important positions, but were clearly responsible for the dimensions 80

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE of the tomb. It can be proposed that the large numbers of complete amphorae in élite burials stressed the importance of drinking in the afterlife of the tomb owner. The amphorae were often placed in an upright position against a tomb wall. It could be seen that while amphorae were grouped in one area, other areas of the tomb were reserved for warrior equipment, hearth furnishings, or feasting accessories. In the categorising and placing of grave goods the tomb acquired a symbolic lay out. The specific and meticulous arrangement of grave goods hints at the complicated funerary rituals which originated in a belief in an afterlife in the Otherworld.

continuing Hellenistic influence derived from previous Greek foundations.

The position of amphorae in the tomb

Jugs Bronze jugs or ewers were vessels of Greek and Roman symposia. The jugs were prestigious items, but were not for serving wine. Like the bronze basins the jugs were used for ablutions.

Bowls/ basins A bronze basin was found in each of burials of BerryBouy, Neuvy-Pailloux, Arras, Tomb 1, Conde-surSuippe, Clemency, Goeblingen Nospelt ‘A’ and ‘B’, and two at Fléré-la-Rivière. At Arras, Conde-sur-Suippe and Clemency, these were the only prestige bronze items in the deposit. Bronze basins are almost certain to have been used for hand-washing ceremonies, and were not part of a wine service.

At Fléré-la-Rivière and Menestreau, the drinking vessels were positioned at the feet, and the amphorae stood against a wall facing the head. These were not as close to the body as the weapons which identified warrior class. The 57 amphorae at Neuvy-Pailloux were closely stacked and arranged, and at Antran, bronze vessels were placed both between the amphorae and in the centre of the tomb, away from the cremated bones which were heaped against another wall. Personal weaponry and jewellery which emphasised the status of the deceased were detached from feasting and drinking equipment. The amphorae were a statement, a conference of rank, designating authority for élite tomb ownership. The accompanying provisions befitted an élite for the journey to the Otherworld, but meant that at Neuvy-Pailloux, the disposing of 57 amphorae deprived the living community of a luxury commodity.

Bronze ‘Kelheim’ jugs appeared mainly in the group of burials from Champagne-Ardenne, but there were also examples in Arras, Tomb 1, Beaucaire, Tomb 14, (which is the only southern tomb with such a vessel), and one in the Luxembourg élite burial of Goeblingen Nospelt ‘B’. Ceramic flagons may have been associated with serving liquid rather than hand-washing ceremonies. Berry-Bouy, Fléré-la-Rivière and Goeblingen Nospelt B had not only bronze flagons, but also ceramic examples, the latter burial having three ceramic flagons. This burial was described by Metzler as “one of the earliest Roman graves in north-eastern Gaul” (1991: 521), suggesting that flagons are more likely to be found in graves which exhibit elements of Romanisation.

7.5.2 Imported goods Strainers In the cremation burial at Dun-sur-Auron, three strainers were found, although no amphorae were present. Single examples came from Fléré-la-Rivière, Arras Tomb 2, Antran and the Goeblingen Nospelt A and B tombs. At Arras and Antran, these took the form of a strainer and bowl. In 1977 Guillaumet listed 17 French oppida sites where strainers had been found. He stated that the purpose of these objects was that of straining liquid, most possibly wine. Guillaumet proposes a ritual use for the strainers; “un role dans les boissons rituelles” (1977: 245-6). No strainers were found amongst the bronze vessels from Pompeii, (Tassarini 1991: 162), although it is believed that at the Roman symposium wine was strained prior to consumption (Rigby and Freestone 1986: 15). Even when the strainers were present with amphorae, it cannot be said that this was proof of strainers being for serving wine. Laboratory tests on the residues in a strainer from a rich grave in Stanway (AD 50), pointed to evidence of the plant, wormwood. This led Paul Sealey to comment on the strainer’s function in the brewing of herbal infusions, and “flavouring a local drink with vegetable additives” (Sealey: in litt. 27.2.98).

The amphorae represented links with the Mediterranean world, as did other imports. Italian oil lamps, lanterns, fine ceramic wares and bronze vessels proved contact and cultural imitation of the Roman world. The symposium wares in particular suggested an attempt to imitate Roman lifestyle. The Roman way of serving wines demanded several different vessels in order to fulfil the functions of diluting, mixing and serving the wine. Bronze wares: their role in the funerary ritual Dippers Seven examples of bronze dippers, or small ladles occurred in burials of Gard, but only five were in amphorae burials. Three Saint-Rémy-de-Provence and two Beaucaire amphora burials contained dippers amongst assemblage goods. In northern Gaul dippers were a rare feature, there being only one in each of the burials at Arcoule, Saint-Pierre de Vence à Eygières, Fléré-la-Rivière and Goeblingen Nospelt B. The dippers may have been used for serving wine, as pictured on painted Greek vases, and as the dippers are found mainly in the southern amphorae burials, this may reflect a

81

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Pans and Patera The same contradictions and doubts of symposium function apply to pans. The shallow, long-handled ‘Aylesford’ type pans could have been used to heat wine served in the suggested Roman way. Guillaumet describes the pans as belonging in a set of feasting vessels. He categorises vessels into services for drinking or services for eating (1991: 193-7). Pans are assumed to relate to eating, and Guillaumet assumes that the pan from Goeblingen Nospelt B falls into this category (1991: 197). However, it is equally possible that such pans may have been used in food preparation or even for washing bones. A lack of carbonised material clinging to bones from some funeral pyres has led to speculations that remains may have been washed before interment (Lambot et al. 1994: 148).

Tomb 19 and at Antran ( Py 1981: 31, Ferdiere & Villard 1993: 225-6). Imports amongst grave goods also reinforce the chronology that links grave construction in southern Gaul with the early years of the last century BC, and in northern Gaul and Britain with the final decades BC. 7.5.3 Prestige goods Élite burials usually contained other personal items which were not available to the general community. These might be items of special jewellery or armament, a piece of furniture or an unusual trophy. The jewellery and weaponry helped to identify female tombs or warrior burials, but the chief reason for the inclusion of such items was undoubtedly the advertisement of status. Weapons and personal status items 36 amphorae burials contained warrior equipment, and in at least 18 of these tombs, the amphora was complete. The late 2nd century to early 1st century BC tombs of “Octroi de Beaucaire” and “Rue d’Alphonse”, Nimes, each contained a single, complete Greco-Italic amphora (Py 1981:141-8, 153-167). The tombs also contained weapons, thereby announcing warrior status. At Fléré-laRivière, a sword lay closely parallel to the body, denoting a personal relationship between weapon and owner, even in death signifying protection of one person. Shields, bosses and spears were similarly arranged in close proximity to the body, the shield being placed over the upper body.

Pans were present in ten multi-amphorae burials of Centre, Champagne-Ardennes and Luxembourg. The pans were excellent examples of craftsmanship, and as such were highly appropriate to élite burial contexts. The handles were often decorative, the ending taking the form of a lamb’s head at Berry-Bouy, a ram at Fléré-laRivière, a sheep at Neuvy-Pailloux, and a swan handle at Chatillon-sur-Indre. Nico Roymans is convinced that the scarcity of bronze vessels in rural cemeteries is in accordance with their use being restricted to the highest social stratum. He is also sure that the vessels were intended as part of a drinking service and were not designed to be used separately (1990:165). However, Roymans may be in a minority in interpreting the bronze vessels as wine-serving equipment, as it is now customary to regard these as symposium wares as being linked to hand-washing. The furnishings of a Roman lifestyle Ships carrying amphorae from Italy also transported other symposium wares, so it is likely that recipients of amphorae also had access to other cargo items. The wreck of the Madrague de Giens carried not only amphorae, but black lacquered vases and ceramic table wares. When the “Dramont A” sank circa 50 BC, she was carrying a cargo of Dressel 1 amphorae, and oil lamps (Santamaria 1975: 188).

The swords were often ornate specimens, sometimes too lightweight for use on the battlefield, which leads to speculation that these were intended primarily for ritual use in the funerary ceremony and made specifically for this purpose. This is also true of wagons, which were probably processional vehicles for transporting the dead. Only a few wagons are associated with amphorae burials, as this practice was not generally seen in Late La Tène. However, wagon elements were found at Boé, Hannogne, Neuvy-Pailloux and Tesson. In the traditions of the earlier wagon burials of Vix and Hochdorf, wine symbolism was incorporated in each, but the overriding message was one of élitism, the wine coincidental to rich burial.

The influence of Roman lifestyle was most apparent in the burials of southern Gaul. Oil lamps were found in Marroniers tomb 17, Marronniers Tomb 19, St.-Rémyde-Provence, Tomb V and in Beaucaire Colombes, Tomb 1 (Py 1981: 31, Dedet et al 1974:54), and candelabra in Marroniers Tomb 17 and St.-Rémy-de-Provence, Tomb VI (Dedet et al. 1976: 99). The north-western European burials which contained complete amphorae had but a few examples of Roman furnishings. One oil lamp was placed in the Clemency tomb, and at Boé were four oil lamps and a candelabrum. The amphora burials at NeuvyPailloux and Antran contained lanterns. Italian toilet items were also represented by strigils in Marronniers,

No wagon elements were found in the British amphorae burials, and the only piece of weaponry was the shield boss in the Stanfordbury A tomb. Amongst the more unusual prestige items found in the British tombs were gaming sets, consisting of boards and counters. No continental examples are known, but in Britain these are represented in the Welwyn Garden City, and the Stanway, ‘Warrior’s burial. Other unusual items which emphasised élitism were the surgical instruments in the Stanway, ‘Doctor’s’ tomb, an iron mask from Weiler, and fire tongs from Wincheringen. At Folly Lane ivory fragments indicated a couch or a chair, and at Lexden Tumulus there may have been a folding stool. 82

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Celtic furnishings Several tombs contained large hearth furnishings. In common with other prestige items, the hearth furnishings were grouped in the tomb with cauldrons and similar hearth wares. Only three Gallic tombs contained firedogs. The Celtic type of iron frames with animal-head terminals, reminiscent of the British burials at Welwyn A, Mont Bures, Baldock and Welwyn B, were also present in Arras Tombs 2 and 3. Firedogs with no terminals were found at Boé.

7.6 The burial rite and amphora condition Intact amphorae were usually the largest single items among grave assemblages, and their magnitude led to a degree of a complexity in burial arrangements. 7.6.1 Inhumation and complete amphorae Fléré-la-Rivière and Neuvy-Pailloux contained recognisable elements of aristocratic burial underlined by wine equipment imported from the Mediterranean. The two graves impressively contained a large number of amphorae, (13 and 57 respectively), so wine-drinking was heavily emphasised. Both burials were inhumations. At Neuvy-Pailloux the 57 amphorae were a very important feature of the tomb, and were stacked against the wall facing the head of the deceased. At Fléré-laRivière, although no bones were recovered for analysis, the position of the body with the head to the east, could be deduced by the sword and lance which lay alongside. At Menestreau, the body also lay with the head to the east, with banqueting equipment at the feet (Ferdiere et Villard 1993: 141). At Fléré-la-Rivière the bronze vessels were again arranged by the feet, the amphorae against the west wall and the grill and cauldron to the west, so it can be seen that there was a certain uniformity in the positioning of personal effects and feasting implements (Ferdière & Villard 1993: 15-93).

Grills from Clemency, Dun-sur-Auron and Fléré-laRivière were the only other items of hearth equipment identified apart from the tripod and cauldron at NeuvyPailloux, and cauldrons at Fléré-la-Rivière, Arras, Tombs 2 and 3, Armsheim, Wincheringen (this also had hanging equipment), Goeblingen Nospelt B, Mailleraye-sur-Seine and Horion (which had no wine equipment). These were all northern Gallic sites, with no examples from Gard or Bouches-du-Rhône. Female burials which contained complete amphorae The skeletal evidence from the inhumation at NeuvyPailloux confirmed this as a female burial, and apart from the 57 amphorae, the élite nature of the burial was reinforced by a cauldron, a lantern, some bronze masks and mill stones. The mirror, glass pearls and fibulae at Primelles suggested another female burial. Complete amphorae were positioned in each corner of this tomb. (This arrangement was also seen at Arras). It is important to see that the amphorae and ceremonial drinking goblets and vases were placed in what are assumed to be élite female burials, thereby indicating that Gallic women were allowed to participate in wine-drinking rituals. Mirrors were also present in the amphorae burials of Arras, tomb 1, Dorton, and Nospelt ‘Scheierheck’ together with other items of jewellery. None of these tombs contained weapons and this strengthened the case for assuming these were the tombs of females.

Two inhumations which occurred at Levroux also contained amphorae. A nearby horse burial indicated elaborate arrangements. A sword, a helmet and some Roman coins indicated the deposition of a military élite (Pion & Guichard 1993: 187). The corpse at Antran was placed in the centre of the tomb, and the seven amphorae were arranged upright along a wall (Ferdière & Villard 1993: 226). Although human skeletal material marked out Palluau-sur-Indre as an inhumation, the condition of the bones did not allow the position of the corpse to be ascertained (Ibid 205).

It can be seen that the criteria for élite burial can be generally grouped into the following three categories:

In three instances the survival of skeletal material enabled researchers to decide on the age and sex of the tomb owners. The Baetican wine amphora together with a fibula were indications of an aristocratic burial in tomb XXV11 at Nospelt-Kreckelbierg (Reinert 1998: 3). Here the tomb owner was identified as a woman who suffered from arthritis. Another high ranking inhumation was in Nospelt-Kreckelbierg, tomb 1, which contained the body of “a woman between twenty and forty years of age” (ibid). Here, the many amphorae and fragments of ceramic and glass were said to be evidence of “an immense ceremonial feast”. Providing the tomb owner could prove noble ancestry and had maintained a position of power, then age, sex and health were immaterial.

• elaborate funerary arrangements, which might include monumental tomb construction, and ceremonial activities. • imported goods. • personal status items, including warrior equipment, wagon elements, jewellery and unusual items that were not available to the community at large. Any of these elements whether occurring alone or in combination point to a status burial. The greater the number of features defined in a burial, the greater the perception of éliteness will be.

The inhumations often provided a valuable source of information that was unavailable from cremated remains. The details of the age and sex of the deceased were not 83

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN always known, but where this information was available it shed light on the status of the tomb owner and the reason for amphora inclusions.

At Primelles the upright amphorae contained bird bones, by which it can be seen that the amphorae did not contain wine, but neither was its intended use as a funerary receptacle.

Pie 1 33 12.5%

The grave goods in Tomb 111 at St.-Rèmy-de-Provence were complete and untouched by the process of the cremation (Arcelin 1975: 74). This indicates that the tomb had been prepared and the assemblage goods arranged before the cremation remains were placed. This can be confirmed in many élite tombs, where the amphorae were upright and empty of wine or cremation remains. If it were not for the inclusion of amphorae and other prestige items, many cremations might not have been identified.

13 4.9%

The burial pit at Boé measured eight metres square, and though more than 50 amphorae were found together with wagon fittings, weaponry, hearth furnishings and pottery, there were no human remains (Boudet et Jerebzoff 1992 : 95). Food offerings in ceramic containers vouched for the ritual connotations of the site, and although no human remains were found, the inclusion of the prestige goods, especially the amphorae seem to verify that this was indeed an élite tomb. A “rich funerary deposit” was found at Mailleraye-sur-Seine (Lequoy 1933:121-33). Again no human bone was found, and although the deposit is similar to the amphorae burial deposit at Baldock, here no amphorae or bronze wares were in the assemblage. Feasting was suggested by the inclusion of a cauldron and a tripod.

219 82.6% Cremation Inhumation No information available Fig. 7.7 Burial rites in amphorae associated burials.

7.6.2 Cremation and complete amphorae The “nearly universal adoption of cremation during the 1st centuries BC and AD” is described by Wait as a “Roman” contribution (1995: 507). That cremation was the dominant rite is evident from Fig. 7.7.

7.6.3 Cremations associated with amphorae sherds When compiling an inventory of graves and cemeteries of the last three centuries BC, Patrick Pion and Vincent Guichard noted the problems posed by the often poor preservation of cremations, and pointed out that this must be taken into account when estimating the number of this type of burial (1933: 175-200). The identification of a complete amphora was usually a clue to a possible burial as at Amiens, (Roymans 1990: 148-9), Canewdon, (Carver 2001: 84) or Great Canfield (Fitzpatrick 1985: 324). The imported vessel may have been placed with cremation remains, but as there is no complementary cemetery information, these isolated finds have to be entered with a question mark. Even more likely to be unidentified are cremation deposits placed with amphorae sherds such as Lamadaleine, Tomb 77, which is recognised only because of the similar deposits within the cemetery.

Even allowing for the number of burials where no information was available, only 13 of the 251 were recorded as being inhumations. Of these, six contained complete amphorae, two were associated with sherds, in three inhumations large pieces of amphorae were used to protect the human remains, and there was no available information on the other two. Details of age and gender were generally absent from cremation reports, but unusually in Nimes, Tomb 10, it was possible to identify a male cremation from a large piece of a cranium among the burnt bones. Predictably, the process of cremation reduced the mortal remains to a lesser mass, which in turn simplified the act of deposition. As cremation removed the need of a monumental tomb, it is surprising that many élite cremation tombs were still impressive in their complexity. Chambers which replicated rooms housed the cremation remains and grave goods at Wincheringen, Goeblingen Nospelt, Nospelt Krieckelbierg, Clemency, Welwyn Garden City, Stanfordbury ‘A’ and ‘B’, and Snailwell.

7.6.4 Sherd amphorae in burials For the purpose of this investigation, each wine-related burial is considered separately. The individual records of 95 burials describe sherds of amphorae amongst burial depositions, pyre material, in ditch and pit fills or scattered in the burial landscape. It can therefore be 84

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE shown that just over a third of the 265 wine-related burials were associated with sherds; a comparable number to those containing complete amphorae. Of the 95 sherd-related burials, 69 belonged to the five cemeteries of Bonnert, Fère-Champenoise, Normée, Hauviné and Lamadaleine, there being no complete amphorae in any of these cemeteries. Geographical distribution amphorae sherds

of

burials

60

56

50 40

37

containing

30

Many of the burials which contained amphorae sherds were in cemetery groupings from the Champagne area, northern Gaul, Belgium and Britain. The cemeteries of Bonnert, Normée, Prunay II, Fère-Champenoise and Lamadeleine revealed many burials containing sherds of amphorae (Fairon: 1986, Brisson & Hatt: 1969, Hatt & Roualet: 1970, Bry & Fromols: 1938, Metzler et al.: 1999). Only the scatters in the small cemetery of Arcoule, and Beaucaire Colombes, Tomb 1 were southern contexts.

20 10 4

7

0

2 1 0 1

Dressel 1 Dressel 1A Dressel 1B Dressel 1C Dressel 2-4 Dressel 7-11 Gallic Unknknown typology Italic Pascual 1 Haltern Baetican/ Spanish

Typologies in sherd amphora burials The Dressel 1 series of amphorae figure most prominently amongst the burials containing amphorae sherds. At Bonnert, Cuiry-les-Chaudares, Kerangouarec, Houillon, Tesson, Hauviné, Lexden Tumulus the Dressel 1 typology is attested. Kerangouarec in Brittany dates from La Tène C while the Lexden Tumulus is much later, with the burial tumulus possibly being constructed in AD 10. Few instances of typologies other than Dressel 1 occur amongst the sherd- amphorae burials, with the Dressel 2-4 from Elms Farm and Folly Lane, and the Spanish amphorae from the King Harry Lane cemetery being the exceptions. This suggests that the popularity of a ‘broken’ vessel ritual was localised, and was in vogue for a shorter period of time than that observed in complete amphorae burials.

3

1 1 1

Fig. 7.8 The amphorae typologies in Late Iron Age burials containing sherds.

from LT 111b, (Tomb 58), and the latest AD 14- 37, (Tomb 44). 7.6.5 Pyre sites (ustrina) We can rarely trace the pyre site, and it is only in recent projects that investigators have made a conscious effort to recognise and record the pyre site or ustrinum. The ustrinum may have been used on only one occasion, or may have been a more permanent feature of the funerary landscape, being used for several cremations.

Although the amphora typologies are unknown in AcyRomance, Bezannes, Fère- Champenoise, Besançon, Bouy, Ecury-le-Repos and Normée, it is very likely that Dressel1 could be suggested in accordance with the geographical location and chronology of these cemeteries. The cemetery at Fère Champenoise comprised six enclosures in which both inhumation and cremation tombs were defined (Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970: 7-26). These were arranged in seven family groups which displayed hierarchical elements (1970: 26). Amphorae sherds were present in 11 cremations and two inhumations, and although unclassified, there were recognisable spikes, collars and handles (Fig. 7.1). The cemetery enclosures of Normée contained 100 burials and some pits. Of the 46 cremations here, 26 contained amphorae sherds, amongst which were recognisable handles and collar sections (Brisson & Hatt 1969: 21-37). Both cemeteries were used over a long period of time. At Normée the earliest cremation containing amphorae dated

Complete amphorae in depositions were often associated with spectacular tomb display, and although burials containing sherds may not suggest ceremonial ritual on the same grand scale, it was still probable that the mourning process involved the whole community in a progression of rites. There may have been a lapse of time before the body was transported amid ceremony to the pyre site. The body would have been prepared for disposal in the clothes and personal adornments which expressed the status of the deceased. Pieces of an iron mail shirt found in the pyre debris of Folly Lane suggest warrior class, while fragments of ivory led to the supposition that the body had been positioned on a funerary couch or chair, 85

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN although this is the only instance where an amphoraassociated burial contained such a piece of furniture (Niblett 2000: 100-1).

litt.). Mark Atkinson compares these to the pyre sites of Westhampnett, where the cremation process was similar. After the human remains had cooled, they were removed from the ustrinum for placement in the final resting place. This does not happen in the case of a bustum where the cremation pyre was situated over a pit, prepared to receive the burned material. The evidence of bustum sites is rarely found, although Fitzpatrick notes a few cases of in situ burning from Westhampnett (1997: 18).

We know that excarnation was practised, and this possibility or that of a ‘lying in state’ has been explored by Niblett who offers alternative reasons for postponing the interment: 1.

2.

3.

4.

To house the body until an auspicious year or season in which the funeral ceremony could take place (for instance at the winter or summer solstice, or at the end of a five or thirty-year cycle (Ross 1995:43, Bruneaux 1986: 49-50, Bruneaux 1996). To allow time, and possibly a place, for initiation rites for a successor to be carried out. To house the body while the whole tribe or pagus gathered together, and where visitors, dignitaries and family members could pay their respects. To provide a place for the excarnation of the body before the final cremation. (Niblett 1999: 58).

Burnt amphorae and pyres It has already been shown that élite burials were often identified by the presence of complete amphorae, placed in an upright position. None of these amphorae showed evidence of contact with fire. Although the vessels may have contained wine to be consumed during the cremation ceremony, or to be poured over the pyre, the complete unburnt amphorae were reserved for secondary deposition in the prepared burial site. In the tombs such as St.-Remy-de-Provence, Arras, Tombs 1- 4, NeuvyPailloux and Welwyn Garden City, not only were the amphorae complete, but so were the other grave goods. Older reports rarely reported burnt vessels, and of the 251 burials from which the figures derive, only a few examples mention burnt amphorae. Three cremations at Fère- Champenoise contained burnt amphorae sherds (Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970: 11), and this implies that the wine vessels were present at the primary cremation. As only some of the pyre debris was selected for interment many burnt fragments may not have been transferred to the burial site. At Fère-Champenoise there was a mixture of burnt and unburnt material amongst the deposits.

Such circumstances can only be the subject of conjecture. In the sequence of funerary events, archaeologically it is the cremation debris and subsequent deposition of human remains together with associated grave goods, which are most likely to be traced. The pyre site at Folly Lane was identified from traces of burning and remnants of molten copper alloy 18 metres to the north-west of the funerary shaft (Niblett 1999: 47). Its situation on a mound would have enabled large numbers of mourners to witness the funerary ceremony.

There is a strong case for some complete amphorae having been leant against the pyre during the cremation ceremony. This position would have resulted in fire damage to the side in contact with the pyre. These amphorae were not deposited as complete vessels, but after the pyre had cooled, these amphorae were smashed along with other complete vessels. Reports of burnt and unburnt amphorae sherds in burial pits are the likely product of such a sequence of events. This could explain the presence of both burnt and unburnt fragments of amphorae in 12 tombs of the Lamadaleine cemetery (Metzler et al. 1999 and Table 7.1). In these burials the accompanying grave goods were often fragmentary.

A funerary pyre was recognised at the NospeltGoeblingen, “Scheierheck” site (Metzler & Bis 1998: 4), and at Bonnert, depot 66 was classed as a ustrinum (Fairon 1986: 41). The existence of the ustrinum at some distance from the deposition pit implies that there would be opportunity for ritual activity between the pyre site and the burial site as the cremation remains were transferred. Of the cremations at Elms Farm, only one was placed close to the pyre site (Atkinson 2003: in litt.), and at Bonnert the ustrinum was to the east (Fairon 1986: 41). However, in many excavation reports there is no mention of the ustrinum, which presumably was unidentified. This may have been because the pyre site was some distance from the burial site and outside the range of excavation.

The pyre site at Clemency was associated with 120 burnt and 472 unburnt fragments of amphorae. It was clear that complete amphorae were reserved for placing in the funerary chamber, but between 20 and 30 other amphorae were used in funerary ritual in the burial environment. Paul Sealey describes how at Elms Farm sherds of amphorae in Pit 15417 had fractured in the heat of the pyre (forthcoming). In common with amphorae collected from the funeral pyre at Clemency, the burnt and fractured vessels had been immediately smashed into smaller pieces.

There were no amphorae in burials at Westhampnett, but the sub-pyre features appear to be relevant, particularly when considering the cremations of northern Gaul. At Elms Farm, Heybridge a number of pyre sites have been identified from deposits of fuel, burnt pottery, bone and goods in ‘under-pyre vents or flues’ (Atkinson 2002: in 86

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE At Folly Lane, selected burnt amphorae sherds were placed in the burial pit and a few were scattered into the funerary shaft. In the upper section of the funerary shaft, the amphorae sherds were untouched by fire (Niblett 1999: 51).

associated shaft were unburnt. Niblett points out that the pyre debris had been “heaped indiscriminately” in the pit, which is an contrast to the ordered placing of goods in élite Gallic burials (1999: 53). Lambot visualises an attempted order in the depositions of Acy-Romance, especially in the placing of dishes in the corners (1994:145). It can be proposed that there was a special significance attached to corners, indicated by the placement of amphorae in the corners of the élite Arras tombs, and burials in enclosure corners at FèreChampenoise and Normée.

The deposition of pyre remains It was obvious from the fragments of bone and pottery found in burial pits, that not all of the pyre debris was transported to the interment site. Only an estimated 25% of the cremated bone from Folly Lane was placed in the burial pit, and a similar selection of skeletal material and grave goods was apparent at King Harry Lane, Stanway, Lexden Tumulus (Niblett 1999: 61). Although human bone is easily retrieved from pyre ashes, at Westhampnett it is clear that little of the skeletal material was selected, amounting to what Fitzpatrick terms as “no more than a single handful or a sprinkling” (1997: 213).

A ‘broken pottery rite’ and scatters of amphorae sherds in the burial landscape Apart from the one complete amphora, many sherds were found in the pyre material at Nospelt Kreckelbierg. At Boé some of the Dressel 1 amphorae were complete on deposition, but there were also many incomplete vessels. A number of amphorae appear to have been damaged by ploughing, but it is not possible to connect all of the truncated, fractured and fragmentary amphorae with the effects of ploughing, and many of these changes occurred before deposition in the tomb, (pers. comm. Martin Schöenfelder 26.4.99). Almost 60 amphorae were involved in ritual practices. Some were complete, but a great many more were fragmentary. An initial estimate of 30 amphorae was based on spike and collars sections, but it was soon realised that body sections did not come from these amphorae, so the pieces were representative of a greater number of whole vessels than first estimated. The fragments extended into the burial environment. (The full extent of the burial is difficult to assess as modern building overlies the site).

Human and other remains from the pyre appeared to have been sorted and only some selected, as even allowing for the effects of cremation, not only is skeletal material missing, but many vessel pieces are absent. This scenario is very reminiscent of the funeral of Hector: “All being gathered and assembled, first they quenched the smoking pyre with tawny wine, wherever flames had licked their way, and then friends and brothers picked his white bones from the char in sorrow, while the tears rolled down their cheeks”. (The Iliad XXIV, 741-804). The human remains were sometimes placed in a container: this may have been an urn (Prunay), part of an amphora (Cras, Murcens), or a box (Dorton). There is a possibility that wicker baskets or wooden containers were also used, but these are absent from the archaeological record. More often the cremated bones were placed unurned into the burial pit, or heaped on the floor as at Snailwell and Goeblingen Nospelt. The funerary pit was eventually filled in and there may have been some sort of marker.

It would appear that there was a ritual breaking of the complete vessels after the primary cremation ceremony. Fragments were then selected for deposition in the funeral chamber or pit. The selection procedure seems to have been completely random, and some of the sherds were not selected to accompany the interment of human remains, but instead found their way into the environment during other ritual acts.

In the élite burials, it has been suggested that the deliberate positioning of grave goods was symbolic of a deeper meaning. Although the pieces of skeletal and ceramic material had already been subject to a selection process following cremation, the interment in a burial pit or chamber was often less obviously organised.

At Folly Lane broken and burnt pieces of amphorae were thrown into the base of the funerary shaft. The scatters appeared in groups, indicative of an ordered deposition (Niblett 1999: 62). At King Harry Lane, the amphorae of burials 241 and 369 appeared to be the only incidence of pottery that was deliberately broken in this cemetery where only five of the 472 burials contained amphorae (Rigby 1989: 203).

Cremated bone, amphorae sherds and burnt clay were heaped in the centre of the burial pit at Folly Lane. These had been covered by a mixture of turf, loam, sand and gravel which appeared scorched, suggesting that the “burnt debris was still hot when it was put in position” (Niblett 1999: 51). All of the Dressel 2-4 amphorae in this pit were burnt, although amphorae from the

At Bonnert Guy Fairon describes many scatters of amphora in cemetery environment and tombs (1986: 16). He suggests that these pieces may also have been used to cover the tombs, while Depot 67 is a pile of amphorae sherds, broken from the amphora in tomb 16. At Arcoule (Chausserie-Laprée 2000: 47), Pons, “La Font-Barbot” 87

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN (Gomez de Soto 1994:119) and Weiler (Beck & Chew 1991: 145), there were scatters in the cemetery environment, and similarly at Prunay and Montepreux. Complete amphorae and ceramic items were deposited in the Clemency burial chamber during the interment, but other burnt ceramic fragments were found alongside the tomb, possibly a product of some graveside ceremony (Metzler et al 1991). Tomb 8, Lamadaleine was covered in amphorae and dolia fragments, and in the cemeteries of Fère-Champenoise and Normée, the amphorae were not only present in burial pits, but sherd scatters were part of the ‘funerary landscape’, indicating a wider role of the wine and amphorae in a funeral rite in which the living community participated. Amphorae sherds may represent the debris of feasting, and this is more likely when the sherds are found together with burnt bones and other pottery fragments.

Associated grave goods With the exception of Boé, Tesson, Folly Lane, Lexden Tumulus, Clemency, Goeblingen Nospelt B, and Goeblange Nospelt “Scheierheck” which are classed as élite burials, none of the sherd-amphorae burials contained luxury items such as firedogs or bronze wares, and other metallic and ceramic items were in fragmentary form. As pieces could not be reconstructed to form whole items, it can be assumed that these goods were first used in the initial cremation ceremony, and the loss of primary material occurred before or during transference to the interment site. The fragmentary state of the grave goods also signifies the deposition of primary material only, with no additional pieces being added to the interment assemblage. 7.7 Establishing the relationship between feasting and funerary tradition in Gaul.

Amphorae pavements Although sherds were found mainly in rural cemeteries, amphorae sherds were found in and around the prestige burials of Tesson, Boé, Folly Lane, Lexden Tumulus, Clemency and Nospelt Kreckelbierg. At Goeblingen Nospelt, “Sheierheck” not only were tomb pits defined, but also “shady structures annexed from the sepulchres, enclosed trenches encircling the tumulus, the “pavés d’amphores", (pavement of amphorae), ceramic deposits and a funerary pyre. A large trench delimits this necropolis” (Metzler & Bis: 1998:3). Amphorae pavements were also found at Clemency, Boé and Folly Lane. At Clemency, a large number of amphorae had been smashed, and the sherds formed a ‘pavement’ of amphorae outside the grave. Of the 2,505 amphora sherds counted within the site, but significantly, almost half this number were found in the composition of the pavement (after Metzler et al. 1993 : 78). Almost a third of these pieces were burnt.

Amongst the fragmentary evidence, the association of amphora sherds, pottery fragments and burnt animal bones present the likelihood of feasting ceremonies conducted in the burial environment. 7.7.1 Offerings and meal remains Animal bones are specifically reported in 59 instances, and general reference is made of bones in another 46 burials, which means these could be either human or animal. As most of the burials are assumed to be cremations, it would be expected that human bone would be specified, but in a number of cases such as Maillerayesur-Seine, no bone has been found (Lequoy 1993:12133). In some burials complete animals or large portions were in the deposition. At Clemency, four whole boars were placed on the floor of the tomb (Metzler 1993:236). A boar was evident at Tesson (Ferdière & Villard 1993:236), half a pig in the wooden chamber at Wincheringen (Haffner 1984: 299), and pig bones and a pig carcass were found in Tombs 2, 3 and 4 at Arras (Ferdière et Villard 1993: 228-9). At “Scheierheck” pig joints were present even though there were no ceramic vessels. At Fléré-la-Rivière burnt pig bones were placed

These examples point to purposeful scattering of amphora sherds in the environment, but what happened to the non-selected material is not determined. Even if we consider the collective sherds in burial pits, pyre remains and environmental scatterings, it is not possible to account for all the pieces of amphorae and other ceramics believed to have been part of funerary ceremony.

Tomb Pyre Pavement Enclosure Surface

Weight in grams 489.690 13,420 48,480 10,410 15,660

Sherds

Burnt

Not burnt

Rims

Bodies

Spikes

472 293 1,147 231 361

120 462 75 187

472 173 685 156 174

14 18 14 9 1

21 12 27 3 11

3 1 8 -

Fig. 7.9 The presence of amphorae fragments in the different archaeological features of Clemency (after Metzler et al. 1993: 78).

88

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE in the tomb. These were all élite burials where the ‘fresh’ meat appeared to be supplies placed in the tomb to sustain the deceased on the journey to the Otherworld. In contrast burnt bones were representative of pyre material, or of meals partaken by the mourners.

10

When reviewing the evidence from Acy-Romance, “La Noue-Mauroy", Lambot distinguishes between ‘fresh’ and burnt pig bones (1993: 211-224), and ‘fresh’ burnt bones were also to be found in Lamadaleine, tombs 3, 6, 8, 37, 54 and 64 (Metzler et al: 1999). Although many burials in other cremation cemeteries contained animal bones, this amount of detail is rarely available. Neither on many occasions can we be certain of the species. Of the animal bones which were recorded, pig was the preferred animal, whether burnt or unburnt.

5

9

9

8

Pig Poultry Sheep/goat Cattle Dog Horse Unspecified

7 6 4 3 2 1

2 1

1

1

1

1

0

Fig. 7.10 The incidence of ‘fresh’ animal bones in (complete and sherd) amphorae burials.

Méniel’s studies of faunal evidence from the Late Iron Age cemeteries led him to conclude that pig was indeed the animal most commonly associated with funerary ritual (2001: 89). This is entirely compatible with the evidence obtained from the amphorae burials, where it can be seen that pig, whether ‘fresh’ or burnt, outnumbered the bones of other species. Méniel has noticed that even though pig bones are frequently found, the bones do not represent whole animals, so after accounting for the bones from the pyre and those from the deposition pit, many are missing. This is a good opportunity to suggest funerary feasting, during which ceremony feasting mourners ate shares of the meat and these bones were dropped elsewhere. We know that many of the cemeteries contained surface scatters of amphorae. Possibly these were part of the feasting debris, but if animal bones had been part of this debris, there is little chance of the bones remaining in this position and not being removed by animal scavengers.

Fig. 7.11 The incidence of burnt animal bones in (complete and sherd) amphorae burials.

hare (Niblett 1999: 59). Small animals such as the bats and lizards in Nimes, tomb 10, or the bird bones contained in the amphorae at Primelles were likely to be totemic offerings (Ferdière & Villard 1993: 147-155). 7.7.2 Drinking vessels

In Grave 272 of the King Harry Lane cemetery, animal bone was at a higher level in the pit (Stead & Rigby 1989:342), which may have indicated a later deposition of feasting material, where the feasting debris had been disposed of in a tidier manner. Another pit which may have contained only feasting debris was recorded at “La Poterie”, Ardennes, where no human bones or pottery sherds were contained but merely animal bones (Birchall 1976: 319).

The 265 studied burials are assumed to pertain to wine, and this figure is related to the amphorae which transported wine to the site. It can be shown because of multiple quantities of amphorae in some depositions that the number of complete or almost complete amphorae from 265 burials is at least 258, and together with the sherd amphorae evidence indicates massive amounts of wine being consumed.

The data in Fig. 7.10 and Fig. 7.11 is taken from the reports of the 265 corpus burials, and is as accurate as the information allows. It is clear that even using generalised figures, pig was the preferred species in funerary ceremonies, and that more burnt than unburnt animal bone was deposited. Mike Parker Pearson has suggested that pig bones were associated with rich burials, often being found in wagon and warrior burials, whilst sheep in particular defined a poorer grave (1999: 56). It might also be valid to consider his suggestion that small animals were found in rich burials. At Folly Lane the four different animal species represented included a cat or a

If wine-drinking is to be proved as a funerary activity it has to be possible to identify the vessels for serving and drinking wine. Likewise to demonstrate that feasting took place, we would need to look for cooking and serving vessels. To produce a complete report on all the vessels associated with 251 burials is an enormous task, and outside the scope of this study. The treatment of this subject is therefore in very general terms, but will sustain the likelihood that feasting was part of Late Iron Age funerary practices. Generalised categories can be formed in which vases, goblets and jars relate to drinking, flagons and jugs to serving, platters, dishes and bowls to 89

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN feasting, lids to cooking and high form pots may be either storage or cremation vessels. This is assuming that separate vessels were employed for drinking and eating as in the Greek or Roman symposia. There is a possibility that this distinction was not made by the Gauls.

7.8 Large amphora pieces and altered amphorae in burials It seems sensible to introduce another category of conditions of amphorae at the time of deposition, in that these large pieces of amphorae appear to suggest a different function to that of complete amphorae or sherds, and therefore are not representative of feasting. Due to the construction of the amphorae, it was probably an easy adjustment to make without breaking the actual body. This meant the amphora would still be functional as a container, though amphorae were rarely used in the place of a funerary urn. The few examples where ashes were contained in amphorae include Cras, “Murcens”, Laissac, and King Harry Lane, Tomb 272. At Agen, Aquitaine, ‘Mas de Jallon’, Gard, and Laissac, the amphora collars were removed. Only the lower halves of amphorae were found in two Wederath-Belginum graves. Toynbee (1971: 102) gives examples of poor graves in the Isola Sacra cemetery near Ostia, where amphorae were used as cremation containers, “down the necks of which libations can be poured”. Examples of amphorae used for libations are rare in Gaul, but this was almost certainly the intention in placing upright amphorae at Vernègues (Ferdière 2000: 119). A similar function may have applied to the amphorae at Laissac (Pion & Guichard 1993: 193). The amphorae appeared to have been deliberately altered before deposition. At Dorton the amphorae necks had also been broken and smoothed off before deposition, but this was not to make the amphorae suitable as a cremation vessel, as the remains here were contained in a wooden box. Because the amphorae were intended to stand upright, it reasonable to find sympathy with Matthieu Poux’s suggestion that by slicing off the top of the vessel, the amphora had been ‘decapitated’ during a ritual act of sacrifice (2002: 53).

Fig.7.12 A suggested incidence of pottery forms and functions in burials containing complete amphorae. 50 42

40

Jars Goblets Jugs/ flagons Bowls Dishes Platters Lids High form pots Unspecified

30 20 10 3

0

2

3

2

2

1

3

Fig. 7.13 A suggested incidence of pottery forms and functions in burials containing amphora sherds.

In the case of burials containing complete amphorae, accompanying vessels were often complete too, so the results from these burials are more informative than those of sherd burials, where typology cannot always be made. The complete vessel burials show a close correlation between drinking and eating vessels. In 90 instances drinking vessels were amongst the deposition, and in 99 cases eating vessels were present. This does not single out wine-drinking as a practice in its own right, but implies that wine-drinking and feasting went hand-inhand.

Sometimes large pieces of amphorae were placed over a cremation as in the case of Cutry, tomb 233, and at Cooling, where the mouth and handles of an amphora covered the cremation urn. A large piece of amphora covered the inhumation of a new-born baby in Lamadaleine, Tomb 60. Amphorae were not used as grave markers, as in another example from the Italian graveyard (Toynbee 1971: 66). Here the amphorae were visible reminders of the deceased, the wine amphorae providing a tangible link with life but when placed in a pit, chamber tomb or casket, the amphora like the deceased was hidden from the living and life. The amphorae in Gallic burials are therefore an integral part of a funerary custom, and are specifically placed in ritual circumstance.

Communal vessels may have been returned to the settlement after the ceremony, especially as we are told that “the Celts shared a common cup” (Posidonius Histories XXIII 4.36, in Asthenaeus, in Koch 1997: 10). The means to prepare food for feasting might reinforce the theory of funerary feasting, but within the burials containing sherds of amphora, equipment such as firedogs, grills or spits was missing.

Fig. 7.14 shows that Dressel 1 typology was the form most often retained to cover or contain remains. This may well be due to the sturdy nature of the amphora form, 90

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE which meant that even when it was broken, large pieces resulted that were ideal for re-use. 15

The amphora was irrevocably linked with beliefs and hopes of eternal feasting and drinking in the Otherworld, possibly with a requirement of satisfying status. This is perhaps most applicable in the case of complete amphorae. The ostentatious nature of vessels in tombs such as Boé or Arras 1, indicated Roman contact, but not Roman patterns of behaviour. The progression of Romanisation throughout Gaul was at different rates, taking account of existing local culture. The pattern of cultural change was not taken in a complete package deal, but in piecemeal fashion, with different aspects of influence noted in different regions. Woolf describes Roman wine amphorae on Iron Age sites in Gaul as representative of “goods that were widely used, but in social settings far removed from that of wine drinking in Italian society” (1998: 14-15).

14

10

Dressel 1 Dressel 1A Dressel 1B Dressel 1C Dressel 2-4 Dressel 7-11 Unknown typology Italic Pascual Haltern 70 Baetican/ Spanish

9 7

5 2 1

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

The amphorae fulfilled roles that might be functional, symbolic or ritual. Large pieces of amphorae can be seen to serve functional purposes, although in the case of libations there may be a hint of cultural borrowing from Roman ritual. The pieces of amphorae which serve in a functional capacity do not suggest funerary feasting. The large pieces of amphora were most likely to be used to contain, cover or protect a deposit. Complete amphorae were symbolically used in reconstructions of feasting arenas, or denoting ‘Otherworld’ supplies.

Fig. 7.14 Amphora typology in burials associated with large vessel pieces.

7.9 Summary The presence of amphorae in burial contexts primarily signals wine being drunk by a local community. Although the widespread diffusion of amphorae burials is a testimony of social drinking and the availability of wine, nevertheless, the burials appear to confirm the spread of an ideology which combined wine and amphorae in funerary practices. The framework of modern political borders has reinforced the tendency towards localised research. Our present knowledge of amphora burials in northern France excels that of other Gallic regions and yet information from Boé, shows that élite amphora burials are likely to exist in areas where examples have yet to be found, thus calling for a reassessment of our views on cultural contact (conversation with Martin Schöenfelder: 26.4.99).

Sherds were the most likely to be seen in conjunction with ritual practices, and these incidences are not only least often investigated, but are the most fascinating in trying to construct a manner of use. The decision to include burials containing sherd amphorae seems justified in that, while based on the least reliable evidence, the burials containing sherds of amphora point to ritualistic behaviour which is not based on Roman practices. The amphora sherds within a burial invite comment, as do surface traces of amphorae which testify to the final stages of funerary ritual, public ceremony and possible memorial meals at the graveside. The following chapter takes the form of an in-depth review of the Champagne Late Iron Age cemeteries, and will pursue this theme in an effort to determine the nature of feasting ritual in the presence of wine.

In exploring the known burials which are associated with amphorae, it can be seen that the ritual deposition of the wine vessels takes many forms. The amphorae typologies provide a useful chronology, and it is interesting that throughout this time, trade partners changed, and this offers an insight to the climate of change that existed throughout the Late Iron Age. Much of this chapter has concentrated on the importance of the amphorae condition at the time of deposition, for it seems that amphorae inclusions were for a variety of reasons. It is tempting to see assemblages containing amphorae, drinking vessels and a range of dishes and platters as consistent with feasting activities. However, the presence of feasting vessels and furnishings does not necessarily imply that feasting actually took place, but these items may have been symbolic of feasting and Otherworld hopes. Weapons announced warrior class involvement, (with no hidden message), but an amphora was placed in the burial with overtones of symbolism.

91

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Fig. 7.15 Map showing the amphora related burial sites of Gaul and Britain.

92

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE 7.10 The Inventory of amphora-related burial sites of Gaul and Britain. The inventory that follows categorises the amphora-related burials first by country then subdivides by area. This is a constraint of modern political divisions. Gaul and Britain were not compartmentalized by country borders but by tribal territories. The state of the amphora at the time of deposition is regarded as being of prime importance in this investigation, and wherever this is known, full details are given. The numbers allocated to the burials of table 7.1 correspond to those in Fig. 7.15.

Complete amphora

Amphora pieces

Amphora sherds.

Inhumation

Burial with warrior elements.

Female burial.

Child burial.

Spanish amphora

Dressel 711

Rhodian amphora

Key to symbols used in Table 7.1

Key to map sites of Fig. 7. 15 1. Bonnert 9 2. Bonnert 14 3. Bonnert 16 4. Bonnert 44 5. Bonnert Deposit 67 6. Bonnert 74 7. Sampont 42 8. Weiler 9. Cuiry-les- Chaudares 10. Houillon 11. Presles-Saint-Audebert 12. Agen, “L’Ermitage” 13. Boé, Bordeneuve de Bory 14. Cras, “Murcens” 15. Acy-Romance, “La Noue- Mauroy 7 16. Chateau-Porcien 17. Hannogne-St.-Remy,Le Grand Chemin 18. Vieux-les-Asfeld, Tomb 3 19. Arcoule, St-Pierre de Vence à Eygières 20. Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, Tomb III 21. Saint-Rémy-de- Provence, Tomb V 22. Saint-Rémy-de- Provence, Tomb VI 23. Vernègues 24. Kerangouarec, Arzano 25. Kerné, Quiberon 26. Berry-Bouy, “Fontillet” 27. Chatillon-sur-Indre 28. Fléré-la-Riviere 29. Levroux, Piece de la Chapelle 30. Menestreau-en-Villette 31. Palluau-sur-Indre 32. Primelles 33. Boiroux 34. Tesson 35. Besancon, “Arsenal” 36. Beaucaire, “La Catalane” 37. Beaucaire Marronniers, Tomb 2 38. Beaucaire Marronniers, Tomb 17 39. Beaucaire Marronniers Tomb 19 40. Beaucaire, Mas-de-Jallon 41. Beaucaire Colombes, Tomb 1 42. Beaucaire, Tomb 64 43. Nimes, Tomb de la Placette 44. Nimes, Rue Alphonse-de-Seynes 45. Nimes, Fontilles, Tomb 2 46. Nimes, Jeu du Mail 47. Nimes, Tomb 10 48. Nimes, Octroi de Beaucaire

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

Bezannes, “Les Marsilliers” Neuvy-Pailloux Bouy, Chemin de Vadenay Bouy, Le Guillardet Chalons-sur-Marne Ecury-le-Repos Fère Champenoise F de C “A” Fère Champenoise F de C “B” Fère Champenoise F de C “C” Fère Champenoise F de C 6 Fère Champenoise F de C 19 Fère Champenoise F de C 24 Fère Champenoise F de C 25 Fère Champenoise F de C 26 Fère Champenoise F de C 28 Fère Champenoise F de C 41 Fère Champenoise F de C 65 Fère Champenoise F de C 74 Hallignicourt Hauvine, Feneux 21 Hauvine, Feneux 22 Hauvine Terme-Baduad 1 Montepreux Normée 42 Normée 43 Normée 44 Normée 46 Normée 47 Normée 48 Normée 50 Normée 51 Normée 52 Normée 55 Normée 57 Normée 58 Normée 60 Normée 61 Normée 62 Normée 63 Normée 65 Normée 67 Normée 68 Normée 69 Normée 70 Normée 71 Normée 72 Normée 73 Normée 74 Normée 75 Normée 76 Normée 77 Normée 79

93

101. Normée 80 102. Normée 81 103. Normée 82 104. Normée 83 105. Normée 92 106. Normée 93 107. Pommacle, Montève 108. Prunay II, 3 109. Prunay II, 5 110. Prunay II, 18 111. Prunay II, 34 112. Prunay II, 53 113. Prunay II, 55 114. Sommesous 115. Cutry, Tomb 233 116. Laissac 117. Arras Tomb1 118. Arras Tomb 2 119. Arras Tomb 3 120. Arras Tomb 4 121. Arras 122. Amiens 123. Conde-sur-Suippe 124. Antran 125. Pons, “La Font- Barbot” 126. Epiais-Rhus 227 127. St-Georges-les-Baillargeaux 128. Armsheim 129. Berglicht Kr. Bernkastel Grave 1 130. Berglicht Kr. Bernkastel Grave 2 131. Berglicht St. Wendel 132. Berglicht St. Wendel “unter dem Erker” 133. Butzweiler 134. Lachen-Speyerdorf 135. Saarlouis-Roden 1 136. Saarlouis-Roden 2 137. Trier-Olewig 138. Kr. Trier-Stadt 139. Wederath Belginum 25 140. Wederath Belginum 789 141. Wincheringen 142. Maulden Moor 143. Old Warden 144. Woburn 145. Apsley Heath, Wavendon Heath 146. Aston Clinton, Vetches Farm 147. Dorton 148. Foxton/ Hauxton 149. Jesus Lane 150. Lord’s Bridge 151. Snailwell 152. Trumpington, Dam Hill

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226.

Bouchernes Farm Canewdon Canewdon Wick Colchester, St. Clare Road Colne Engaine Earl’s Colne Great Canfield Great Chesterford Heybridge, Elms Farm Lexden Field Park/ Lexden Park Lexden Tumulus Lindsell Marks Tey Mont Bures Rivenhall, Rivenhall End Sampford Sandon Southend, Root’s Hall Southend-on-Sea, Southborne Grove Stanway, “The Doctor’s tomb” Stanway, “The Warrior burial” Thaxted/ White Colne The Towers Baldock Datchworth Folly Lane Hadham Ford/ Little Hadham Hertford Heath Mardlebury Stanfordbury A Stanfordbury B Verulamium, King Harry Lane, 117 Verulamium, King Harry Lane 206 Verulamium, King Harry Lane 241 Verulamium, King Harry Lane, 272 Verulamium, King Harry Lane, 369 Welwyn A Welwyn B Welwyn Garden City Westmill Newchurch, Isle of Wight Newport Goods Yard Cooling Oving, Copse Farm Clemency Ettelbruck Goeblingen Nospelt A Goeblingen Nospelt B Goeblingen Nospelt D Heffingen Lamadelaine, Tomb 3 Lamadelaine, Tomb 6 Lamadelaine, Tomb 8 Lamadelaine, Tomb 11 Lamadelaine, Tomb 12 Lamadelaine, Tomb 14 Lamadelaine, Tomb 15 Lamadelaine, Tomb 17 Lamadelaine, Tomb 19 Lamadelaine, Tomb 21 Lamadelaine, Tomb 22 Lamadelaine, Tomb 23 Lamadelaine, Tomb 24 Lamadelaine, Tomb 25 Lamadelaine, Tomb 26 Lamadelaine, Tomb 27 Lamadelaine, Tomb 30 Lamadelaine, Tomb 31 Lamadelaine, Tomb 32 Lamadelaine, Tomb 33 Lamadelaine, Tomb 36 Lamadelaine, Tomb 37 Lamadelaine, Tomb 39 Lamadelaine, Tomb 41

227. Lamadelaine, Tomb 42 228. Lamadelaine, Tomb 45 229. Lamadelaine, Tomb 46 230. Lamadelaine, Tomb 48 231. Lamadelaine, Tomb 51 232. Lamadelaine, Tomb 52 233. Lamadelaine, Tomb 53 234. Lamadelaine, Tomb 54 235. Lamadelaine, Tomb 55 236. Lamadelaine, Tomb 56 237. Lamadelaine, Tomb 58 238. Lamadelaine, Tomb 60 239. Lamadelaine, Tomb 64 240. Lamadelaine, Tomb 66 241. Lamadelaine, Tomb 67 242. Lamadelaine, Tomb 68 243. Lamadelaine, Tomb 72 244. Lamadelaine, Tomb 73 245. Lamadelaine, Tomb 75 246. Lamadelaine, Tomb 77 247. Livange 248. Mompatch 249. Nospelt Kreckelbireg Tomb I 250. Nospelt Kreckebierg Tomb XXVIII 251. Goeblange/ Nospelt “Scheierheck” 252. Rodange 253. Steinfort, Scharzenbach 254. Steinheim 255. Dun-sur-Auron 256. Acy-Romance, “La Croisette” 257. Bagnogne-Recouvrance 258. Charleville Mezieres 259. Saint Germainmont 260. Beaucaire, Les marronniers 12 261. Beaucaire, Les marronniers 15 262. Nimes, Tombe de la Cigale 263. Vernas 264. Mailleraye-sur-Seine Lamadelaine, Tomb 47

94

Bonnert 9

Bonnert 14

Bonnert 16

Bonnert 44

Bonnert Deposit 67

Bonnert 74

Sampont 42

Weiler

Cuiry-lesChaudares

Houillon

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tomb Name

95

Aisne, France

Aisne, France

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Country and District

No available information

LT D2

1st century AD

No available information

50 BC-AD 50

50 BC-AD 50

50 BC- AD 50

50 BC- AD 50

Late LT III beginning of 1st century AD

Last century BC

Date of burial

A possible cremation.

Possibly a cenotaph.

No available information

Cremation

Cremation

Amphora Deposit

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Burial rite

A Dr 1B

2 Dr 1

Republican Dressel 1

1 Dr B

1 Dr 1B

No available information

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1B

I Dr 1B (Orange)

Amphora typology

11 pieces from 2 amphorae

Fragments of side and shoulder.

Base of amphora.

Shoulder

Complete, large piece or sherds

Metallic grave goods

13 vases.

Fragments of 2 vases and 2 dishes. Fragments of an urn?

Fragments of high-form pot and small vase.

1 small jar and fragments of vase.

A fragment of a white jug; a type commonly found in Luxembourg . 2 jars, 1 bowl and fragments of many other vases.

Additional ceramics

9 glass pearls.

Iron mask.

Other grave goods 1 gold ring, 2 Gallic coins.

TABLE 7:1 AN INVENTORY OF AMPHORA-RELATED SITES OF GAUL AND BRITAIN

Charcoal burnt boneshuman or animal?

Charcoal burnt boneshuman or animal?

Burnt bones (human or animal not specified).

Offerings

Amphorae fragments were found in the central area of the cemetery of 16 tombs.

A wood-lined tomb.

Roymans 1990:148

Metzler 1991: 123 Beck & Chew 1991:145 Lambot 1993:275 Henon & Auxiette 1997 :107-13

Roymans 1990:149

Fairon 1986:42-3

Fairon 1986:41

Cemetery of 100+tombs.

Cemetery of 100+tombs.

Fairon 1986:33

Fairon 1986:24-5

Fairon 1986: 23-4

Fairon 1986: 21

Reference

Cemetery of 100+tombs.

Cemetery of 100+ tombs.

Cemetery of 100+ tombs Charcoal, amphorae ceramic & bone pieces in a well defined ditch.

Cemetery of 100+ tombs.

Background information

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

96

Vieux-lesAsfeld, Tomb 3

18.

16.

HannogneSaint-Remy, ‘Le Grand Chemin’

Cras, “Murcens”

14.

17

Boé, Bordeneuve de Bory

13.

Acy-Romance ‘La NoueMauroy, Tomb 7 ChateauPorcien

Agen L’Ermitage

12.

15.

Presles-Saint Audebert

11.

Ardennes, France

Ardennes, France

Ardennes, France

Ardennes, France

Aquitaine, (Lot) France

Aquitaine, France

Aquitaine, France

Aisne, France

No available information

50-25 BC

50-25 BC

LT D

LT D

LT D2

LT D

50-25 BC

Cremation

No information available.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation/s

A possible cremation. Wagon burial

Cremation.

A burial- a likely cremation.

1 or more Dr 1A

1 Dr 1A

1 Dr 1B

1 type unknown

1 or more, type unknown

50+Dr 1

2; type unknown

2 Dr 1B

Collars removed

Many complete on deposition.

Collars removed

Complete on deposition

5 painted barrel vases.

1 oenochoe and an Aylesford pan.

1 bowl, 4 urns.

2A tripod vessel?

2 oenochei

Large dish, fragment

Vases, platter and a lid.

6 urns.

A bronze animal head, a spear head, a sword with sheath and a tripod. A bucket with bronze plaques.

2 fibulae, 2 buckets

A helmet, coat of mail, shield, 4 oil lamps, candelabra firedogs and a drinking horn.

5 glass beads, 2 fibulae, 1 bronze ring.

Ceramic and metal fragments together with burnt bones.

Burnt pig bones and other food offerings.

Burnt and ‘fresh’ pig bones.

Food offerings were placed in ceramic containers

Burnt bones in an urn.

Wagon elements. Described as a warrior burial.

Described as a warrior burial.

An oppida site; the burials were placed in amphore in settlement and rampart areas. The furnishings are now lost. An adult aged more than 24 years.

The tomb measured 8 m sq. Several pits were located in the vicinity.

Coronets on amphorae?

Lambot et al. 1994: 211-227

Collis 1981:12, Pion & Guichard 1993:188, Lambot 1994 Collis 1981: 12, Roymans 1990:250-5

Lambot 1993: 211-224

(Cotton 1957), Collis 1975:189 Pion & Guichard 1993:184

Boudet 1990: 95-115

Pion & Guichard 1993:184

Birchall 1965:314

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

97

Chatillonsur-Indre

Kerangouarec Arzano

24

27.

Vernègues

23.

Berry-Bouy “Fontillet”

Saint-Rémyde- Provence Tomb VI

22.

26.

Saint-Rémyde- Provence Tomb V

21.

Kerné, Quiberon

Saint-Rémyde-Provence Tomb III

20.

25.

Arcoule (Saint-Pierre de Vence à Eygières)

19

Centre, France

Centre, France

Brittany, France

Brittany, France

Bouchesdu-Rhône, France

Bouchesdu-Rhône, France

Bouches du- Rhône, France

Bouchesdu-Rhône, France

Bouchesdu-Rhône, France

LT D 30-20 BC

Augustan

LT C

GalloRoman

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation/ Cremations

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

7 Dr 1

10 inc. I Dr 1 and 2 Pascual 1

Dr 1 A

No available information

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1

Italian amphorae scatters.

3 jars, 4 platters, and a flagon. 1 jar, 1 bowl, 5 platters.

1 dipper.

1 dipper.

An oenochoe, a patera and a basin.

An oenochoe, a dipper, a patera and a basin.

1 jar and 5 bowls.

1 dipper

2 goblets, platters, vases, and flagon.

Urn covered by a dish.

Local and imported vases.

1 dipper

A sword, a knife, a bronze plaque and 2 rings.

A sword and sheath, a spear head, an ‘umbo’ and 2 Gallic coins.

A bronze fibula, a bronze bracelet metal fragments.

Candelabra

1 knife 1 oil lamp.

1 knife

A threepronged fork and an iron knife.

Meat offerings.

The amphorae were placed upright, suggesting this was for libations to be poured. The cremation was covered by a tombelle, a low mound of earth and rubble. The amphora sherds formed a layer on which the cremation remains were placed. A tumulus covered the burial. 15 metres to the north was the burial of a man and a horse (Beck & Chew 1991: 111)

Wood lined.

The tomb was stone lined, with a flagstone cover.

A cremation cemetery with 5 tombs.

Fèrdière et Villard 1993:95107

Fèrdière et Villard 1993: 121-138

Galliou 1989: 116

Galliou & Jones 1991: 60-1

Fèrdière 2000:119, 152

Arcelin 1975: 67175

Arcelin 1975: 67-175

Salviat et Barruol 1976:94-5, Chausserie Laprée 2000:47 Arcelin 1975: 67-135

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

98

Besancon, “Arsenal”

Beaucaire , Beaux-deProvence, “La Catalane”

35.

36.

Primelles

32.

Tesson

Palluausur-Indre

31.

34.

Menestreauen-Villette

30.

Boiroux

Levroux, Piece de la Chapelle

29.

33.

Fléré-laRiviere

28.

FrancheCompte, France Gard, France

CharenteMaritime

Corrèze

Centre, France

Centre, France

Centre, France

Centre, France

Centre, France

25-75 BC

LT D

LT D1

No available information.

10 BC-AD 10

LT DAugustan

LT D2 Augustan

Roman

Roman

A possible cremation.

A possible cremation.

Wagon burial.

No available information.

Cremation

Inhumation

Inhumation

Inhumation x2

Inhumation

1 Dr 1C

Type unknown.

15 Dr 1A

3 Dr 1B

4 amphorae, placed in the corners of the tombone was for oil.

1 Dr 1 B and 1 other

1 type unknown

13 Pascual 1

Complete on deposition.

Complete on deposition.

No available information

No available information

An oenochoe handle, a strainer and dipper, 2 basins, and a patera.

Fragments of 10 vessels.

Vases, platters, goblets, dishes, and tripod vases.

3 platters, 3 vases, bowl, 2 goblets.

12 platters, flagon, 2 goblets, urn, 6 vases, tripod vessel, and a lid.

Coins, a mirror, 4 glass pearls, and 2 fibulae.

Sword and sheath, a skin purse (?), and a wooden ‘plank’.

A sword.

3 swords, 2 spear heads, grill, cauldron, tongs, 2 buckets, flints and mill- stones. A sword, helmet, and Roman coins.

A knife and a ring.

Bird bones were placed in the amphorae.

Animal bones and pottery fragments.

Pig, burnt bones.

In a Roman sanctuary.

A wagon/ chariot burial

Unburnt human bones.

There was a nearby horse burial.

An isolated burial included a wooden tub.

Fèrdière et Villard 1993:236 Pion & Guichard 1998: 190 Bean 1980

Olivier & Schönfelder 2002: 84

Fèrdière et Villard 1993: 147-155

Fèrdière et Villard 1993: 205-7

Fèrdière et Villard 1993: 139-147

Pion et Guichard 1993:187

Fèrdière et Villard 1993:15-93

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Beaucaire Marronniers Tomb 2

Beaucaire Marronniers Tomb 17

Beaucaire Marronniers Tomb 19

Beaucaire, “Mas-deJallon”

Beaucaire Colombes Tomb 1

Beaucaire Tomb 64

Nimes, Tomb de la Placette

Nimes, Rue Alphonse-deSeynes

Nimes, Fontilles Tomb 2

Nimes, Jeu du Mail

Nimes, Tomb 10

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

99

45.

46.

47.

Gard, France

Gard, France

Gard, France

Gard, France

Gard, France

Gard, France

Gard, France

Gard, France

Gard, France

Gard, France

Gard, France

No available information

LT III

No available information

PreAugustan

LT III

120-80 BC

Early 1st century BC

99-50 BC

99-50 BC

99-50 BC

No available information

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

A possible cremation.

No available information

A possible cremation.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation.

Dr 1?

2 type unknown

Yellow!

Italic

1 Dr 1A

Italic

Italic no 7

2 Dr 1A

2 Dr 1B

2 Dr 1B

2 Dr 1B

Probably complete.

No available information

No available information

2 dippers? and an oenochoe

1 dipper, situla

Oil lamp.

8 vases(3 nonturned).

2 swords.

Lizards, bats etc. had been placed in the amphorae.

The furnishings are now lost.

Spear heads, a shield, and an umbo.

2 dishes.

A large stone covered the tomb. A stone-lined tomb with stone cover.

A sword (bent), sheath, spear head, and an umbo. A sword was placed outside the tomb.

A flagstone cover.

A great number of plates and dishes.

17 items.

2 urns, a vase, and a bowl.

4 fibulae, rings, 2 knives.

23 vases.

A sword, a spear head, and a strigil.

An oil lamp, a knife, and a strigil.

18 dishes, 6 bowls and 2 urns.

Carte d’ Archeologie

Py 1981: 123

Py 1981: 126

Garmy et al. 1981: 71-87

Feugere et al. 1996: 165-204

Dedet, Michelozzi & Py 1974: 59-117 Pleiner 1993:47

Garmy, Michlozzi & Py 1981: 71-87

Py 1981: 12-31

Dedet et al. 1976:99

1 urn, vase, dish, 6 platters and 2 flagons.

An oil lamp and candelabra.

Dedet et al. 1976 :88

An urn, a small flagon and a platter.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

NeuvyPailloux

Bezannes, “Les Marsilliers”

Bouy, Chemin de Vadenay

Bouy, Le Guillardet

Chalons-sur Marne Ecury-leRepos

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

100

Fère Champenoise F de C “A”

Fère Champenoise F de C “B”

Fère Champenoise F de C “C”

Fère Champenoise F de C 6

Fère Champenoise F de C 19

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

54.

Nimes, Octroi de Beaucaire

48.

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

ChampagneArdennes, France

Indre, France

Gard, France

LT IIIAugustan

LT III

LT IIIAugustan

LT IIIAugustan

LT IIIAugustan

No available information 1st century BC- !st century AD

LT III

LT D1-D2

AD 40-50

LT III

Cremation

Inhumation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

A possible cremation. Cremation in funerary enclosure.

Funerary enclosure ditch Cremation

Cremation

Inhumation

Cremation

Type. unknown

Type. unknown

Type. unknown

Type unknown.

Type. unknown

Type unknown.

1 Dr 1A

type unknown

type unknown

Dr 1

57 Pascual 1

1 GraecoItalic (Dr 24-25?)

No available information

An oenochoe, patera, basin, and flagon.

Burnt bones.

Vase fragments.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt ceramic sherds.

Small vase.

Burnt bones.

Burnt ceramic sherds.

Offerings.

Food offerings, boar’s teeth, burnt bones and grain.

Burnt bones.

Bracelet.

Fibula, coins.

A sword (bent), hook, and spear heads, together with 2 boar tusks. Tripod, cauldron, lantern, bronze masks, mill stones.

Burnt ceramic sherds.

Stamped Gallo-Belgic wares, plates and dishes.

Ceramic fragments in cremation and enclosure ditches.

3 vases.

Plate, dish. 2 urns.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

The exact amphorae positions are unknown.

A group of 4 cremations.

Enclosure with cremations, possibly contained pavilion structure.

A painted tomb; containing wagon elements.

Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970: 11 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:10 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:22

Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970: 11 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:11

Fitzpatrick 1985:327 Chossenot 1997:224

Gallia 27 p. 304 Chossenot 1968

Chossenot 1975

Fibroulet et Verbrugghe 1993

Ferdiere et Villard 1993: 156-200

Py 1981: 141-8

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

101

Normée 43

73.

70.

69.

Normée 42

Fère Champenoise F de C 74

66.

72.

Fère Champenoise F de C 65

65.

71.

Fère Champenoise F de C 41

64.

Hauvine Feneux 21 Hauvine Feneux 22 Hauvine TermeBaduad 1 Montepreux

Fère Champenoise F de C 28

63.

68.

Fère Champenoise F de C 26

62.

Hallignicourt

Fère Champenoise F de C 25

61.

67.

Fère Champenoise F de C 24

60.

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France Marne, France Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne., France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

LT III

LT III

Last half of 1st century BC

LT IIIb

LT IIIb

LT IIIb

LT IIIAugustan

LT IIIAgustan

Augustan

LT IIIAugustan

LT IIIAugustan

Augustan

LT IIIAugustan

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation/s

No available information No available information No available information

A possible cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Inhumation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

No information available.

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown burnt

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type. unknown

Ceramic sherds.

A spear head.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

The cemetery of 25 graves consisted of 2 enclosures surrounded by a ditch. Some cremations were placed in the ditch.

Ceramic sherds.

Burnt bones.

A large cemetery. A large cemetery. A large cemetery.

Cremation cemeteries.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

Ceramic sherds. Ceramic sherds. Ceramic. sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

Studs.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

Burnt ceramic.

Burnt bones.

Ceramic sherds.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

Burnt bones.

Ceramic sherds.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

Platter fragment.

Burnt bones.

Coin.

A vase and an urn.

A small vase.

Brisson & Hatt 1969:33 Brisson & Hatt 1969:33

Birchall 1965: 260, 312 Pion & Guichard 1993:190

Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:20 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:23 Chossenot 2000 (pers. comm.) CAG 52/ 1 :232-241 Roymans 1990:149 Roymans 1990:149 Roymans 1990:149

Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:22 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:22 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:23 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:23 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970 : 15

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Normée 57

Normée 58

Normée 60

Normée 61

83.

84.

85.

Normée 51

79.

82.

Normée 50

78.

Normée 55

Normée 48

77.

81.

Normée 47

76.

Normée 52

Normée 46

75.

80.

Normée 44

74.

102

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Tiberian

No available information

LT 111

Nero AD 54-68

Augustan

TiberianClaudian

End of LT III

Tiberian AD 14-37

AugustanTiberian AD 14-37

No available information

No available information

Tiberian AD 14-37

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown

Sherds and a handle

Sherds and a handle

Sherds and a handle

Handle

Ceramic sherds and fragments.

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

Fragments of a small Gallo-Belgic vase, imitation Samian ware. A large black, polished vase decorated with bands, covered with a conical lid. Part of a large jug, and 4 Gallo=Belgic vases. Ceramic sherds.

The base of a GalloBelgic vase.

A metal fragment.

Metal fragments.

Metal fragments.

A coin (Nero).

A coin (Catalauni).

A Gallic coin.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

The bones were contained in the large vase.

Burnt bones amongst amphora fragments. Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Iron nails.

Ceramic sherds.

Burnt bones. Burnt bones.

A coin (Tiberius).

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

The amphora handle was found close to this cremation.

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

Brisson & Hatt 1969:33

Brisson & Hatt 1969:33 Brisson & Hatt 1969:33

Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 33

Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 32

Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 32

Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 32

Brisson & Hatt 1969:33 Brisson & Hatt 1969:33 Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 33 Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 32

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Normée 62

Normée 63

Normée 65

Normée 67

Normée 68

Normée 69

Normée 70

Normée 71

Normée 72

Normée 73

Normée 74

Normée 75

Normée 76

Normée 77

Normée 79

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

103

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Augustan

No available information

AugustanTiberian

Augustan

Augustan

LT III

Tiberian

Augustan

No available information

No available information

No available information

AugustanTiberian

No available information

AugustanTiberian

Augustan

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation.

Cremation.

Cremation.

Cremation.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown

Handle

7 fragments, (3 neck pieces).

2 fragments.

3 fragments, one a neck section.

Vase fragments.

The base of an urn.

Vase. fragments.

A vase and dolium fragments.

A vase and flagon fragments.

A vase and a goblet with fern pattern. An urn fragment.

Fragments from a large white clay flagon.

Fragments of a vase and a jug.

A GalloBelgic dish and some vase rims.

Ceramic fragments.

Gallo-Belgic vases, dolium fragment. A dolium and flagon fragments.

A stud.

A metal object and an iron nail. 2 iron nails.

2 Gallic coins (Remi)

Burnt bones.

Burnt bone and a sheep knucklebone. Burnt bones.

Brisson & Hatt 1969:35 Brisson & Hatt 1969:35 Brisson & Hatt 1969:35 Brisson & Hatt 1969:35

Brison & Hatt 1969:35

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:35

Burnt bones.

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

No burnt bones.

No burnt bones.

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

A hone stone and metal fragments. Blue glass (bracelet). 2 iron nails.

Burnt bones.

Metal fragments.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Normée 80

Normée 81

Normée 82

Normée

Normée 92

Normée 93

Pommacle, Montève

Prunay II, 3

Prunay II, 5

Prunay II, 18

Prunay II, 34

Prunay II, 53

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

104

109.

110

111.

112.

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Augustan AD 10?

No available information

No available information

Augustan

Augustan

LT III

No available information

No available information

TiberianClaudian

AugustanTiberian

Augustan

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Dr 1 B or Dr 2-4

Red!

Type unknown

Red!

Type unknown

1 Dr 1B

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown.

Fragments of collar

Base

Half amphora

3 fragments nearby.

Vase.

A large jar and a vase and a platter. Vases and a small jar.

12 vases (two painted).

Ceramic fragments.

Ceramic fragments.

Fragments of tiles, a black cooking pot and an ovoid vase. 2 ovoidbodied vases, a jug and fragments of 2 dishes.

Ceramic fragments, and goblet with fern decoration. Plate fragments.

A fibula.

A small white glass ring.

2 fibulae, studs bronze coin.

3 axes, 2 buckets, ladle, hone stone, piece of harness.

3 iron studs.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones in vases.

Burnt bones in a jar.

Burnt bones

Burnt bones.

The amphora was stamped B.C.A. twice (Fitzpatrick 1985).

The burial was protected by a cabin structure.

The cremation remains and dish fragment were contained in a large vase which was covered by a dish.

No burnt bones.

Bry and Fromols 1938:154

Bry & Fromols 1938:154

Bry & Fromols 1938:154 Bry & Fromols 1938:154

Bry & Fromols 1938:154

Brisson & Hatt 1969: 35 Brisson & Hatt 1969: 36 Chossenot 1997: 355

Brisson & Hatt 1969:31

Brisson & Hatt 1969: 35 Brisson & Hatt 1969:35

Brisson & Hatt 1969:35

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

105

Arras Tomb 4

Arras

Amiens

120.

121.

122.

Arras Tomb 1

117.

Arras Tomb 3

Laissac

116.

119.

Cutry, Tomb 233

115.

Arras Tomb 2

Sommesous

114.

118.

Prunay II, 55

113.

Pas-deCalais, France Picardy, France

Pas-deCalais, France

Pas-deCalais, France

Pas-deCalais, France

Pas-de Calais, France

MidiPyrenees, France

Meurthe-etMoselle France

Marne, France

Marne, France

No available information

No available information

10 BC- AD 50

AD 37-50

10 BC- AD 50

10 BC- AD 50

LT D

Republican

Augustan

No available information

A possible cremation.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation (x4)

Inhumation

Funerary enclosure ditches

Cremation

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1

3 type unknown

4 type unknown

5 type unknown typology (oil?)

2 flatbased

Type unknown.

Dr 1

Type unknown

1 Dr 1 B

Truncated

1 collar fragment, placed over the thorax

Fragments

Base

A spear head, shears, a hammer, a hone stone, and silver plaques.

An urn and platters.

25 platters, 2 bowls, 1 vase, 2 goblets.

Firedogs, a cauldron, an axe, a knife, and coins.

An urn, a vase and some platters.

A strainer and a vase.

A basin.

Firedogs, a cauldron, shears, and flints.

An urn, vase and platters.

A bucket, fibula, mirror, and coins.

A silver ring, an umbo, a fibula and a bronze disc.

An oenochoe and a vase.

3 dishes and an ovoid vase.

A fibula and some potin coins (Catalauni).

Burnt bones of pig and sheep.

Burnt animal bones, and a pig carcase.

Burnt bones of pig and poultry.

Burnt bones.

Other amphorae fragments were associated with this cemetery which showed long-term use. Several cremations were placed in the in amphorae; the furnishings are now lost.

Fitzpatrick 1985:325

Fitzpatrick 1985: 326

Collis 1981: 12 Ferdiere et Villard 1993:228-9 Collis 1981: 12 Ferdiere et Villard 1993: 228-9 Collis 1981: 12 Ferdiere et Villard 1993: 228-9 Collis 1981: 12 Ferdiere et Villard 1993: 228-9

Chossenot 1997:193

Metzler 1995: 122-3

Guillier 1991

Bry & Fromols 1938:154

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

106

Berglicht Kr. Bernkastel Grave 2

Berglicht St. Wendel

Berglicht St. Wendel “unter dem Erker”

130.

131.

132.

SaintGeorges-lesBaillargeaux, “Varennes”

127.

Berglicht Kr. Bernkastel Grave 1

EpiaisRhus 227

126.

129.

Pons, “La Font- Barbot”

125.

Armsheim

Antran

124.

128.

CondesurSuippe

123.

Germany

Germany

Germany

Germany

Germany

Vienne, France

Val D’Oise, France

PoitouCharentes, France

PoitouCharentes, France

Picardy, France

Final LT

Final LT

No available information

LT D

PreCaesar

125-75 BC

Cemetery 100 BCAD 30

LT C-D

Augustan

LT D

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Inhumation of a young man.

A possible cremation.

Cremation

Inhumation

No available information

1 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1B

Dr 1 B

Type unknown.

GraecoItalic

1 Dr 1A laid on its side so that would lie in the coffin.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

7 Pascual 1

Typology unknown

The lower part.

Sherd scatters in cemetery.

Platters, flagons, dishes, and amphorette

An oenochoe, a strainer , a bowl, and a patera.

2 dishes, vase.

A small pot.

2 painted pots and 7 dishes.

The base of a vase.

An urn.

A basin.

A bent sword.

3 bronze fibulae, bronze bracelet, a lance head, a knife, 3 razors and a hone stone. A cauldron.

A fibula.

An umbo, 2 spear heads, 2 strigiles, a coin, and a lamp.

A helmet and a coin (Catalauni).

Burnt bones.

Bones.

The food offerings included half a pig and some birds.

Animal bones.

Bones.

A warrior burial.

A wooden coffin was suggested by iron nails and plaques.

The inhumation and cremation cemetery was used during 3 historic phases.

Burial.

A warrior burial.

Mahr 1967:192

Metzler et al. 1995: 128

Fitzpatrick 1985:317

Mahr 1967:192

Collis 1981:12 Fitzpatrick 1985: 329

Pétorin 1999: 29, Méniel 2001: 90, 107

Gomez de Soto 1994:118-9 Pion & Guichard 1993: 197 Lardy 1983:127

Ferdiere et Villard 1993:225-6

Chossenot 1997:196

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

LachenSpeyerdorf

SaarlouisRoden 1 SaarlouisRoden 2 TrierOlewig

Kr. TrierStadt

Wederath Belginum 25

134.

135.

138.

139.

107

Wederath Belginum 789

Wincheringen

Maulden Moor

Old Warden

Woburn,

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

137.

135.

Butzweiler

133.

Beds. Great Britain

Great Britain

Great Britain

Germany

Germany

Germany

Germany

Germany

Germany

Germany

Germany

Germany

Possibly 1st century AD

No available information

No available information

10 BC- AD 50

No available information

No available information

50-25 BC

Final LT

No available information

LT D

No available information

A possible cremation.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

A possible cremation

No available information A possible cremation No available information

No available information

No available information.

2 GraecoRoman

2 Dr 1B

1 possibly Dr 1B

Dr 1B

No available information

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1A-1B

1 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1 B

2 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1B

No information available

The base of an amphora

No available information No available information

Cauldron.

2 shale pedestal urns.

A flagon and Samian ware

Belgic dishes and Arretine goblets.

Dishes.

Urns, vases, bowls, and a flagon.

6 fibulae, fire tongs, and 2 iron knives.

Umbo, knife, and an axe.

The amphora contained bones, ashes and fragments of red pottery.

A complete pig.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones in a basin.

Now lost.

Five burials; two associated with mirrors and a bucket.

A wood-lined chamber. Some of the cremation remains were placed in vases and others placed among the furnishings. The amphora is now lost.

Carver 2001:82

Thompson 1982, Fitzpatrick 1985: 326

Thompson 1982

Collis 1981: 12 Metzler et al. 1995: 134

Haffner 1971

Haffner 1971

Collis 1981: 12 Fitzpatrick 1985: 329

Roymans 1990:149 Roymans 1990:149 Trierer Zeitschrift 1971:34, 43

Roymans 1990:149

Roymans 1990:149

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

108

Lord’s Bridge

Snailwell

Trumpington, Dam Hill

151.

152.

Foxton/ Hauxton

148.

150.

Dorton

147.

Jesus Lane

Aston Clinton, Vetches Farm

146.

149.

Heath, Wavendon Heath

145.

Cambs., Great Britain

Cambs. Great Britain

Cambs., Great Britain

Cambs., Great Britain

Cambs., Great Britain

Bucks., Great Britain

Bucks., Great Britain

Bucks, Great Britain

No available information

10 BC-AD 50

No available information

No available information

Augustan

10 BC-AD 50

No available information

A possible cremation.

Cremation

A possible cremation.

A possible cremation.

A possible cremation.

Cremation

A possible cremation

A possible cremation

1 Dr 1B

3 - not Dr 1

Type unknown

1 Dr 1B

1 type unknown.

1 Dr 1B + 2 unknown

1 Dr 2-4

Southern Spanish Dr 9- 11

No available information

The top was missing and the amphora was buried on its side.

One handle missing

A butt beaker.

A pedestal urn, bowl, 2 beakers, a platter and 5 flagons.

Samian ware.

Arretine crater by potter Xanthus, dishes, platter and a bowl.

1 cup, 2 flagons.

A possible British cup from same site.

A firedog; a slave chain may have been associated. 5 gaming pieces, a knife, a shield boss, a bronze bracelet and bone toggles.

A mirror was placed in a box; metal fragments.

Bone spindle whorl?

Contained burnt wood and earth.

Other ‘remains’ were not specified.

A rectangular pit with ashes heaped on floor measured 3m x 1.95m.

Tumulus.

The amphora is now lost.

An oval burial pit.

The pedestal vase was missing; possibility of cemetery site.

Fox 1923, Thompson 1982

Stead 1967

Thompson 1982:948

Fitzpatrick 1985: 325

Thompson 1982

Farley 1983

Farley 1983: 299-300

Carver 2001: 82

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

109

Heybridge, Elms Farm

Lexden Field Park/ Lexden Park

162.

Earl’s Colne

158.

161.

Colne Engaine

157.

Great Chesterford

Colchester, St. Clare Road

156.

160.

Canewdon Wick

155.

Great Canfield

Canewdon

154.

159.

Bouchernes Farm, Cremation Cemetery

153.

Essex, Great Britain

Essex Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Roman

c. AD 1- 10

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

c. 50 BC- AD 50, but probably mid 1st century AD

A possible cremation.

Pyre deposit

Cremation

A possible cremation.

Cremation

Cremation

A possible cremation.

A possible cremation.

A possible cremation.

A possible Late “Welwyn type burial”.

1 Dr 1B

Dressel 1 / 2-4

11 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1B

Dressel 20 (Baetican)

Dr 20

I nearly complete Haltern 70 (from Baetica; originally contained defrutum, syrup of grape or olive juices. 3 tall amphorae, type unknown. 3 broken amphorae, type unknown. Dr 1 B

No available information

Rim section.

No available information

No available information

Probably complete when depositedmissing spike and clay plug.

Bronze vessels from associated burials.

A mirror was found in an associated burial.

Pyre debris.

Incomplete records; details of assemblages do not relate to particular burials.

There may have been a bucket from this burial. The pyre field consisted of 19 sites.

The amphora may have been used as a cremation vessel.

Associated grave goods uncertain.

Thompson 1982

Atkinson forthcoming

Fitzpatrick 1985

Fitzpatrick 1985: 324

Carver 2001: 85

Carver 2001: 85

Carver 2001: 84

Carver 2001:84

Carver 2001:84

Kenrick, Rodwell & Wild in Wickenden 1986 :55

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Lexden Tumulus

Lindsell

Marks Tey

Mont Bures

Rivenhall, Rivenhall End

Sampford

Sandon

Southend, Root’s Hall

Southend-onSea, Southborne Grove

Stanway, “The Doctor’s tomb”

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

110

169.

170.

171.

172.

Essex, Great Britain

Eseex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

AD 50s

No available information

No available information

No available information

10 BC- AD 50

No available information No available information

15- 10 BC

A possible cremation

Burial’

‘Burial’

Cremation

A possible cremation

‘Burial’

Cremation

A possible cremation A possible cremation.

Cremation

A Spanish amphora.

Spanish amphora

Southern Spanish amphora

2 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1B

Spanish amphora

1 Dr 1B + 5 other

4 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1B

6 Dr 1B and other amphorae/ 11 Dr 2-4, possibly 13.

No available information

Bowl, jug, figural bronzes.

Platters.

1 bowl, and a beaker.

Fire dogs, glass bottle, glass beads, metal fragments

1 glass bead.

Silver fragments (trefoils, bars, and a stud), iron nails, possibly a stool, a palstave, some bronze pins, and a medallion.

5 enclosures; this burial was sited in enclosure 5.

‘Welwyn-type burial’; amphorae not preserved.

Standing upright.

A triangular burial pit.

The grave was destroyed.

The grave pit was large- 8m x 8 m x 2.15 m deep. The burial was covered by a low, round barrow. Surrounded by an extensive ‘urnfield’ May be the tomb of Trinovantian leader, Addedomarus.

Crummy 1997

Carver 2001: 87

Carver 2001:87

Thompson 1982

Fitzpatrick 1985

Carver 2001:86

Collis 1981: 12 Stead 1967

Thompson 1982 Thompson 1982 Fitzpatrick 1985: 326

Foster 1986 Peacock 1971

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

111

Datchworth

Folly Lane

177.

178.

The Towers

175.

Baldock

Thaxted/ White Colne

174.

176.

Stanway, “The Warrior burial”

173.

Herts., Great Britain

Herts. Great Britain

Herts., Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

Essex, Great Britain

AD 50

No available information

25-10 BC

c. 50 BC- AD 150

No available information

late 1st century BCAD 60

Cremation

A possible cremation

Cremation

A possible “Belgic” cremation burial.

A possible cremation.

Cremation

Dr 2-4

Dr 1B

1 Dr 1A

1 Dr 2- 4, Koan type amphora

1 Dr 1B

1 Italic (from Pompeii region).

Oenochoe and patera fragments. There are doubts as to whether these items were part of this burial. Bowl and cauldron.

Jug, copper pan.

Fragments of 30 cups and platters.

9 vessels from northern Gaul, 1 bowl from southern France, a cup and jug from central Gaul, a flagon and a beaker.

Horse equipment, chain mail, and an ivory couch.

Fire dogs, 2 buckets and glass beads.

A blue and a white glass phial, an Italian amber glass bowl, white and blue counters and board, 2 brooches and a cloak, a wooden box, an iron spearhead, a wooden object (furniture?) a gridiron, an armlet and glass bead.

Bear claws.

The cremated bones were collected in a in bag (?)

The cremation of adult male

A circular burial pit.

5 enclosures; this burial was sited in enclosure 3.

Niblett 2000

Carver 2001: 88

Stead and Rigby 1986

Kenrick, Rodwell & Wild in Wickenden 1986 :55, Drury in Wickenden 1986.: 62

Fitzpatrick 1985: 325

Crummy 1993

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

112

Verulamium, King Harry Lane, 117

Verulamium, King Harry Lane, 206

185.

Stanfordbury A

182.

184.

Mardlebury

181.

Stanfordbury B

Hertford Heath

180.

183.

Hadham Ford/ Little Hadham

179.

Herts., Great Britain

Herts., Great Britain

Herts., Great Britain

Herts., Great Britain

Herts., Great Britain

Herts., Great Britain

Herts., Great Britain

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Late 1st century BCearly 1st century AD

Late 1st century BC to mid 1st century AD.

Cremation

A possible cremation.

Cremation

Cremation

10 BC- AD 50

10 BC-50 AD

No available information

25-10 BC

No available information

South Spanish amphora (may have contained fish sauce). Dressel 711 (may have contained fish sauce)

2 - not Dr 1

6 amphorae, but not Dr 1: One amphora contained a ball of pitch.

1 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1B

.

A bowl and a patella.

Platter and a honeypot.

3 cups.

2 pedestal urns, 7 bowls and 2 jars.

A glass bottle and urn, glass and amber beads, box, coin, buckle, 2 fibulae, and a shale bracelet. 2 brooches, 2 hinges and a nail.

Fire dogs, 4 spits, a tripod, a knife, a shield boss, chain mail, 5 gaming pieces, and a ‘flute’.

A glass bowl, a glass bead, some glass studs, metal fragments, a knife, shears, and some nails.

Unburnt and burnt animal bones.

Cremated bone.

Iron Age cemetery containing 455 cremations and 17 inhumations.

Iron Age cemetery containing 455 cremations and 17 inhumations.

A rectangular vault4.5m x 3.6m.

The floor of the rectangular vault; was paved with Roman tiles. 4.5 m x 3.6m.

The amphora may have been used for storage.

A rectangular burial pit; there were ‘satellite’ burials.

Stead: & Rigby 1989: 116 & 327

Stead & Rigby 1989: 116 & 302

Collis 1981: 12 Stead 1967

Collis 1981: 12 Stead 1967

Callender 1965

Hussen 1983

Fitzpatrick 1985:324

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Welwyn B

Welwyn Garden City

190.

191.

Verulamium, King Harry Lane, 369

188.

Welwyn A

Verulamium, King Harry Lane, 272

187.

189.

Verulamium, King Harry Lane, 241

186.

113

Herts. Great Britain

Herts. Great Britain

Herts. Great Britain

Herts. Great Britain

Herts. Great Britain

Herts., Great Britain

50-10 BC

50-10 BC

50-10 BC

AD 43- 53

A possible cremation

A possible cremation

A possible cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

5 Dr 1B

5 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1B

Peacock & Williams class 9- a Rhodian amphora.

Shertds of Haltern 70 in the grave filling. (possibly contained defrutum). Dr 2- 4 The Campanian vessel would have originally contained wine, but traces of olive oil were revealed.

Used as the cremation vessel.

A strainer, a bowl, and a silver cup.

A patella, a jug, and 2 silver cups.

A bowl and a jug.

7 pedestal urns, 6 bowls, 2 tazza, 4 cups, 6 beakers, 2 lids, 2 platters, 4 flagons, and a tripod vessel.

A pedestal urn and a tazza.

An urn and a tazza.

2 platters, cup, beaker, butt beaker and a flagon.

24 gaming pieces, 3 glass beads, 2 glass bracelets, knife, nail cleaner, nails, shield boss and a mat.

An iron frame, and a stud.

Fire dogs and studs.

Brass brooch.

7 copper studs and molten copper fragments. Animal bones and sherds were at a higher level in the pit.

Cremated bones on a wooden tray.

The cemetery (3.15m x 2.18), contained another 6 cremations in coarse pots.

Iron Age cemetery containing 455 cremations and 17 inhumations.

Iron Age cemetery containing 455 cremations and 17 inhumations.

Iron Age cemetery containing 455 cremations and 17 inhumations.

Stead 1967: 1-67

Stead 1967: 1-67

Stead 1967: 1-67

Stead & Rigby 1989: 116, 366, 375

Stead & Rigby 1989: 115, 327, 342

Stead & Rigby 1989: 115-6, 334, 336

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

114

Goeblingen Nospelt A

Goeblingen Nospelt B

199.

200.

Oving, Copse Farm

196.

Ettelbruck

Cooling

195.

198.

Newport Goods Yard

194.

Clemency

Newchurch, Isle of Wight

193.

197.

Westmill

192.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

West Sussex, Great Britain

Kent, Great Britain

Isle of Wight, Great Britain

Great Britain

Herts. Great Britain

10 BC

15 BC

LT D2Roman

LT D1-D2

Mid Iron Age

No available information

No available information

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Inhumation

Cremation

A possible cremation.

A possible ‘burial’.

A possible cremation

3+ Dr 1B and others

1 Dr 1B

7 Dr 1 B now lost

7 Dr 1B

Amphorae

Type unknown.

Early Roman

Dr 1

3 Dr 1B

Complete and sherds

No information available.

The mouth and handles covered the cremation urn.

No information available.

A strainer, a bowl, a patella, a dipper, and a jug.

A strainer, a bowl and a patella.

Bowl

9 urns, 7 bowls 2 beakers, 6 platters, 2 flagons and 2 jars. 4 urns, 4 bowls, a beaker, 14 platters, 3 flagons and 13 jars.

12 bowls, 8 platters, urns, jars, lids.

Bowls, jars and storage vessels.

A broken cremation urn and other ceramic fragments.

Cremation urns.

GalloBelgic wares.

There were other furnishings which are now lost. A sword, umbo, 2 spear heads, 6 fibulae and a knife. A cauldron, a spear head, a fibula, an oil lamp, 2 buckets, and some studs.

A grill, a fibula, and an oil lamp.

A knife, a sickle or billhook, bone points and a terret.

Burnt bones lay on the tomb floor.

Burnt bones lay on the tomb floor.

Bone (human?) filled pits.

4 elite rectangular wood lined tombs

4 elite rectangular wood-lined tombs.

Legs and skull elements of three individuals were discovered in a ditch, possibly ‘outcasts’.

Emma Carver records comments by Kevin Trott.

Thiel 1998: 1-26 Metzler et al. 1995: 150-1

Thiel 1998 1-26 Metzler et al. 1995: 150-1

Pion & Guichard 1993:200

Metzler et al. 1995

Fitzpatrick 1997: 220, 227

K. Trott (unpubl.) in Carver 2001: 91 Archaeolgia Cantiana 1980: 381

Carver 2001: 90

Fitzpatrick 1985: 326

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

115

Lamadelaine, Tomb 11

Lamadelaine, Tomb 12

Lamadelaine, Tomb 14

207.

208.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 6

204.

206.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 3

203.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 8

Heffingen

202.

205.

Goeblingen Nospelt D

201.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

LT D

LT D2

LT D 2a

after 30 BC LT D2b

LT D1b

LT D2a

LT D2Roman

Final LT

A possible cremation.

Cremation

3 cremations

Ditch containing inhumation and cremations?

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Dr 1?

Dr 1

Dr 1 ?

Dr 1B and other types

Dr 1?

Probably Dr 1

1 Dr 1B

1 Dr 1B

Some burnt

Fragmentssome burnt

57 fragments of which 24 were burnt

Burnt fragments

Fragments from 2 different vessels- 1 fragment was burnt.

1 pot with the surface burnt.

8 complete non-turned bowls, goblet and a pot. 1 nonturned bowl.

4 drinking vases, a barrel vase, 2 bowls (1 turned), 2 complete pots, 1 lid, and a dolium fragment. Complete pots, bowls, lid, and a goblet.

Bowls and pots some completesome turned, some hand made and other fragments.

3 urns, 12 bowls, platter and a jar.

An iron shield boss, metallic fragments; and 4 rivets.

2 fibulae.

A knife and 4 coins.

A bent sword, a shield, some horse gear, a lance point, 4 fibulae, a coin, 6 amber beads, a knife and flint- worked bone. A fibula, a knife fragment, and some bone beads.

A knife, 2 fibulae and a drinking horn.

Unburnt bones of adult dog and horse, burnt bones of pig.

The burnt bones of pig, dog, and poultry, and also fresh beef. Burnt bones of pig, dog and cow.

The burnt bones of pig, dog, poultry and unburnt pig bones.

The burnt bones of pig, cow, horse and poultry.

Burnt bones lay on the tomb floor.

The tomb was covered with amphorae and dolia fragments.

A succession of deposits?

This was the only warrior burial in the cemetery.

4 elite rectangular wood lined tombs.

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999:77

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 73-4

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 65-72

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999:50-56

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 44-48

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 28-37

Thill 1998: 1-26 Metzler et al. 1995: 150-1 Roymans 1990:149

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

116

Lamadelaine, Tomb 25

216.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 22

213.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 24

Lamadelaine, Tomb 21

212.

215.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 19

211.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 23

Lamadelaine, Tomb 17

210.

214.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 15

209.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

LT D1

LT D

LT D2

LT D1

LT D

LT D1

LT D2a

GalloRoman

Cremation

Possibly a tomb.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremations

Cremations (2 adults?)

2 Cremations

Cremation

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Fragments and neck (some burnt).

Fragments of 2 different amphorae (7 burnt).

Fragments of 2 different amphorae.

Fragments, some burnt.

Fragments, some burnt

A burnt fragment.

2 burnt fragments1 was part of handle. Fragments of a bronze vase.

A bottle, a dolium fragment, and a nonturned bowl. 2 bottle, 3 pots, bowl, barrel vase.

A basin and other ceramic fragments.

A dish and a bottle.

A barrel vase, a lid, 2 goblets, a globular vase, a dish and 2 bottles. A basin, a pot and a dolium fragment.

A bottle, 4 pots, a bowl, and a globular vase.

2 goblets.

2 fibulae.

2 fibulae.

A fibula.

6 fibulae, 2 glass beads.

Iron pincers.

A large knife, a fibula, and 4 nails.

Bone knife, an iron hook, and 2 nails.

Fresh pork.

Pig bone.

Pig, beef, and poultry bones.

Burnt bones of pig, cow and the bones of a newborn dog.

Cremated half pig, goat bones.

A large number of animal offerings; most frequent are pig bones but also dog, horse, goat. Bones of pig, beef and poultry, also a pig and burnt goat bones.

Feet of young pig.

Nearby concentration of amphorae fragments.

Charcoal fragments.

The cremations were placed in the tomb corners.

The cremation was of an adult.

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 114120

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 114

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 111114

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 101106 MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 106110

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 93100

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 81-90

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 77-9

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Lamadelaine, Tomb 33

Lamadelaine, Tomb 36

223.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 31

220.

222.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 30

219.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 32

Lamadelaine, Tomb 27

218.

221.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 26

217.

117

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

LT D 2b

GalloRoman

LT D 2b

LT D2a/b

|LT D2a

LT D 2a/b

LT D2a

Child Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation (infant)

Cremations

Cremation

Cremation

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1 ?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

A burnt fragment

Fragmentssome burnt

3 fragments, (1 of which one is burnt)

Fragments from 2 amphorae.

A handle fragment.

Burnt fragments of 2 goblets, a bowl, a lid and other fragments.

Large fragments of dolium protected the cremation, plate, 2 dishes and a bowl.

2 bowls, a vase, a nonturned pot lid, a bottle, a goblet and dolium fragments. A ceramic bottle, fragments of a lid, pots and dolium.

5 nonturned bowls, 1 turned bowl, 2 bottles ( one painted), 5 pots and a dolium . 2 barrel vases, 2 bowls 2 pots and dolium fragments. A basin, 4 pots, and 2 non-turned bowls.

A ring and a glass bracelet.

3 fibulae, iron nails, a lance head, an umbo, a hook, and some charcoal. A fibula, a spear head, an umbo, a razor, nails, and some charcoal. 2 fibulae and 3 iron nails.

3 fibulae.

5 fibulae, 3 iron nails.

2 fibulae.

The bones of young deer and pig; 4 pig teeth.

Burnt pig bones.

Burnt pig bones.

Pig and goat bones.

Pig and chicken bones.

No animal offerings.

Burnt pig bones.

The human bones suggest the subject was an infant, but the jewellery seems to relate to a female, possibly the child’s mother

A warrior tomb is suggested by weapons.

Disturbed by ploughing.

Associated group of ceramics.

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 155- 158

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 148- 151

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 144- 148

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 141144

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 135140

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 127130

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 120127

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Lamadelaine, Tomb 37

Lamadelaine, Tomb 39

Lamadelaine, Tomb 41

Lamadelaine, Tomb 42

Lamadelaine, Tomb 45

Lamadelaine, Tomb 46

Lamadelaine, Tomb 48

Lamadelaine, Tomb 51

224.

225.

226.

227.

228.

118

229.

230.

231.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

LT D 2b

GalloRoman 1

Gallo -Roman 1

GalloRoman 1-2

GalloRoman 2

LT D 2a

LT D 2a

GalloRoman 2

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

2 adult cremations

Cremation

Child (2- 5 yrs.) Cremation

Cremation

2 adult cremations

Dr 1?

Dr 1? covering the deposit.

Dr 1 B

Dr 1? - at least 5 amphorae represented

Dr 1?

Dr 1B

Dr 1?

Dr 1 ?

27 pieces (10 burnt )

Pieces from at least 3 amphorae.

A burnt fragment

A plate, a goblet, 4 dishes, a small flask, and large pieces of a jug and dolium.

A bowl and other creramic fragments, dolium fragments. 4 goblets and dolium fragments.

A barrel vase, 3 bowls, broken fragments of other burnt pots and a dolium fragment. A large vase.

Placed by the cremation were a vase, a flagon, dish and dolium fragment.

A fibula and a razor.

A fibula and metallic fragments.

An iron knife, a fibula, and metallic fragments.

A fibula and a glass bead.

An umbo, 3 fibulae, a knife or razor, a knife, a spear head, an axe head, and some metallic fragments. A knife or razor, a fibula, and an iron nail.

3 iron nails.

Burnt pig bones.

Bones of a young horse and burnt pig bones.

Burnt pig bones.

Burnt pig bones.

Burnt pig bones.

Burnt pig bones.

Burnt pig bones, but fresh bones of goat and pig bones were placed in a dish.

Many ceramic pieces were burnt.

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999:191-2

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 180- 182 MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 186189

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 172- 173 MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 177- 180

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 169172

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 162- 164

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 158- 160

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Lamadelaine, Tomb 52

Lamadelaine, Tomb 53

Lamadelaine, Tomb 54

Lamadelaine, Tomb 55

Lamadelaine, Tomb 56

Lamadelaine, Tomb 58

Lamadelaine, Tomb 60

Lamadelaine, Tomb 64

232.

233.

234.

235.

236.

237.

119

238.

239.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

LT D 2bGalloRoman

LT 2 D

LT D 2a

GalloRoman 1

GalloRoman 1-2

LT D 1b-2a

GalloRoman 1

GalloRoman 1

Cremation

Inhumation of newborn

Cremation

Cremation

A possible cremation.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Dressel 1?

2 Dressel 1B

Dressel 1?

Dressel 1? 4 amphorae represented

Dressel 1?

Dressel 1? pieces from 2 amphorae

Pascual 1pieces from 2 amphorae.

Dr 1?

1 burnt, 1

Large pieces of one amphora used to protect inhumation, fragments of a 2nd.

A handle and 3 burnt fragments.

20 fragments from 4 amphorae, of which 6 are burnt.

Burnt

A pot.

Vase, goblet and dolium fragments.

Burnt fragments of jug, a goblet and a dolium.

3 goblets (one of which may be an import), a plate, and a dish. 3 bowls, 2 non-turned pots, 3 plates, dish, 3 goblets, jug, and a dolium fragment. 2 nonturned pots, a jar and a vase.

2 fibulae.

Iron umbo and iron nail.

Fibula.

Fragments of a bucket, an iron knife, a fibula and 3 glass beads. Fibula.

4 fibulae, coin.

A knife and iron nails.

Burnt and unburnt pig bones.

Burnt pig bones.

Burnt pig bones and 2 fresh chickens.

Fresh pig.

Chicken bones.

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al.

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 209211

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 207

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 204- 206

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 203204

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 200203

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 196200

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 193-5

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

120

Lamadelaine, Tomb 75

Lamadelaine, Tomb 77

Livange

246.

247.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 72

243.

245.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 68

242.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 73

Lamadelaine, tomb 67

241.

244.

Lamadelaine, Tomb 66

240.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

No available information

GalloRoman

GalloRoman 1

GalloRoman 1

GalloRoman 1

LT D1

LT D1 ?

LT D

No available information

A possible cremation.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

A possible cremation.

2 Dr 1B, 2 Pascual 1, 1 Haltern 70, 2-3 Dr 2-4

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Gallic

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1?

Dr 1

A fragment.

2 burnt fragments

2 large fragments from first amphora, smaller fragments of a second.

2 burnt fragments

fragments from 2 amphorae

fragments (two of which are burnt), from 2 amphorae.

5 burnt fragments from 4 amphorae.

unburnt fragment from 2 amphorae.

A pot, and 4 dolium fragments.

2 pots, 3 dolium fragments.

A plate, 2 vases, a dish, a bowl and dolium fragments. 2 dishes, 4 vases, plate, goblet, dolium fragments.

A bowl and vase.

2 vases and dolium fragments.

2 fibulae, 26 iron nails.

A fibula, a bone bracelet fragment, and some iron nails.

4 fibulae, 18 nails.

Charcoal.

A bronze bead.

Burnt pig and chicken bones.

Horse and ox bones.

Fresh pig bones.

Burnt pig bones.

Burnt pig bones; fresh poultry and pig bones.

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 230232 MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 233234 Olivier & Schönfelder 2002:84

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 225229

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 218219 MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999:

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 217218

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 216217

1999: 214215

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

121

AcyRomance “La Croisette” BagnogneRecouvrance

256.

257

Dun-surAuron

255.

Rodange

252.

Steinheim

Goeblange/ Nospelt “Scheierheck”

251.

254.

Nospelt Kreckelbierg Tomb XXVIII

250.

Steinfort, Schwarzenbach

Nospelt Kreckelbierg Tomb 1

249.

253.

Mompatch

248.

ChampagneArdennes, France ChampagneArdennes, France

Centre, France

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

LT D

LT D

50-20 BC

No available information

LT D1Roman

Republican

End of the 1st century BC.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

End of the 1st century BC.

circa AD 20

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

No available information

Luxembourg

No available information.

Cremation

Cremation

Several cremations

A possible cremation A possible cremation

Cremation

Inhumation

Cremation

No available information

No amphorae.

No amphorae.

1 type unknown, may be one of 4 of unknown origin. No amphorae.

No available information 1 Dr 1

1 Baetican (olive oil)

1 Baetican (olive oil?)

2 -type unknown, (one from Kos and one from Lyon)

1 Dr 1A

No available information

Complete and burnt sherds. No available information

Complete

Complete and sherds of 6 more in pyre .

Complete

Oenochoe

3 strainers

Bronze casserole and 24 other items.

Ceramic?

29 vases.

37 vases.

Burnt fragments of bowls, platters and cups.

3 swords, lance heads, 2 knives, forceps, grill, metal fragments, bracelet, millstones? A bucket, fibulae, and glass. A sword.

8 fibula, a mirror and 58 GalloRoman coins.

Fibula.

Burnt glass sherds.

Burnt bone (animal or human?) burnt grain.

Burnt bones, food offerings including pig joints.

A tomb carved from natural stone- a cave.

A wood - lined chamber under a tumulus.

3 elite tombs. This was the tomb of a woman between 20 and 40 years of age.

Pion & Guichard 1993:187 Pion & Guichard 1993

Ferdiere et Villard 1993: 107-121

Metzler & Bis 1998: 122

Lambot 1993:271 Lambot 1993: 275

Metzler & Bis 1998

Reinert 1998

Reinert 1998

Roymans 1990:149

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Saint Germainmont

Beaucaire Les Marronniers 12 Beaucaire Les Marronniers 15 Nimes Tombe de la Cigale

Vernas

259.

260.

263.

122

MaillerayesurSeine

Lamadelaine, Tomb 47

264.

265.

262.

261.

CharlevilleMezieres

258.

Luxembourg

SeineMaritime, France

Isere, France

Gard

Gard

Gard

ChampagneArdennes, France ChampagneArdennes, France

GalloRoman 1

LT C2-D1

Final Bronze Age

end of 1st century BC

99-50 BC

99-50 BC

50-25 BC

LT D

Cremation

A ‘rich funerary deposit’.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

No available information.

No amphorae

No amphorae

No amphorae.

No amphorae.

No amphorae.

No amphorae.

No amphorae.

No amphorae.

A bronze jug cast in female form.

10 Italian imported items including a patella, a situla, pans, goblet, and a jug.

2 paterae, vase.

A dipper.

An oenochoe and an Aylesford pan. A dipper.

An oenochoe.

2 dishes, 3 goblets, 2 other pots and dolium fragmentsall burnt.

Plates, urns, lid, vases, flagons. Etruscan basin.

A flagon, plates, and a dish.

Cauldron, tripod, fire tongs, 4 umbos, 3 swords, 5 spear heads, glass urn. Fibula, 5 iron nails.

Mirror, knife, stud, and a vase/ figurine. Bent words, spear heads, shields and buckets.

Bucket handle.

Situla, oil lamp.

2 swords (1 bent), 1 sheath, beads.

Burnt goat bones.

The bronze jug is unique in this region

A hay lined pit.

A wagon with 4 wheels. In same tumulus were other sets of arms.

MetzlerZens, Meniel et al. 1999: 182186

Lequoy 1993: 121-33

Perrin 1990:13 1999: 10

Py 1981: 179-187

Arcelin 1979: 99107

Pion & Guichard 1993:188 Collis 1981: 12 Pion & Guichard 1993:188 Arcelin 1979: 99107

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

TABLE 7.2: THE CHRONOLOGY OF AMPHORAE IN LATE IRON AGE BURIALS OF GAUL AND BRITAIN The burial sites in the table all contain defined amphora typologies. The table is set out in order that the suggested deposition dates are contrasted with the likely circulation dates of each amphora class. (It is realized that these facts may be subject to inaccuracies or assumptions made in reports). The terminology used for time periods is that used by Collis (1984). The historical events column includes the dates of some of the wrecks from which amphorae have been retrieved.

Amphora typology GraecoItalic

Site

Form and circulation date

Octroi de Beaucaire

Approximate date of deposition in burial

Central France (after Collis 1984: 24)

Southern Historical events during the periods of England (after Collis amphorae circulation 1984:24) and burial deposition.

La Tène III

Middle Iron Age

125-75BC

Armsheim

Pre-Caesar

Nimes, Rue-deAlphonse-de-Seynes

Not known

124 BC Founding of Gallia Narbonensis 106 BC Revolt of Volcae and Tectosages. Romans annex Toulouse 75-60 BC Wreck of the Madrague de Giens (Hyères) 58-52 BC - Gallic wars c. 17 BC Foundation of Augusta Trevorum AD 21 Revolt by Treveri

Gaul 300-125 BC Dressel 1

Hauviné 21 Hauviné 22 Hauviné, Terme Badaud

125-75 BC

124 BC Founding of Gallia Narbonensis

106 BC Revolt of Volcae and Tectosages. Romans annex Toulouse Bezannes, ‘ Les Marsilliers’ Lamadaleine 6

100-50 BC

75-60 BC Wreck of the Madrague de Giens (Hyères) 58-52 BC - Gallic wars.

St. Remy-de-Provence III St. Remy-de-Provence V St. Remy-de-Provence VI Cutry 233

99 BC-0

56 BC Defeat of the Venetii, (disruption in communications between Britain and Gaul)

175 BC-AD 25 AD 21 Revolt by Treveri

123

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Dressel 1 (cont.)

Dressel 1A

Bonnert 16 Bonnert 44 Lamadaleine 14 Lamadaleine 19 Lamadaleine 21 Lamadaleine 22 Lamadaleine 24 Lamadaleine 25 Lamadaleine 66 Lamadaleine 67 Lamadaleine 68 Lamadaleine 3 Lamadaleine 11 Lamadaleine 12 Lamadaleine 17 Lamadaleine 23 Lamadaleine 26 Lamadaleine 27 Lamadaleine 30 Lamadaleine 31 Lamadaleine 32 Lamadaleine 39 Lamadaleine 41 Lamadaleine 51 Lamadaleine 54 Lamadaleine 55 Lamadaleine 56 Lamadaleine 58 Lamadaleine 64 Cuiry-les-Chaudares Lamadaleine 15 Lamadaleine 33 Lamadaleine 37 Lamadaleine 42 Lamadaleine 45 Lamadaleine 48 Lamadaleine 52 Lamadaleine 72 Lamadaleine 75 Lamadaleine 77 Weiler Chatillon-sur-Indre Amiens Arras Wederath Belginum, 25 Kerangourex, Arzano Saint-Georges-lesBaillargeaux Beaucaire, “Mas de Jallon Tesson

c. 17 BC Foundation of Augusta Trevorum

50 BC-0

Roman

175 BC – AD 25

2 BC- AD 14- Augustus

0-50 AD

20-30 BC

225-125 BC

LT II a LT II b LT III

Middle Iron Age

124 BC Founding of Gallia Narbonensis

Roman

Late Iron Age

75-60 BC Wreck of the Madrague de Giens, (Hyères)

100-125 BC

Nimes, Tomb de la Placette Hannogne-Saint-Remy

50-25 BC

Baldock

25-10 BC

Chalons-sur-Marne Kr. Trier-Stadt Mompatch Vieux-les-Asfeld

AD 21 Revolt by Treveri Nobles.

Not known

125-25 BC

Not known

175-75 BC

124

58-51 BC Gallic Wars

AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Dressel 1B

Dressel 1B (cont.)

Dressel 1C

Pommacle Berglicht, St. Wendel Berglicht, St. Wendel, “unter dem Erker Beaucaire, Marronniers 2 Beaucaire, Marronniers 17 Beaucaire, Marronniers 19 Bonnert 9 Bonnert 14 Lachen-Speyerdorf Chateau-Porcien Trier-Olewig Presles-Saint-Audebert

125- 75 BC

Welwyn A Welwyn B Welwyn Garden City Prunay II, 55 Bonnert 74 Bonnert 9 Lamadaleine, 8 Clemency Ettelbruck Goeblingen Nospelt D Heffingen Hertford Heath Wincheringen Goeblingen Nospelt A Goeblingen Nospelt B Mont Bures Lexden Park Boiroux Lamadaleine, 46 Lamadaleine, 60 Sampont 42 Houillon Saarlouis-Roden 1 Saarlouis-Roden 2 Great Chesterford Lindsell Berglicht, Kr. Bernkastel 1 Butzweiler Colchester, St. Clare Rd. Great Canfield Jesus Lane Hadham Ford/ Little Hadham Marks Tey Mauldon Moor Old Warden Sampford Sandon Thaxted Trumpington, Dam Hill Westmill La Catalane, Beaux-de-Provence

50-10 BC

La Tène III

Late Iron Age

75-60 BC Wreck of the Madrague de Giens, (Hyères).

99-50 BC Roman 58-51 BC Gallic Wars c. 50 BC Wreck of the Dramont A, (Saint-Raphaël)

50 BC- AD 50 50 BC-25 AD

150 -25 BC (Gaul) 75 BC-25 AD (Britain)

27-14 BC 25 BC-50 AD

c. 17 BC founding of Augusta Trevorum 2 BC-AD 14 Augustus AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles

25 BC-50 AD 15 BC

AD 14-37 Tiberius

10 BC 10 BC 0-50 AD Not known

AD 40/3 Death of Cunobelinus. AD 43 Roman invasion of southern Britain

150-75 BC

LT II a LT II b

Middle Iron c. 120 BC Wreck of Age the Grand Ribaud A ( Iles d’Hyères) 125-100 BC Wreck of the Ilot Barthelémy (Saint-Raphaël)

150 BC-AD 50

125

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Dressel 2-4

Prunay II, 53 Elms Farm, Heybridge

AD 1-10

LT III

Late Iron Age

Roman Folly Lane The Towers, Essex

AD 50

Aston Clinton King Harry Lane, 272 Livange

Not known

GalloBelgic Roman

25 BC-AD 100

Pascual 1

Fléré-la-Rivière Antran Lamadaleine, 53

25 BC-AD 25

Neuvy Pailloux.

AD 40- 50

Roman

GalloBelgic

27 BC- AD14 Augustus AD 14-37 Tiberius AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles AD 40/3 Death of Cunobelinus AD 41- 54 Claudius AD 43 Roman invasion of southern Britain AD 49 Foundation of Colchester as a colonia AD 60/1 Revolt of Boudicca AD 79 Destruction of Pompeii 25 BC Wreck of the Cap Béar 27 BC-AD 14 Augustus

Roman AD 14- 437 Tiberius AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles.

50 BC-AD 25 Lamboglia 2

Boé (in this burial Dressel 1 amphorae were also present).

75- 25 BC

Roman

Late Iron Age

106 BC Revolt of Volcae and Tectosages. Romans annex Toulouse 58-51 BC Gallic Wars

175- 50 BC Haltern 70 (Baetican) or Dressel 20

Nospelt Krieckelbierg, XXVIII

75 BC-0

Bouchernes Farm King Harry Lane, 117

75 BC- AD 50

LT III Roman

Late Iron Age GalloBelgic

58-51 BC Gallic Wars AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles. AD 40/3 Death of Cunobelinus

Roman

AD 43 Roman invasion of southern Britain.

Late Iron Age

AD 41-50 Wreck of Port Vendres II

50 BC- AD 70 Dressel 7-11

75 BC- AD 50

King Harry Lane, 206

Roman

GalloBelgic

Roman

25 BC- AD 50

126

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Rhodian

King Harry Lane, 369

Gallic

Lamadeleine 73

AD 43-5

AD 43 Roman invasion of southern Britain.

0 - AD 100 AD

Roman

Late Iron Age Gallo-Belgic Roman

0-AD 100

127

AD 10-30 Wreck of the Petit Conglué

CHAPTER 8

Amphora Burials of the Champagne-Marne Area. The Evidence of a Graveside Feasting Tradition: a Pact between the Living and the Dead? deduced why such transformations occurred here. Once a geographical and historical context has been established it is proposed to look in greater detail at specific Champagne sites which form a case for a specific burial ritual including amphorae. These descriptions also invite further questions, so the final conclusion of the chapter may outline the evidence for a specific ritual involving amphorae practised in some cemeteries of the Champagne region in the Late Iron Age, and at that point add some comments on why this may have occurred.

8.1 Introduction: Why the Champagne Area? Chapter 7 which contained the corpus of ‘amphora’ burials of late Iron Age Gaul and Britain emphasized the many forms of burial rite associated with amphora. In choosing to investigate the burials of the Champagne region which contained amphora forms, there is acknowledgement that the differences in burial ritual deserve attention, and it will be shown that the amphora burials of this area form a unique set. It is interesting that the amphorae most frequently appear in sherd form in burials of enclosure cemeteries and only rarely as complete vessels in solitary, elite burials. It will also become apparent that other features including deposition in enclosure ditches with other broken vessels point to funerary customs which are specific to Champagne.

8.1.1 The state of Iron Age archaeology in the Champagne area The information presented is largely compiled from recent journals and articles. The body of evidence is supported by unpublished reports which were made available during a visit to Champagne, together with personal comments and advice from Michel Chossenot, (Chalons-sur-Marne), Mme Melkon, (Reims) and the staff from the Musée, Chalons-en-Champagne.

In questioning the relevant factors which governed the placing of amphora sherds in burials, it is aimed to show that local geographical, historical, political and social forces were more important than changes promoted by the advance of Roman influence. However, suggesting that many of the conditions which promoted the burials were as a result of regionalized, internal elements rather than the pressure from newcomers poses the question of why changes in the burial ritual should occur in the preConquest period and what was the stimulus for change. If it was due to new contacts, the Mediterranean imports and Roman ideologies which were available to most of the Gallic population, why did changes in the Champagne region develop in a different form to that of other regions? Why should this unique format be contained within the Champagne region?

Collectively the four departments of Ardennes, Aube, Haute-Marne and Marne combine to form Champagne. The Champagne departments which are modern considerations, exhibit different physical properties and underwent different settlement patterns which will be discussed later in the chapter. However it is noted before these descriptions that the volume of archaeological evidence is affected by departmentalization in terms of uneven excavation and recording. A synopsis of all archaeological sites known from HauteMarne is compiled in an edition of Carte Archéologique de la Gaule (Thévenard 1996), but as yet there are no comparable accounts for Aube, Marne and Ardennes. This is unfortunate as most of the Iron Age settlements and cemeteries relate the latter two departments. However from Marne there are comprehensive post excavation reports from Bry & Fromols (Prunay, 1938), Brisson & Hatt (Normée, 1969), Brisson, Hatt & Roualet (Frère-Champenoise, 1970), and Roualet (Hauviné and St. Clément–à-Arnes, 1979). These earliest reports detail at great length the grave goods, but make no attempt to suggest why such a category of goods might accompany a burial. Reports produced by Flouest & Stead following a series of excavations in the area of Villeneuve-Retourne are still largely concerned with dimensions of graves and compilations of grave goods (1977a, 1979), while the same authors considered the Kelheim jug and Dressel 1A amphora from the as rich burial at Hannogne as useful pointers in confirming a La Tène III date (ibid 1977b:

The first issues soon lead to a plethora of further questions. In suggesting that changes occurred in burial; practices, it is assumed that a recognized system of funerary rites existed in Champagne before the Late Iron Age. The identification of such rites follows this introduction and then the explanation of new elements which appeared in the burial rite at the end of the Iron Age. Just as the appearance of amphorae in some burials is a phenomenon which calls for explanation, other variations such as the apparent lack of amphorae in other contemporary Champagne burials will be considered. It is proposed to introduce further questions relating to the significance of amphorae and the burials of the Champagne region as the chapter progresses. Firstly as has been stated, that Champagne exhibits a uniqueness of ritual, it is important that the region is fully define geographically and historically in order that it may be 128

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 8.1 The departments of modern Champagne.

Fig. 8.2 The variations in terminology for Iron Age chronology in the Champagne region.

129

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 72). As these reports detailed burials from La Tène I to those of Roman period, the authors were able to note changes which were taking place in burial ritual through the Iron Age. Hatt & Roualet’s six divisions of Early La Tène chronology are based on changes in material culture, and this implies that these occurred frequently during the Iron Age. Fewer divisions dominate the Final Iron Age, and chronological periods last longer.

issues related to regionality, ethnicity and material culture form a platform upon which changes in burial ritual can be explored. The emphasis on interpretive archaeological studies emanating from the Champagne region enables the production of a focused account of the unique properties of the Late Iron Age cemeteries, with a bias towards the unusual use of amphorae. 8.2 The Champagne region now and then

When Denise Bretz-Mahler produced a detailed account of Early Iron Age cemeteries, her conclusions focused on the regional differences which occurred throughout Champagne (1971). Chossenot drew on many previous accounts in charting changes in the region throughout the Iron Age (1997), and it is apparent that the variations in chronological terminology present difficulties when trying to compare assemblages and deduce accurate contemporary relationships on a fine scale.

The name Champagne comes from the Latin campania, meaning a plain. The generally dry, chalky plateau is crossed by the Aisne, Marne, Seine, Aube and Yonne rivers which divide the plateau from north-west to southwest into several distinct areas. In the east is “Champagne-Humide”, comprising clay vales and fertile pasture land, and in the south-east, the Langres plateau which today is chiefly an agricultural region. In the centre is Champagne Pouilleuse, a bleak plain which in medieval times was traditionally used for sheep grazing. In the valleys of this area, Troyes and Chalons are principal towns. A narrow strip along the westernmost crest of Champagne is extremely fertile, especially the area around Epernay and Reims which now produces virtually all of the Champagne grapes. Its central location in Northern France made Champagne open to the movement of peoples, traffic of goods and vulnerable to invasion.

Establishing a Late Iron Age chronology for Champagne depends heavily on grave assemblages and this concern is apparent in the compilations of grave goods in the study of Champagne cemeteries by Sankot (1978). Sankot also includes sites from neighbouring departments of Aisne, and it will be seen that some of the burials of Aisne suggest that similar funerary practices extend beyond modern borders. Using the physical properties of tombs and grave goods, Sankot explored issues of social stratification and allocated categories of grave goods hierarchically and according to age and sex. However, it is in the reports from Acy-Romance that interpretations of social relationships, mortuary customs and ritual practices fuel a need of greater understanding of these concepts (Lambot, Friboulet & Méniel 1994). Lambot’s 1993 study also concentrates on funerary practices in Late Ion Age Champagne, and there is awareness that the internal arrangements and funerary structures might be unique to the region. At Acy-Romance both settlement and cemeteries are explored in order to give an insight on a Late Iron Age community. The ceramic catalogue from Acy-Romance is valuable in confirming reliance on local pottery typologies, (Lambot, Friboulet & Méniel 1994), in contrast with Birchall’s earlier work which was primarily concerned with ceramics in burials by which links could be made between Gallic peoples of Gaul and those of Late Iron Age Britain (1965). The solid foundations of interpretation from the Acy-Romance sites allowed Andrew Fitzpatrick to draw comparisons between Clemency and Westhampnett, his observations resulting in the proposal of a “sequence of mortuary ritual”, (2000:27). The importance of regional differences which was flagged up but Nico Roymans in a masterful exploration of tribal societies and the complexity of relationships in pre and post-Conquest northern Gaul is now recognized as an important factor of research into Champagne archaeology.

Fig.8.3 Physical regions of Champagne.

The trend towards evaluation of social relationships, definition of ritual sequences and the consideration of

The effect of physical geography meant that in the Late Iron Age more settlements and cemeteries were founded 130

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig.8.4 Sites of the Middle and Late Iron Age in Champagne.

on the central plain than in either the south or the forested Ardennes region to the north where there was comparatively little activity. Physical features were therefore relative to settlement and burial preferences.

initially located by means of aerial photography. Seen from the air, the area is a veritable funerary landscape, and identified cemeteries span the Bronze and Iron Ages. During aerial searches Bronze Age sites might be difficult to detect, but cemetery sites are easier to define and therefore appear more numerous in this period. Both isolated tumulus burials and burials within elongated enclosures are characteristic of Bronze Age Champagne. The ditched enclosure sites, assumed to have ritual and funerary connotations, were positioned on river terraces and included the important sites of Acy-Romance and Aulney-Aux-Planches (Lambot 1996: 23, Chossenot 1989:107). The Bronze Age settlement of Moronvilliers was still in use in the Late Iron Age while the Hallstatt

8.2.1 Historical settlement and funerary practices Although first traces of settlement in the form of finds are said to be from the Neolithic, no habitation structures are known from this period (Lambot et al. 1994:13). Bernard Lambot states that Bronze Age settlement was confined almost entirely to the plain between the rivers Aisne and Marne. The Champagne area is subject to intense arable farming and in recent years many cemeteries have been

131

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN foundations of Beaurieux, “Les Graves” and Vraux similarly enjoyed long-term usage. When the Bronze Age ended c.750 BC, several Bronze Age cemetery foundations including Acy-Romance, “Le Terrage” continued in use into the Iron Age. This suggests a considerable size of population at least in the central plain.

In the Middle Ages there was a cluster of cemeteries in the vicinity of two settlements at Écury-le-Repos and Sezannes to the west, but numerous other cemeteries were apparently independent of settlements. Large cemetery enclosures were often superimposed on earlier sites (Charpy 1997: 267), and four centuries later many cemeteries from this period were still in use or reuse after abandonment, implying a constant presence of people in the region, even if population was of a transient nature. Fère-Champenoise, Normée, Écury-le-Repos, Hauviné, Menil-Annelles and Montépreux were first used in this period, others continued to be used, (Liry, Ardennes), and some were reused after disuse, (Broussy-le Grand).

8.2.2 Settlement and cemetery evidence from the Middle Iron Age to the Late Iron Age Middle Iron Age Named from the conspicuous burial sites of the Marne Valley, the ‘Marnian’ culture related to the 5th century BC. Distinct groups of people living in the Champagne area are revealed from the analysis of cemetery plans and grave goods. Inhumation cemeteries held between 20 and 100 burials and were furnished with numerous grave goods. Flat grave cemeteries were general across central Europe, so we are not noting anything peculiar to Champagne here, but these tombs were noteworthy in that they held large quantities of grave goods.

The enclosured cemeteries often contained groups of post holes and though these may suggest ‘temple’ structures or excarnation platforms, their purpose is unknown (Flouest & Stead 1979: 20). The dominant rite of inhumation was practiced in the cemeteries of Écury-leRepos and Menil-Annelles, and graves were furnished with bronze fibulae, sometimes iron fibulae and complete non-turned pots. At Menil-Annelles the grave goods included 162 pots and 40 brooches. Pots were an important consideration in the enclosure cemetery of Ville-sur-Retourne where graves contained 207 complete pots, 53 brooches and 3 swords (Flouest & Stead 1976: 32). This was surprising as pottery was rare outside the Reims area (Charpy 1999:271).

The wealthiest tombs appeared in the north of the region. Female burials predominated and often contained several pieces of jewellery. Various items of jewellery included torques, bronze or iron fibulae, bronze rings, bracelets of bronze or jet, bronze rings, ‘epingles’, and glass or amber beads. The varied catalogue shows that there was no specific preference, with the exception of torques.

Changes in demographic composition occurred in the 4th century BC as Germanic Belgae entered and settled in Champagne. The immigrants brought a new wheel-turned pottery style, and although several inhumation tombs were placed, a major change in the burial rite pattern was that from inhumation to cremation. These new groups often used earlier cemetery foundations and as cremation increased and became the dominant rite, attitudes to death and burial appeared to have changed, presumably attributable to Belgic presence.

Male tombs were less numerous, but included 150 wagon burials, mostly in the north east Champagne region, (Recy and Mairy-Sogny). Most burials with weapons belong to this era. Warrior burials at Berru, SommeTourbe and Prunay contained swords, lances, and more rarely, helmets. Other male graves with only spears or no weapons indicated a social hierarchy (Roualet 1999:169). Chossenot proposes that cemetery arrangements were indicative of clans or family groups, the richer tombs which were usually in central positions indicating hierarchical order (1997: 167).

Flouest & Stead propose the site of l’Obit, MenilAnnelles as an example of the transition from inhumation to cremation. While the burial sequence here outlines first usage probably by a Marnian society practicing inhumation, it continues with a Gallo-Belgic group using the rite of cremation, but there are no obvious signs of displacement of population or upheaval. The changes appear to stem from gentle diffusion of settlement rather than aggressive invasion. However from this time Champagne groups lose their ‘Marnian’ title and were henceforth regarded as Belgic.

The chariot tombs of La Gorge-Meillet and Somme Bionne date from around 450 BC. These rich graves were placed within large cemeteries, suggesting the existence of communities of over 100 people (Wightman 1983: 10). Denise Bretz-Mahler points out that even though these cemeteries were rarely sited close to settlements, several contained over 100 graves and the combined tombs of the two cemeteries at Bergères-les-Vertus numbered almost 1,000. This suggests that the cemeteries of the central plain served a considerable size of population (1971: 179). That population figures were higher at this time than two centuries later is commented on by Jean-Jacques Charpy, who views this as the effect of people movements across Europe (1999: 265).

Burials under tumuli were unusual for this period, but such cremations occurred at Pothées, Ardennes showing that localized practices added variation to the overall pattern. In the second century BC flat tomb cemeteries became uniform throughout Champagne (Charpy 1997:274). 132

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Enclosures were smaller than those of the previous centuries but still displayed elements of internal structures. Post holes within the enclosures are indicative of ‘buildings’ although the exact nature of these structures is open to conjecture. It can be seen that there was an overtly important ritual motive in the setting up of enclosures and structures, closely related to funerary practice. This will be discussed in greater detail later in the chapter. The evidence compounds to suggest that cemeteries were founded by community groups. Michel Chossenot suggests that the ritual origins of enclosures were linked to the death of a notable tribal leader or head of a family (1989: 113). The tradition of honouring the family ancestor was then preserved throughout the Late Iron Age, sometimes continuing beyond the 3rd century AD. With the cremation rite now consistent, changes occurred in the categories of grave goods. Fibulae were more usually fashioned from iron rather than bronze and though pots were turned the quality became poorer (Flouest & Stead 1977: 63). 8.2.3 The Late Iron Age: settlement, tribes and funerary practices The years around 100 BC formed a crucial period in the development of the Belgic Gaul encountered by Caesar. The formation of civitaes, (political entities), were a product of this period. Smaller tribal units known as pagi were bound together by shared religious customs, ideas of common descent and defined territory (Wightman 1983:14). Most of our knowledge of these formations is derived from Caesar’s account and this knowledge gives perspective to archaeological findings.

Fig 8.5 The tribes of Champagne.

BC. In 54-3 BC Roman troops had winter quarters in Remi territory, and the Remi also supplied auxiliary troops for the Roman Army. The tribe was awarded federate status after the war, which would have greatly enhanced trade relationships with the Romans.

In 57 BC Caesar advance to the river Aisne and defeated various tribes. The group of tribes known as the Belgae was described by Caesar as the “bravest of Gallic tribes because they are removed from the culture and civilisation of the province, and least often visited by merchants introducing the commodities which make for effeminacy; also being nearest to the Germans with whom they are continually at war” (BG 1.2). At the time of the Gallic Wars the Belgae were regarded as the most “uncivilised” of all the Gallic people, being hard, cruel and vicious in battle and difficult to subdue. The Belgic tribes comprised the Atrebates, the Morini, the Menapii, the Eburones, the Ambiani, the Celetes, the Bellovaci, the Remi, the Lingones, the Catalauni and the Tungri, but although grouped together, these tribes displayed very different characteristics.

The Lingones were also friendly to Caesar. The tribe occupied territory on the Langres plateau between the sources of the Marne, the Meuse, the Saône and the Seine, present day Haute-Marne. Like the Remi, the Lingones invited Roman troops to set up winter quarters in their territory in 53-4 BC and supplied auxiliary troops. The Lingones stood with the Remi in taking no part in the revolt of 52 BC and as a result of this earned federate status. Even though the Lingones were surrounded by friendly tribes, the tribal capital, the oppidum of Langres, was heavily fortified. Between the Remi and the Lingones, the river plains of the Seine and Aube were settled by the Tricassi and the Catalauni. Other than occupying the tribal capital of Augustobona, (Troyes), little is known of the Tricassi, whose name suggests three warrior groups. The Catalauni were surrounded by friendly tribes to the north, east and

In the Champagne are, the Remi occupied present day Ardennes and most of the Marne plain. The oppidum Durocortorum, (Reims) was the tribal capital. Surrounded on all sides by friendly Gallic tribes, the Remi made an early and consistent alliance with the Roman forces. The Remi took no part in the rebellion against Caesar in 52 133

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN west. The only oppidum in the Catalauni territory was that of La Cheppe, and this tribe is also little known.

stimulated further production of coin and promoted market exchange of goods for coins.

Neighbours of the Champagne tribes included the Tungri to the north-east, who shared northern and eastern borders with Germanic tribes, the Lueques to the south east, the Suessiones to the west, who were said to have 12 oppida (BG 11.4.7), and the Treveri to the north-east.

In Remi territory potin coins were circulated before the Gallic Wars, and amongst the coins found at VilleneuveSaint-Germain were local manufactures showing two facing animals. In the large Remi oppidum of Variscourt, (Vieux-Reims), 95% of the numerous coins found were Catalauni coins. Gallic coins were discovered in the Remi oppidum of Chateau-Porcien, the Catalauni centre of la Cheppe and the smaller settlement of Bisseuil, Marne.

The Treveri tribe was very important. Treveri cavalrymen were highly acclaimed and Caesar was aware of the tribe’s importance in influencing neighbouring tribes. Unlike the Remi who were unwavering in their loyalty to Caesar, the Treveri were fickle. After asking for Roman support against the Suebi, the Treveri then encouraged German tribes to cross the Rhine to oppose Caesar. In 53 BC the Treveri amassed large forces of infantry and cavalry and joined with tribes united to fight against Caesar at Mouzon. After a great fight the revolution leader was killed. However, Roman troops set up winter quarters in Treveri territory in 53-2 BC. More troops amassed in 52 BC for a new uprising but on this occasion the Treveri took no part in the action. Caesar’s final review of his army was held in Treveran territory and there was a continued Roman presence after the Conquest, with a Roman colony centred at Trier. When a revolt led by Vindex occurred in AD 68, the Treveri followed but were defeated. A harsh punishment of land confiscation followed.

At Mouzon, a Gallic temple site in the intermediate territory of the Remi and Treveri, were offerings of arms, swords, shields. Lances, axe heads, ceramic, fibulae and numerous coins struck between 59 and 54 BC (Chossenot 1997: 332). The 103 Gallic, 41 Roman, 65 Remi and 44 Catalauni coins were representative of the presence and interaction of major tribal groups in the region. From the sanctuary of Roizy were bent swords, Gallic coins and Roman amphorae (Fichtl 1994). Amphorae Amphorae were not found at either of the religious sites, but associations of coins and amphorae were frequent on oppida sites. These finds varied in volume from 30 amphorae per ha at Variscourt, Aisne, 91 amphorae per ha at La Cheppe, Marne and a massive 100 amphorae per ha at Villeneuve-Saint Germaine, Aisne. At Variscourt 95% of amphorae were of Dr 1A typology, the remainder probably Dr 1B, so it would seem that wine imports were entering the west of the region in considerable amounts well before the Conquest (Chossenot 1997: 327-8). The earlier Dr 1A typology was also found at the oppida of Langres, Haute-Marne, in the form of collars (Chossenot 1999: 15-32).

Settlements and Oppida Amongst the native settlements which sprang up in the Late Iron Age , hill forts and oppida of the plain were recognised features (see Fig. 8.4). Some oppida such as Langres, Haute-Marne may have corresponded top earlier settlements. The low-lying oppida of Vieux-Châlons lay on an old route crossing the plain of Langres, and VieuxReims on the river Aisne and as such was an important centre of commerce. An increase in the flow of trade affected the fortunes of some pre-Conquest settlements such as out-of-favour Pommiers which was largely replaced by Villeneuve-Saint-Germain as a population centre.

Dr 1A and Dr 1B were found in the settlements of Berryau-Bac, Aisne Bisseuil, Marne and the enclosure of Beaurieux, “Les Greves” (Chossenot 1997: 325-40). Numerous fragments including collars of Dr 1A amphorae were found in the settlement of Vraux, Marne and amphorae fragments were also found in the settlement of Isle-Aumont, Aube (Chossenot 1999: 32).

The oppida varied in size ranging from La Cheppe, Marne with an area of 30 ha, and the 18 ha of Vousiers, Ardennes to the considerably larger Variscourt covering 170 ha and Villeneuve-St-Germain which had an area of 70 ha. Commercial activities took place regardless of size and this is indicated by finds of coins and amphorae within the sites.

Although amphorae may have been transported into other settlements, no information is forthcoming. This suggests that wine consumption took place chiefly in oppida sites and more rarely in smaller settlements. Amphorae were transported into the region before the arrival of Caesar, but in lesser quantities than after the invasion period, and were more visible in the 2nd half of the 1st century BC (Chossenot 1999: 31). The highest proportion of settlement amphorae finds come from the sites of Aisne, and this indicates a community which drank more wine than the other Champagne groups and better trade connections allowing for the import of the

Coins Coins were indicative of urbanization and development of focal centres in the region. Although coins had been in circulation before the Conquest, when Caesar imposed a tribute on the tribes the requirement to pay taxes 134

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 8.6 Amphorae finds in settlement areas.

Fig. 8.7 Middle and Late Iron Age cemeteries and amphora associations.

commodity. Fig. 8.6 indicates that amphorae were imported into Remi and Catalauni territory in greater numbers than the neighbouring regions of the Lingones and the Suessiones. The oppida of the Belgic Gauls were all in use at the end of the independent Gallic period. The flourishing commerce conducted in these centres appeared to have repercussions in the range of burial goods from this period, even though the oppida were sited at considerable distances from the cemeteries.

found in funerary contexts. Between 80 and 50 BC, the years immediately preceding Caesar’s campaigns, the categories of grave goods changed across the Champagne region to include some previously unseen elements. As Roman influence became widespread throughout Gaul there was perceptible change in the composition grave goods to include iron nails, (used to hold wooden fittings in place), occasional coins and amphorae. The three items were not always placed in conjunction with each other. In the cremation cemetery of Saint-Hilaire-le-Grand were Remi coins but no amphorae. At Beine, Catalauni coins and a pair of firedogs but again no amphorae, were assumed to have belonged to violated tombs. There were coins in the burials at Cernay-les-Reims and a Catalauni coin in the cremation at Conde-sur-Suippe (Chossenot 1997: 342).

8.2.4 The relationship between settlement and burial contexts Until the last century BC, it is hard to establish a relationship between settlements and cemeteries, but this changed in the pre-Conquest years at least in the north western region of Champagne. It is interesting that the burial groups geographically closest to the Aisne amphora-importing oppida produced some the very rich tombs, two of which contained complete amphorae (Chateau-Porcien, Marne and Presles-Saint-Audebert, Aisne). It is also valid to note that from this same area prestige items such as bronze vessels and weapons were

In the post-Conquest years cremations became simpler and by the 2nd century AD might have contained a single pot or a glass and sometimes a coin. By the 3rd century the burial rite had changed to inhumation. As in the previous Bronze and Iron Ages, enclosure

135

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN cemeteries were still a particular feature of the Champagne funerary landscape, but in this period rather than the enclosure ditch providing just a boundary mark, now it was common for cremations to be placed within the enclosure ditches. In fact, ritual activities in the whole of the cemetery arena intensified. The cemeteries were linked by communication routes; they did not lie off the beaten track, on hillsides or isolated locations and were clearly meant to be seen and visited. At least 56 cemeteries were in use during this period, some new foundations, but most had been in use at some time in the previous 50 years. The cemeteries known to contain amphorae included Acy-Romance, “La Noue Mauroy”, Bezannes, Bouy, “Chemin de Vadenay”, Bouy “Le Guillardet, ChateauPorcien, Écury-le-Repos, Fère-Champenoise, Hallignicourt, Hannogne, Hauviné, Feneux, Hauviné “Le Terme Badaud”, Montepreux, Normée, Pomacle, PreslesSaint-Audebert, Prunay II, Saint Germainmont, Sommesous and Vieux-les-Asfeld. Of these, complete amphorae were found at Chateau-Porcien, Hannogne and Presles-Saint Audebert which were interpreted as élite burials. The same is probably true of Vieux-les-Asfeld where the amphora pieces were judged to have been broken when the tomb was raided in antiquity. 8.3 The ‘amphora burials’ of Champagne It is proposed to look in greater detail at the pre-Conquest and post-Conquest Champagne burials which contained amphorae, but also note contemporary burials of the region which lacked this material in order to suggest why differences occurred.

Fig. 8.8 Burials containing amphorae in the Champagne region.

These first Champagne sites were identified to the author during meetings with Michel Chossenot. A closer look at the available material (a copy of Bry’s 1935 excavation diary, the Prunay II report and artefacts from the 58 identified burials), provided some measure of confirmation of the importance in the Champagne area of a burial rite associated with amphorae, but also a degree of disappointment in the lack of clear site plans which showed ditches.

In Tomb 7 were animal offerings comprising pieces of pig, (some burnt and some unburnt), together with pieces of a bronze bucket and four amphora fragments. It is likely that this tomb had been robbed in antiquity. It is thought that the amphora had originally been in an upright position and the grave goods had been contained in some sort of wooden coffin (Lambot 1994:94). The possibility of a complete amphora would elevate the tomb status to that of an élite burial. An alternative suggestion is that the amphora fragments relating to Tomb 7 were deposited at a later stage. Lambot states that 75% of pots in the Acy-Romance cemetery showed signs of having been on the pyre, showing that vessels featured strongly in funerary ritual (1994:149-50).

Acy-Romance At Acy-Romance, a great Bronze Age ritual enclosure (in which ceramic deposits in sherd form were found in ditches close to the entrance), was superseded by a number of smaller cemeteries. The small cemetery known as Acy- Romance, “La Noue Mauroy”, was 100 metres away from the settlement, La Warde (Lambot 1994: 77).

The Gallic village of Acy-Romance encompassed the settlement of La Warde and several cemeteries including that of “La Noue Mauroy”. Dressel 1 amphora sherds were recovered from the settlement site as well as the cemetery (Colin 1998:124). No amphorae sherds were found in any of the other cemeteries of Acy-Romance making this occurrence unusual and very noteworthy. However, if this tomb was such an important elite burial, it seems strange that its position in the enclosure is not

Inside the trapezoidal enclosure were nine cremations. In the centre of the enclosure was a structure of undetermined nature, defined by post holes. Excavations revealed two deposition levels, by which it could be seen that the site was in use in at least two different periods during the final centuries BC (ibid 1994: 78). 136

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig 8.9 The cemetery “La Noue Mauroy”, Acy-Romance, showing the position of amphora Tomb 7 (after Lambot 1994: 78).

more central or is not related to the possible structure. It seems strange that no sherd amphorae or other ceramic deposits appeared in the enclosure ditches, as it will be seen that this happens in other Champagne cemeteries were amphorae have been found. Bezannnes The report by M. Friboulet and G. Verbrugghe (1993) details the excavation findings from Bezannes, “Les Marsilliers” and is stored in the museum of Chalons-surMarne. In a prominent position was a cremation, contained within a trapezoidal enclosure with sides measuring 9.5 m, 11.8 m., 12 m. and 14 m. Several structures are referred to, and while the cremation indicates a funerary use for this enclosure, not all of the deposits found within the enclosure contained cremated bone. In several deposits the ceramic pieces appeared to be of Bronze Age date, but there was also turned pottery from the Late Iron Age. Interpreted from pottery chronology, the cemetery showed two phases of use. The first phase began around 80 BC, and involved four ‘structures’. These were in the north east of the enclosure. The second phase ran until 40 BC. (Friboulet et Verbrugghe 1993). Also in the interior of the enclosure was a cremation deposit consisting of several dish-type pottery forms, together with an amphora fragments and other pottery fragments. The cremation appeared to have been protected by a structure, indicated by eight post holes. In at least three of the post holes were amphora fragments together with other pottery fragments. Between two of

Fig. 8.10 The contents of Tomb 10, “La Noue Mauroy”, Acy-Romance (after Lambot 1994:93).

137

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN the post holes was a collection of sherds from shallow pottery types, (dishes and platters), covered by further amphorae fragments.

Unfortunately it is not possible to determine whether a common pyre site was used for each cremation, but the grave goods had been in each case carried from a pyre site (ustrinum). From the known eight burials in the cemetery two were identified as infant cremations. The small number of individuals represents a family group. A comparison by Bénédicte Henon of amphorae from other Iron Age cemeteries, places this cemetery in the period of transition between LT D1 and LT D2 (1993: 60). The post holes give rise to a ‘pavilion’ structure theory. The pottery sherds from the post holes are generally of a later date than those from the cremations. Tomb 36 was protected by a wooden box, which contained metal, judged to be a ring and a fibula. Placed over this were deliberately broken sherds of amphorae and fragments from shallow pottery forms (Friboulet et Verbrugghe 1993: 63). Shallow vessel styles which were present at the Champagne cemeteries of Acy-Romance, MenilAnnelles, Ville-sur-Retoure and Hauviné are absent here, and this highlights the differences which existed even in a comparatively small region. It appears that while the tall vases were preferred as funerary vessels, the dishes, platters, bowls and amphorae had a different significance and function. It is also noted that scatters of amphorae and shallow-form vessel sherds, only occurred in the deposits of the later phase, and these were concurrent with the ‘pavilion’, though the shallow forms were not included in the later cremations, 16 to 22. It is possible that these were reserved for scattering in a ‘broken’ vessel ritual.

Fig. 8.11 Bezannes (after Friboulet & Verbrugghe :1993).

In the south-east ditch a collection of ceramic fragments was covered by a large amphora sherd which had been deliberately placed in this position. There were no cremated remains in these positions, so it is difficult to judge a purpose (ibid 1993: 37). There were two further deposits of ceramic sherds in the interior, one of which included amphora fragments.

Bouy, “Chemin de Vadenay” Bouy, “Chemin de Vadenay” was the site of a rescue excavation. The cemetery had no settlement associations. The 30 inhumations and 15 cremations were contained in 11 funerary enclosures.

A deposit containing animal bones, a glass bead and metallic fragments seemed to suggest a specific ritual, and near the south east angle of the ditch two more concentrations of burnt animal bones also included fibulae (Friboulet et Verbrugghe1993: 43). Amongst the features of this cemetery, a ditch deposit of animal bones contained in ‘funerary’ vessels invited interest (ibid 1993: 63). No human bones were contained, so this was not a funerary deposit but could have been the debris of a graveside meal. Further scatters of amphorae sherds were found outside the enclosure. All the amphorae seemed to be Dressel 1.

These enclosure exhibited different characteristics. Enclosure A, a double enclosure, contained fragments of pottery, flint, burnt bones and seven Gallic coins. There were no burials, so this was not a funerary enclosure. Enclosure D, without an entrance, had no central tombs and inhumation 10 was cut by the ditch. (Chossenot1975: 3). From this it can be deduced that the inhumations were earlier, but it also highlights the importance of ditch construction which cut through known ‘sacred’ space. Enclosure E had three sides and contained pottery fragments and burnt bones. Similarly the two-sided enclosure F contained small fragment scatters in its ditches. Enclosure G with three sides had two entrances and in the open space were two inhumations. Enclosure H was incomplete, and this may have been due to plough damage, while Enclosure I was another three-sided enclosure and Enclosure J, a quadrangular enclosure had two inhumations in the central space and another in a ditch. K was also a quadrangular enclosure.

As the earliest feature of the enclosure was the cremation, Tomb 13, it can be suggested that this tomb was the focal point for further ritual activity. Burnt animal bones offerings indicated that offerings were a strong feature of ritual ceremony. The finding of isolated fragments of Bronze Age pottery hinted at an earlier occupation of the site (ibid 1993: 64). The Bronze Age jar placed in cremation 15 confirms the importance of tradition and sentimental idealism in using an old container as a funerary vessel. The funerary remains were usually placed in a tall container and amphorae were not used for this purpose. Selected bones were placed first and these were accompanied by animal bones and personal items of jewellery and razors (ibid 1993: 64). 138

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 8.12 Buoy, Chemin de Vadenay (after Chossenot: 1975).

Child burials were a special feature in the cemetery of Bezannes, and here the inhumations of children were a prominent. The child burials in the east of the double enclosure A, show that a specific order was adhered to in placing the cemetery population, as infants were grouped together. This is also seen in the clusters of cremations around the inhumations. These satellite burials indicate deference to earlier tombs, and recognition of ancestors. There was a sense of continuity of ideas even though the burial rite might have changed.

inner sanctuary constructions definable from post holes, so pavilions cannot be determined, although Michel Chossenot wondered about the possibility of some sort of stelae (1997: 182). In Tomb 9, which produced some interesting goods, was a two-pronged iron fork (Chossenot 1997: 192). Generally the grave goods are ‘poor’, comprising a few fibulae and two bronze bracelets which were found in the inhumations. It is possible to attribute remains of cremations or funeral meals to the deposits in ditches. The excavation at Chemin de Vadenay was an opportunity to study a complete cemetery. Amphora sherds were found in the ditch (pers. comm Chossenot 2000), in the position marked in the plan (Fig. 8. 8). This is very interesting as this is the only part of the cemetery where no burials have been placed. This makes a case for ritual use of amphorae sherds in a ceremony separate from burial.

The rites of inhumation and cremation appear to have coexisted (Chossenot: 1975). The 15 cremations were in the interior of, or near to enclosure C. The first cremations date from the beginning of the first century BC, (there were no Early La Tène tombs), and the latest were Augustan. The cremations were placed in the ditch which was just large enough for a funerary vessel, with the cremated bones inside the container, although sometimes some bone material was also placed outside the container. The bone material had been well burnt, but no identification was made of a possible pyre site.

Buoy, “La Guillardet” There is no complete plan of this cemetery, but a sketch of the section revealed in a rescue operation has been reproduced in Fig. 8.13.

The large enclosure was of Hallstatt date and had a “cultural” role (Chossenot 1997: 341). There were no

Fig 8.13 Bouy, “Le Guillardet” (after Chossenot 1968).

139

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN The continued use of Buoy, La Guillardet from the 4th century BC meant that earlier tombs were prone to damage (Chosssenot 1997: 340). The sequence of burials was interspersed by periods of disuse between the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, even to the point of being described as abandonment. Michel Chossenot called attention to the long term use of La Guillardet, noting some late Roman burials (pers. comm.).

Four could have marked out a square or a roofed shrine (Ross 1967: 68), but the ‘central’ post hole was deeper than the others, and this suggested the positioning of a wooden stela (Chossenot 1997: 224). During the course of the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD, a number of cremations were placed in the enclosed space and in the perimeter ditches. The later use of the cemetery was typified by a further 15 inhumations, some of which were cut into the ditches. The exact position of amphorae sherds is unknown.

As at Chemin de Vadenay there was a coexistence of inhumation and cremation rites. In the area excavated three inhumations and six cremations were defined. Amphorae were confined to the ditch areas which poses the question of ritual connotations, and suggests the possibility of funerary meals or offerings. Two pieces of Dressel 1B amphora were found in an enclosure ditch 10 metres apart. Michel Chossenot suggests that reutilisation of ceramics could account for the spread of pieces (1968 excavation report). In the ditches were quantities of burnt bones and metal fragments. In some areas were nails, but these were not related to apparent funerary remains which is a feature also known from Germanic cemeteries (ibid). Chateau-Porcien The cremation cemetery of Chateau-Porcien dates from the final La Tène (Lambot 1994:13). The cemetery is included here because it is in the Champagne region, but unlike the above cemeteries, Chateau-Porcien contained a nearly complete amphora deposition, accompanied by cremated bones, a bronze fibula and a potin coin. A fragment of a scabbard marked this out as a warrior burial (Larmigny 1911: 55-57). A short distance away were pottery vessels, three of which were intact, together with a quantity of bones, bronze fragments, two iron fibulae, an oval bone amulet and an iron dipper. Other cremations could be defined on three sides of the warrior burial, and a nearby fragment of a bronze bracelet termed ‘Neolithic’ by Larmigny hinted at a previous site occupation (1911). The bones of a dog were found nearby. Domestic cooking or feasting debris hinted at a settlement, but none was found. This was clearly an aristocratic burial site, and the well-preserved amphora a contrast with the sherds found in neighbouring cemeteries, as did accompanying complete pottery vessels, the scabbard, bronze fragments and iron dipper.

Fig. 8.14 Écury-le-Repos (after Chossenot 1997: 224).

Fère-Champenoise, “Faubourg de Connantre” The cemetery of Fère-Champenoise, “Faubourg de Connantre”, comprised six enclosures within a large trapezoidal enclosure. On the northeast side of the large enclosure was an entrance. On the eastern side was a group of tombs outside the enclosure walls. Five inhumations and 11 cremations were placed in the enclosure ditches. Some of these inhumations appear to be missing skulls, which is suggestive of human sacrifice (Chossenot 1989: 113). At a point not far from cremation 44 were the traces of a simple incineration which contained amphora sherds and burnt bones. In the first enclosure a series of nine inhumations were arranged around Tomb 9 which appeared to be ‘le chef de famille.’ (Brisson et al ; 1970: 11). Three young females were accompanied by an infant and five young, male adults. There were no weapons and only one tomb contained an amphora fragment. In the ditches of Enclosure 1 were four cremations containing amphorae fragments. Three were placed in the corners of the enclosure and one was beneath an inhumation.

Écury-le-Repos The cemetery of Écury-le-Repos was contained within single enclosure, and developed throughout the later Iron Age. The quadrangular enclosure had no entrance, and was first used for a La Tène inhumation which contained two fibulae. A further three inhumations were placed in the enclosure, and three more were arranged outside the perimeter ditch.

Enclosure II contained eight inhumations. Between enclosures I and IV, Tomb 16 contained a young adult and a very young child, while near the eastern corner, two inhumations were placed in close proximity. Nearby was the infant burial of Tomb 50.

In the central area of the enclosure were five post holes.

140

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 8.15 Fère-Champenoise, “Faubourg de Connantre” (after Brisson et al. 1970 : 140).

In Enclosure III a ‘bench’ inhumation was centrally positioned with two other inhumations in one corner. In the east corner of this enclosure were fragments of pottery and amphorae, (nearest to cremation 38), that were not associated with a cremation. A vase fragment indicated an Augustan date for this deposit. In the east corner of the enclosure was a single post hole.

Enclosure VI is perhaps the most interesting in that it may not have been a funerary enclosure, but a sanctuary site. It was the only small enclosure with an entrance and in the centre was a deep pit with traces of burnt material. In the middle of the northeast ditch was an area of scattered amphorae fragments which had been subjected to fire. The enclosure is the most recent in the cemetery.

In Enclosure IV, warrior Tomb 35 was centrally positioned with two other inhumations close by, one of which was the inhumation of an older female 36, containing a bracelet and torque indicating status. Within the enclosure space was a cremation covered by an amphora fragment, while the inhumation of a new born child was contained within the enclosure ditch. In the south corner of this enclosure were burnt bones and burnt amphora fragments, whilst other amphora fragments were scattered away from the ditch. The burnt bones may have been the result of graveside feasting.

The amphora cremation in the enclosure walls seemed to be purposefully arranged; first a bed of amphora fragments had been placed, over which was a layer of burnt bones containing fragments of iron, and a broken vase. There are no post holes in the enclosure, so the existence of a pavilion structure was unlikely. Enclosure VII contained eight inhumations, three of which were infant burials and two others, those of young adults contained several items of weaponry. None of the burials within the central area of the enclosure contained amphorae, but in the southeast ditch was cremation 17 containing burnt bones together with amphora and pottery fragments. In a corner of the ditch, an area of black earth pointed to cremation deposit 65 consisting of bones, amphora sherds, and eight iron nails. The amphorae had been subjected to fire. A different arrangement is observed in this enclosure as burials were

The central rich Tomb 47 in Enclosure V was also that of a female. The only amphora associated tomb in this enclosure was a cremation 44. This was contained within the enclosure walls near to a general scatter of amphorae sherds, the only place in this enclosure wall where fragments were found.

141

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN not grouped around a central status burial (Brisson et al. 1970: 20).

which could represent a funerary structure (CAG 1996: 227). The remains of three cremations were placed within funerary urns before deposition, but other cremations are less easy to recognise as the remains are dispersed in ditches and outside the enclosure perimeter. The cremations date from the middle of the final century BC to the beginning of the 2nd century AD. 13 inhumations were all post-conquest. The report does not mention amphorae, but Michel Chossenot is sure that amphorae sherds were among the cremation deposits (pers. comm. Chossenot September 2000).

In the perimeter ditch, cremation 19 contained amphorae fragments and a small distance away in the same ditch inhumation 24, that of an adult of about 30 years, was covered by fragments of amphora, a small black vase and a Gallic coin. A short distance away cremation 25 also contained amphora fragments, traces of wood, and pieces of Augustan pottery (ibid 1970: 22). The southeast ditch contained numerous pieces of pottery and amphorae. The cemetery shows an interesting chronological sequence. The cemetery was obviously known and a visible aspect of the landscape. Its earlier stages were signaled by a number of rich burials, and this must have added to its status. Fibulae are often amongst the grave goods. In the Late Iron Age amphorae fragments had been placed in the inhumations in the interior of Enclosure 1. Amphora sherds were also placed in ditches, where they were associated with cremations and not indiscriminate scatters. These amphora sherds complement the idea of feasting and are as important as those contained within the burials.

Hannogne Hannogne like Chateau-Porcien is designated an aristocratic site. It is cited here because it is within the Champagne region, although the main purpose of this chapter is to consider amphorae sherds. The cremation containing a Dressel 1A amphora, together with five painted barrel vases, a bronze oenochoe, a bronze pan, an iron sword and sheath, an iron tripod and a bucket appeared to be the tomb of a young adult (Chossenot 1997:331, Flouest & Stead 1977, Lambot 1994:13). The human bones were placed in the deposit with offerings of pig bones. Chossenot believes the burial dates to preCaesarean times (1997: 331). There were no details of the structure of the burial pit or of nearby settlement.

The cemetery was used throughout most of the La Tène era, although the ‘sanctuary’ or Enclosure IV belonged the later phase of the period. The cemetery was used by local family groups until Claudian times, when an interruption in usage was marked by a series of votive offerings. In the first two centuries AD the cemetery was again used, this time by newcomers, “probablement ètranger à la région” (Brisson 1970:26).

Hauviné, “Feneux” The series of five cemeteries in Hauviné was excavated by Simmonet between 1910 and 1940, and early reports were superseded by the work of Birchall (1965) and Roualet (1970s). Problems relating to the accuracy of the reports exist, and this is seen in the example of Hauviné, “La Poterie”, a cemetery which did not contain amphorae. The cemetery was considered by Birchall (1965: 241-367), but her interpretations of vases are disputed by Roualet (1978: 35). Roualet also comments on the lack of stratigraphical detail.

Hallignicourt, “Les Hauts de Croche” The quadrangular enclosure of Hallignicourt was in use from the end of the 1st century BC. The enclosure had two entrances and close to one side were three post holes

Fig. 8.16 Hallignicourt, “Les Hauts de Croche” (CAG 1996: 227)

142

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE with the burnt bones. A metal point and two fibula were also among grave goods. Without stratigraphy reports it is difficult to give an account of the chronology of the cemetery, but it would appear that the two amphora burials belonged to the earliest phase, at which time all burials were positioned near the smaller sanctuary. The cemetery was in use over the next 200 years, and sometime in this period the larger sanctuary ditches were added. The space in the centre may have been regarded as sacred space and this was avoided as a burial area, as the later burials are all contained in the ditches. It seems that Tomb 21 within the enclosure space was especially significant, and points to a hero or ancestor cult. It is clear that throughout time the cemetery was a known and respected area and still considered for further burials, but only a handful of burials in each phase seems to suggest a criteria of eligibility. On the plan, ‘fond du cabane’, and the reference to a post hole near Tomb 22 imply structures or monumental posts that may not be determined. Only one child burial is identified and this relates to a later period.

Fig.8.17 Hauviné, “Feneux” (after Roualet 1978: 35).

At Hauviné, “Feneux” the cemetery was situated near to a settlement site and contained 26 tombs, many in the ditches of an almost rectangular large enclosure and the smaller square enclosure which shared two common sides (Chossenot 1997: 181). A sequence of burials can be determined and it seems evident that the cemetery was used spasmodically from mid La Tène until the 4th century AD. Two cremations which contain amphora sherds, belong to the period between 50 and 30 BC, and are among the earliest of the cremations. Cremations from this period are considered by Roualet to be amongst the richest and most interesting interments (1976: 30).

Hauviné, “Le Terme-Badaud” In the centre of a square enclosure was Tomb 1, containing amongst the cremation debris fragments of amphorae. Also in this tomb were a young pig and the remnants of a bucket. The bucket and pig offering of Tomb 1 marks this tomb as ‘rich’. The central position in the enclosure might also suggest deference to a hero or an ancestor cult. Tombs 1, 2, 3 and 5 are associated with the enclosure, but 4, 6 and 7 are apart. No burials were found within the ditches.

Tomb 21 was the only cremation to be in the space marked out by the enclosure ditches, rather than within the ditch, but as this was an early cremation, it possibly predated the enclosure structures. The oldest Tomb 26 was circular and not in a ditch, while Tomb 21, which contained amphora fragments was rectangular. Tomb 22 was cut in a shallow basin shape, so it can be seen that these first burials did not conform to a common idea. In amphora-Tomb 21 there were eleven identifiable pieces of pottery and this number singles out the grave as one of the richest in the cemetery. One vessel had been deliberately perforated. Bernard Lambot believes the purpose of the vase was that of a libation vessel, enabling liquid to be poured after deposition (1994: 24). He provides a comparison with a similar vessel from AcyRomance, “La Croisette”. The tomb also contained animal bones. The other amphora grave in this cemetery, Tomb 22, contained four vases. Two large pieces of amphora had been used as a covering for the deposit, and amongst the cremation debris, amphora fragments had been combined

Fig. 8.18 Hauviné, “Le Terme-Badaud” (after Roualet 1978: 35).

143

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN burials. (ibid 1969: 23-30). Enclosure III was an incomplete rectangular shape outside of which was inhumation 41 which may have been a human sacrifice. Nearby were with three cremations, one of which contained three Claudian amphorae fragments. Inside the enclosure four cremations were identified from deposits of amphorae fragments, pottery sherds, burnt bones and nails, and further fragments of amphorae, pottery, bone and metal seemed to suggest four more cremations. In the perimeter ditches there were positive identifications of two other cremations, one in the south and one in the west side, and a further 10 likely cremations (ibid 1969: 31-35).

Montepreux, “Le Cul du Sac” The cemetery of Montepreux, “Le Cul du Sac” consisted of two square enclosures surrounded by a ditch, and contained three inhumations and 22 cremation graves (Birchall 1965: 312). The inhumations were all placed in one enclosure, while the other enclosure contained only cremations. The surrounding ditch contained further cremation burials. The cremation burials contained fragmentary material, sometimes amphorae.

Enclosure IV was the largest enclosure at almost 30 metres square. Two hearth areas were found in close proximity to the entrance in the north, and inside the enclosure the eastern space were some post holes. Only nine cremations had no amphora sherds, and the 46 which did were found mainly in the ditches of the four sides of the enclosure. Many contained other fragments of pottery, nails and frequently coins. Cremation 65 contained a piece of blue glass, presumed to be part of a bracelet. Enclosure V appears to have its origins in the Hallstatt period, represented by pottery sherds from this time. In the centre was a post hole near which was a triangular pedestal. In the centre space, but outside a circular tumulus boundary were four cremations, two of which contained amphora fragments, and the inhumation of a young child. One cremation with amphora had been placed alongside of the child inhumation. The unusual collection of features indicates this was a sanctuary linked with hero or divinities cult.

Fig 8.19 Montepreux (after Chossenot 1997:224).

Normée The study of Normée made by Bry and Fromols in 1969 was an attempt to rectify what was seen as a misleading interpretation by Fromols in 1959. 26 inhumation tombs, of which some were well furnished warrior tombs, related to La Tène I and II. Five enclosures were defined by ditches.

The excavation report rarely distinguishes between human remains and animal offerings, but in cremation 73 was a knucklebone of lamb. Table 8.1 which appears at the end of this chapter is a seriation table showing the sequence of burials from the cemetery at Normée, by which the changes in the Late Iron Age whereby arms and jewellery were replaced by amphorae, pots, nails and coins can be traced. The first 41 burials were typically inhumations containing an assortment of metal goods but no pottery. Six child burials and three female burials showed that in the Middle Iron Age importance in society extended beyond the male members. Iron fibulae were the most common inclusions , appearing in 16 graves. Three bronze fibulae and nine bronze bracelets show that bronze working was still in vogue.

The site had been used over several periods. Hallstatt foundations, the La Tène cemetery, a 4th century AD Gallo-Roman settlement and a Merovingian cemetery can all be defined. The complex La Tène cemetery arrangements were interpreted as a group of unenclosed inhumations relating to late La Tène I and early La Tène II, two small enclosures containing inhumations of La Tène II to La Tène III, five pits of La Tène II, two of which contained human remains, and three further Late Iron Age enclosures. These three enclosures contained cremations and evidence of ‘offering ditches’ (fosses à offrandes), hearths, and post holes (Brisson & Hatt1969: 23).

The major changes that occurred with the introduction of the cremation rite were dramatic. Apart from three iron fibulae and one lance head, not only did the burial rite change, but all the items once seen in graves disappeared. Whereas arms had suggested the grave of a male warrior

Enclosure II contained three inhumations, two of which were adults and the third tomb contained two child 144

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 8.20 Normée (after Bry and Fromols 1969)

and jewellery had pointed to a female burial, the new classes of grave goods had no such personal values. Pottery was now the most common item and though occasionally a large vase might be complete on deposition, more often vessels were fragmentary. This is 100% true of the amphorae, and at Normée 30 out of 51 cremations containing amphorae designates the cemetery as the largest single collection of amphorae graves in Champagne. Only one cremation contained no grave goods and the other 50 had pottery items in conjunction with other items, usually amphorae sherds, nails and coins. Nine of the graves contained amphorae and nails

and nails were also found in three other graves. It is not stated whether the nails were from shoes or wooden funerary furnishings. Three coins from amphora graves were identified as Gallic, Roman and Catalauni. This is to be expected as Prunay lies in Catalauni territory, close to the Remi border. The only surprise is that so few coins were found as many Remi and Catalauni coins were found on other nearby sites, showing that locally there was vigorous usage and circulation of coins.

no grave goods 1 pottery fragments and coins 1

amphorae and pottery sherds 20

pottery, amphorae and coins 1 pottery fragmnents and nails 5

pottery, amphorae and nails 9

pottery, no amphorae, coins and nails 14 no grave goods pottery, amphorae and coins pottery fragmnents and nails pottery, amphorae and nails

pottery, no amphorae, coins and nails amphorae and pottery sherds pottery fragments and coins

Fig. 8.21 Combinations of pottery, amphorae, nails and coins in the Late Iron Age cemetery of Normée.

145

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Pomacle, Montève The La Tène D cemetery at Pomacle contained Dr 1 amphora sherds, but few details are known. The cemetery was near to a settlement site (Chossenot 1997: 181).

Saint-Germainmont Saint-Germainmont is possibly the richest of all the Champagne sites. However, no amphorae, either complete or sherds were found here but the influence of the Roman symposium is evidenced by a bronze Kelheim jug. This is of simpler style than that found at Hannogne (Birchall 1965: 259). An Aylesford pan with swanheaded terminal, together with a Kelheim jug handle and a sword and sheath underline the richness of the tomb. The sword had been intentionally bent (Chossenot 1997: 334).

Presles-Saint-Audebert This site is in present day Aisne, and is close to other elite burials in Remi territory. The vaulted rectangular grave of unhewn stones discovered at Presles-SaintAudebert contained two amphorae, and a bronze coronet, which it was supposed could have circled an amphora (Birchall 1965: 262), though this is disputed by Olivier & Schönfelder (2002:81). The complete amphorae and rare status items, (five clear glass and one coloured beads, and two iron fibulae), elevate the grave into the realm of élite burials. Amongst the six urns, one contained burnt bones (ibid 1965: 295). The site was excavated in 1890, when a complete pedestal vase was also discovered. Prunay II Prunay II with its 58 cremations was the original stimulus for this study, but as mentioned earlier, there is a disappointing lack of full site plans. (The original 1935 excavation dairy was viewed courtesy of Mme. Melkon, Musée de St. Remi, Reims, and includes a sketch map of a cross-roads and approximate positions of the cremations, which are indicated by numbered pencil dots. There is no suggestion of depth, accurate measuring between points and no ditch marks). The cemetery was first detected from surface scatters of pottery sherds. Initial surveys showed that depositions appeared to be almost complete, (unaffected by the effects of two World Wars), although some damage had occurred due to agricultural practices. The ceramic pieces were considered more important and varied than the pieces from the cemetery of Prunay I, where no amphorae were found.

Fig. 8.22 St. Germainmont (Lambot 1994:233).

The rich burial lies within Remi territory in the same area as other prestige burials of Champagne that can be linked with the import of wine amphorae and bronze vessels.

Many vessels were complete and there was a large quantity of vases in proportion to the number of graves. There were well preserved fibulae and often deposits were protected by the covering of large stones over the graves. The richest tombs were distributed throughout the cemetery (Bry & Fromols 1938: 155). The oldest graves were also to be found scattered throughout the cemetery, although the three most recent tombs were found on the limits of the cemetery. The cemetery was used between the years 14 to 37 AD, so enjoyed a fairly short term of usage, although the three later tombs were possibly added twenty years after the majority of interments. This was a revisit to sacred space (ibid ).

Sommesous At Sommesous 45 tombs were found in the enclosure with no entrance. A possible structure was suggested by twenty-seven post holes, and this has caused recent debate as possibilities of a pavilion are explored (Poux 2000: 217-232). At Sommesous, the cemetery was defined by a quadrilateral enclosure. Its first usage as an inhumation cemetery was in the final Bronze Age, after which it was abandoned for a while. Some of the inhumations contained rich grave goods, revealing a social hierarchy, although the richest goods were not always consistent with the largest tombs (Guillier 1991: 46).

On the east of the cemetery was a ditch and two post holes, one containing pottery fragments, the other sterile. The ditch was reminiscent of square or circular Celtic burial sanctuaries found elsewhere in Champagne and in Treveri regions ( ibid: 156).

After several centuries of disuse, the cemetery was reutilised for infant interments. The deep enclosures ditches of the first phase were superseded by shallower ditches within the enclosure. These possibly marked an inner sanctuary which may have contained a structure 146

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE (Chossenot 1997: 286). The final stage of use occurred in the Gallo-Roman period. In the final stages of La Tène, the cemetery was undoubtedly a very visible feature of the landscape. Local communities would have been fully aware of the site, ditches, and burials (Guillier 1991: 52). The exact positions of the amphora sherds are unknown, although these are identified as Dressel 1B typology. Guillier stresses the impressive quantity of pottery sherds found (6,000 fragments), explaining that these were not confined to the inhumation or cremation rites but resulted from “bris rituels”, emanating from breaking and scattering of pottery during funerary banquets or memorial meals (Guillier 1991: 51). Theux A Kelheim jug found at Theux, suggests a wine-related burial, or at least one relating to the Roman symposium, but no further information is available (Chossenot 1997:334).

Fig. 8.23 Sommesous (after Guillier 1991).

Fig. 8.24 Vieux-les-Asfeld (after Lambot 1994: 218).

147

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Vieux-les-Asfeld (Ardennes) Vieux-les-Asfeld (Ardennes), was robbed in antiquity. The tomb was likely to have been surmounted by a tumulus. The circular outer ditch contained the burnt bones of a cremation. Also in the ditch were broken amphora pieces, although these fragments may not have been found in their original position. Bernard Lambot suggests that these were disturbed as the tomb was robbed (1994: 216-7). It is possible that in the central enclosure was a wagon and post holes. Overlying this may have been surface burials, later destroyed by ploughing. The burial pit had been constructed to a depth which allowed complete amphorae to be placed vertically, and took the form of a room -like funerary chamber, this suggested by a compacted floor surface. There are obvious comparisons with Clemency.

essentially the enclosures wee characteristic of Champagne and outnumbered other forms of burial ground.

Dressel 1A amphora sherds and other vase fragments suggest a deposition a date between 120 and 80 BC. Of the ceramic fragments, at least one was from a painted barrel-type vase. Metallic pieces, some with traces of wood adhering to them, were almost certainly from the bands of a bucket. Two small plaques found in close proximity are reminiscent of the bucket attachments from Goeblingen Nospelt B.

People movements across Europe were characteristic of the Iron Ages and this fluid population accounted for the spread of ideas and innovation. Cremation was one of the changes which was initiated by such movements, and in common with almost all the Gallic tribes, was adopted by the Champagne peoples in the Iron Age.

Inhumation in the form of ‘flat’ tombs was prevalent throughout the Middle Iron Age in Champagne in common with much of Europe. Jewellery and arms were found in considerable quantities with complete pots in some cemeteries, though others contained no pottery. It can be said that before the Late Iron Age inhumation together with grave goods selected from the above categories was a usual burial rite in the enclosure cemeteries of Champagne. What new elements appeared in the burial rite at the end of the Iron Age

Cremation reduced the volume of individual human remains to be deposited, and a simple pit was adequate for containing the deposit. However simplification in burial architecture seemed to have little impact on the ideology of cemetery enclosures, and new cemetery enclosures with well defined ditches, or additional enclosures in existing cemeteries now accommodated cremations.

Even though amphora sherds were found, it is almost certain that the amphora was complete on deposition, and that this burial belongs to the group of elite burials found in the Remi territory in the north of Champagne. 8. 4 Chapter conclusions and discussion

With the change to cremation there was an accompanying change in the choice of grave goods. In Champagne arms, and jewellery were almost entirely abandoned in favour of new categories of pottery, nails, amphorae and coins, although Colin Haselgrove notes that occasional inclusions of fibulae were exceptions (196: 67).

So far the evidence from selected amphora burials, while highly interesting may not have justified the case for intense focus. In order to put this into context, a series of questions must be pose and the responses will leave no doubt that the Champagne region is worthy of an indepth study in relation to a unique set of amphorae burials.

These items were paralleled in other Gallic and British burials, although it must be stressed that these items were selected or omitted by choice. Amphorae and coins suggested a network of trade contacts, of societies moving towards state formation and leaving behind a warrior society. In burial contexts these items were subject to regional preference, and in many parts of Gaul and Britain communities simply did not choose to place amphorae or coins in burials. This can be illustrated by the lack of amphora burials in the Netherlands, the upper Rhône Valley and south of the Thames in Britain.

Champagne: a region with notable burial practices Enclosure cemeteries founded in the Bronze Age onwards were main features of the funerary landscape which was well developed by the Middle Iron Age. The cemeteries were the concept of communities which determined they should be visible in the landscape. Michel Chossenot considers the possibility that Bronze Age sanctuaries were inspired by a hero or ancestor cult, a tradition which continued into the Iron Age. “Important dimensions” denoted the significance of these areas (1989:113-4). Enclosured sanctuaries are known from other parts of Europe and Britain, but Bernard Lambot’s identification from the air of numerous enclosures, convinces us that this landscape is indeed unique to Champagne (1966). Through the course of the Iron Age enclosures changed in shape and size, and even though occasional tumuli graves and solitary tombs were use,

Is Champagne deserving of special interest in relation to amphora burials? The placing of amphorae in some Champagne burials provides the biggest clue that the funerary ritual of this region deserves special attention. At the end of the Iron Age at least 56 cemeteries were in use in the region 148

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE during the final century BC and the early years AD (see Fig 8.7, this volume). Conclusions about social structure may be drawn from comparisons of the spatial organisation and deposition rituals apparent in these contemporary cemeteries. Some of the cemeteries had been in use during previous phases and some, such as Prunay II, were new foundations. (This explains why Prunay contains only cremations while other cemeteries display a mixed rite). However because the cemeteries were regional and use was contemporary, this would indicate that amongst the burying communities there would be the possibility of shared ideologies. However of these 56 cemeteries just 19 contained amphorae. It is assumed that amphorae were not present in other cemeteries although it is possible that these were found but not noted. This could happen in instances where:

Lamadeleine, Luxembourg where a large number of tombs contained sherds. In the Lamadeleine cemetery this was a local preference as not far away complete amphorae were found in the rich tombs of Goeblingen Nospelt.

•

What is significant about the enclosures and ditches?

• •

Neither the Bonnert nor Lamadeleine cemeteries were bounded by enclosure ditches. Champagne is therefore the only area where deposition of amphorae sherds during funerary ritual occurs in several cemeteries and also in which enclosure ditches provide ritual scope. However enclosure ditches were not only a feature of cemeteries which contained amphora graves. The enclosured cemeteries of Manre, Aure, Vert-la-Gravelle and Ville-sur-Retourne were amongst those not to contain amphorae sherds.

Amphorae sherds were so small or in such few numbers that they were dismissed as unimportant. The amphora pieces were not diagnostic sections (collars, spikes and handles), and were not recognized as amphorae. Sampling techniques were employed during excavation and the areas containing amphorae were not part of the operation, therefore amphorae have yet to be retrieved or will not be retrieved.

Spatial organization and evidence of ancestral cults The act of creating an enclosure by excavating the surrounding ditches formed three distinct areas which might receive burials or be involved in ritual practice. The inner space, the outer space and the actual ditches were all commissioned for funeral activity. Within the enclosures, individuals were regularly spaced, and superimposed on each other, each body being allocated a part of sacred space. The internal organization of many cemeteries was centred on an important tomb. At “La Noue Mauroy”, Acy-Romance there is strong evidence of an ancestor cult, a desire to communicate with the departed and share the same destiny, as satellite burials cluster around an earlier status tomb. In most cemeteries male, female and infant graves were not separated, abut appeared in family groups. Hierarchy was exhibited in Fère-Champenoise, Enclosure I, where a series of nine inhumations, included three young females, an infant and five young males were arranged around Tomb 9, which appeared to be ‘le chef de famille’ (Brisson et al. 1970:11) At Bezannes, cremation tomb 13 was the focus of ‘cult’ activity (Friboulet & Verbrugge 1993: 64), suggesting an ancestor cult although in these cases in the absence of textual evidence J.-L. Bruneux advises caution (1988: 87).

Most importantly, amphorae are not found because they are absent and were not selected for deposition. The cemeteries containing amphorae are nevertheless in a minority in the Champagne Iron Age and represent a deviation rather than a regular practice in the area. It is this eccentricity that invites question. The cemeteries containing amphorae are nearly all in the central plain, with no examples south of Hallignicourt and none north of Hannogne. Clusters of cemeteries comprise those with amphorae and those without. Soudron, Montépreux, Clamanges, Normée and Écury-leRepos are in close proximity to each other, but in contrast to the other three, no amphorae have been found at either Soudron or Clamanges. In the commune of Hauviné only two of the five cemeteries contain amphora burials. It would seem that in each case, the amphorae were the preference of a small particular group. This would be easier to understand if this was a singular occurrence; the same pattern is repeated in several micro-regions of Champagne.

In Enclosure V at Fère-Champenoise, central rich tomb 47 was that of a female and satellite burials around inhumations were a feature of the largest enclosure at Buoy, Chemin de Vadenay. Tomb I of Hauviné, “Le Terme -Badaud” was significantly placed in the centre of the enclosure. The grave contained amphora sherds together with a young boar and fragments of pottery. This grave is unusual in that it is the only burial containing amphora sherds and also occupying a central position.

Apart from the elite burials of Chateau-Porcien, PreslesSaint-Audebert and possibly Vieux-les-Asfeld, the Champagne graves contained sherds and not complete amphorae. This in itself is unusual, for where clusters of amphora burials occur in the Provence region, the Bituriges territory, Arras, Saarland and the Welwyn area of Britain nearly all of the amphorae were complete on deposition. The closest parallels we have are the tombs of Belgium, where a handful of tombs in the large cemetery of Bonnert contained amphorae sherds and that of

External area Michel Chossenot has described the arrangements outside sanctuaries as being complex (1989: 111). At Aure there 149

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN is nothing beyond the sanctuary ditches, but at Aulnay, Manre and Bouy burial offering pits appear outside the enclosure ditches. The cemetery of Prunay II was first discovered from surface sherds of pottery and amphorae (Bry & Fromols 1983: 144), but it is rare to find amphorae deposits outside the enclosure ditches.

marginally favoured to other ditch positions. The amphora depositions usually accompanied cremations, but in some instances could be interpreted as offerings or the remnants of feasting and memorial meals. Few actual amphora burials occurred within the enclosures and scatters of amphora sherds, (which were not part of burial depositions), were most likely to occur in the north and east. Sometimes the amphora sherds were concentrated in a particular section of the enclosure ditch as at Bouy, Le Guillardet, where pieces are only found in the south east.

Enclosure ditches In the Late Iron Age a new pattern of placing cremations in the ditched areas showed a move away from the ancestral cult ordering. The space within the enclosure was deemed sacred and ditches were also important areas of ritual activity. This may be simply that this is because the softer fill made burial easier (Collis 1996: 89), but could also indicate territorial marking. John Collis has put forward a theory that in the Late Iron Age enclosure ditches were not only serving the function of delimiting an activity zone, but as they became deeper and larger were regarded as elements of display (1996: 89). The importance of outward display of self, possessions and environment has been promoted by J. D. Hill (1997) and John Collis (1996), and this might explain the increased activity and fascination with ditched areas which took on new importance in this period. Michel Chossenot explains that a ditch at Bouy, “Chemin de Vadenay” was cut through an earlier inhumation in order to achieve the correct line. It is important to note that ditches served to separate the dead from the living and as Parker Pearson observes, “placing the dead is one of the most visible activities through which human societies map out and express their relationship to ancestors, land and the living (1999:141). east ditch east enclosure east scatter north ditch

north enclosure north scatter west ditch

west enclosure west scatter south ditch

Cremations were often placed in enclosure corners and this is apparent at Fère-Champenoise and Normée. Complete amphorae were placed in the corners of elite burials of Primelles and Arras, indicating that these positions were significant (Ferdière & Villard 1993: 149, 228-9), and may have represented superstitious belief similar to that which provoked the building of nineteenth century round houses, thus preventing the devil hiding in corners.

south enclosure south sdcatter middle

Total: 56 middle 1 south enclosure 3 south ditch 9 west enclosure 1 west ditch 15

east ditch 11 east enclosure 1 east scatter 3

Depositions, offerings and grave goods The cemeteries were not always close to a settlement, but served more purposes than just a deposition ground. Altars, hearths, and undefined structures often in a separate enclosure produced non-funerary deposits and point to ritual pratices that were carried out on nonfunerary occasions. It is difficult to comment on the function of such deposits. Michel Chossenot believes that secondary deposits of bone and pottery fragments at Bouy, “Chemin de Vadenay” are indicative of memorial meals, the remains of which were placed in the ditches (pers. Comm.. July 2005). Some of the ditch contents were placed at a later date than the burials, which indicates a revisit to the site. The soil surrounding Tomb 21, Hauviné, “Feneux” contained amphora sherds, animal bones and egg shells, and at Bezannes a ditch deposit was composed of animal bones. The lack of human remains suggested that feasting debris had been ritually deposited. Matthieu Poux also recognizes the difficulty of allocating a funerary or cultural function to these depositions (2000:223). Using the sanctuary of Braine as an example, he theorises that amphorae, animal bone fragments, a grill and cauldron suggest a feasting activity within the sanctuary, but this was not an enclosure which contained burial evidence (ibid 2000: 225). Neither was it possible to state that amphorae which contained wine had been consumed in situ, as can be seen from the example at Arnac-le-Poste where 850 amphorae were found. The amphorae may have been intended for redistribution or the contents could have been drunk during feasts in this enclosure (Poux 2000: 226-7).

north ditch 11 north enclosure 1

Fig. 8.25 Known positions of amphorae depositions in enclosured cemeteries of Champagne.

Andrew Fitzpatrick surmises that grave goods in the cemetery of Acy-Romance were more likely to be placed around the north, south, and western sides of the grave, leaving the eastern side empty or occupied by grave goods of organic material (2000: 22). There was less preference shown in the orientation of amphorae depositions where it can be seen that ditches were more popular than enclosure spaces, and western ditches only

Recent studies have been inspired by the tale of Lovernius, “who constructed an enclosure into which he put vast amounts of food and drink” (Posidonius in Athenaeus Deipnosophistae, in Koch 1997: 10, Poux 1999b, Brunaux 2002 273-84). Though post holes exist 150

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE in many of the Champagne cemeteries, the example of Arnac-le-Poste and its temple–like structure is not repeated within other sites. Eight post holes in the centre of the enclosure at Bezannes appear to provide evidence of a structure to protect a cremation deposit. Between the two post holes was a collection of pottery and amphora sherds. These were not part of the burial and may represent memorial feasting. The 27 post holes which nay have represented a ‘pavilion’ in the Sommesous cemetery, also contained n abundance of pottery sherds (Guillier 1991: 51).

Poterie, where there are no amphorae, Tomb 10 had been extended on one side in order to incorporate animal bone. These were presumably the result of a funerary offering (Birchall 1965: 266 & 319). Poux insists that the banquets theory cannot be dismissed; “Il appartiendra aux études à venir de démontrer que le banquet constitute une donée à prendre en compte (2000:228). However the desire to reconstruct a feasting environment should not be an issue here, for it can be shown that other elements of ritual are apparent which may be more accountable for the production of amphorae sherds. What is the significance of sherds found in burials: can this be termed a broken pottery rite? Sherds might at first be considered less valuable than a complete vessel, but conversely it will be shown that the importance is implicit in the broken aspect. Vessels appearing in funerary contexts have specific relationships to the mode of burial, and pots might function as caskets/ containers holding cremations, as ceramic burial chambers, as incense cups and accessory vessels (Pollard 2002: 28). These roles necessitate a degree of completeness. However, vessels which are incomplete and in sherd form are obviously not fulfilling these roles. After a thousand years in the ground it is entirely reasonable to suppose that some damage could occur due to environmental or agricultural factors, but if a complete vessel had been subject to plough damage it would be expected that sufficient pieces would be found to enable the interpretation of this scenario. The tomb itself would also show signs of disturbance. When many apparently intact graves within the same cemetery contain only proportional selections of pots, it has to be accepted that the pottery had been interred after some form of ritual destruction and reduction process, and therefore the vessels have entered the ground in a broken state.

Fig. 8.26 A comparison of the structure within the enclosure at Arnac –la-Poste (A) with classical Greek banqueting rooms, (B and C), (after Poux 2000:228).

Patrice Méniel’s studies of animal bones from enclosure sites led him to suggest three ways by which animal bones could occur in ditch deposits. Firstly as a natural occurrence or action by carnivores (foxes etc.), secondly as domestic refuse and thirdly as a result of ‘banquets’ (2000: 267). A substantial number of animal bones occurring in cemetery burial deposits and ditches could relate to Méniel’s banquet option. However, Méniel notes that animal remains from funerary contexts are often poor and this is true in the majority of sites summarized above (2000: 269). While animal bones are noted in accounts, details are rarely given as to which animal or quantities of bones, or importantly, which were the preferred bones. The disappointing animal bone evidence is an example of how the limitations of reports cause difficulty in providing a framework to support feasting assumptions.

To shatter pottery, particularly the coarse amphora form, would require some considerable degree of effort. The amphorae would be unlikely to break into such small pieces without the assistance of large stones and a hard surface on which to drop or throw the pots, and even then some pieces were likely to be fairly large. The production of small fragments would involve additional determined effort. These assumptions are not based on controlled experimentation but on some personal experience. A treasured garden ‘amphora’. A coarse clay copy of its classical namesake met with an unfortunate accident when knocked over, and broke on contact with patio slabs. A large portion of the base was intact, enabling further use as a plant container. The other pieces were large as can be seen from Fig. 8. 27. Breaking an amphora into the small pieces which occur in a number of the burials without a convenient solid patio floor would have been extremely labour intensive.

However, within the Champagne area there may be other examples which provide elucidation. At Hauviné, La

151

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Fig 8.27 Pieces resulting from the accidental breakage of a modern ‘amphora.

stone surface which could assist in shattering the pots. This implies that the vessels were already broken before arriving at the cemetery site, and that also only a selection of the broken material was transported to the deposition ground. The previous history of vessels before their ultimate deposition would be most enlightening, but we do not have this information. The most likely scenario is that destruction of pots and other grave goods occurred at a pyre site. Pyre sites or ustrina are rarely found in cemeteries which implies that it was unusual to perform the rites of cremation and initial destruction of the body and complete goods elsewhere, possibly at a considerable distance from cemetery or settlement. When Michel Chossenot described the ceramic arrangement of tomb 1 at Buoy, La Guillardet, he stated that of nine vases, six contained cremated bones (1997: 188). Taking into account that some destruction had occurred due to farming, it still appeared that six vases had had necks deliberately removed and one had been exposed to fire (ibid). Only three or four sherds were found from other vases suggesting it was never the intention to place these as complete vessels. As the preferred form of funerary container, the tall vases remained complete while the shallow forms and amphorae were subject to different treatment and assigned different significance.

Fig. 8.28 The ‘amphora base is still serviceable as a plant holder.

Most of the vases in the Prunay II graves were complete, but the amphorae were only found in sherd form. There are other cemeteries in Champagne where this pattern can be seen. Though the state of the pots varies between

There are no reports of millstones, as placed in the rich tombs of Fléré-la-Rivière, or the pudding stones which were found on the Folly Lane site, or indeed any large 152

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE completeness and incompleteness, the amphorae are always in sherd form, (apart from the previously noted elite burials.

Sometimes amphora fragments and other pottery sherds show signs of burning. Pottery and bone sherds ,particularly burnt animal bones may suggest feasting, when not interred with human remains, but it is more likely that amphorae were subject to fire damage when as complete vessels they were placed close to the funeral pyre. When the fire was extinguished and after the reduction of the bodily remains, a final act of destruction occurred as the vessels and remaining personal effects were smashed. It was from this shattered debris that a selection was made for interment.

There is no doubt that the breaking of pots and amphorae was an intentional act, occurring as part of funerary ritual. Not only were the amphorae and pots broken, but the fragments were used in further ritual activities. The broken pottery rite may have been associated with funerary meals at Sommesous. Here 6,000 ceramic sherds were judged to be part of a broken vessel ritual and though the destruction occurred in relation to the 45 burials, this was indicative of complex practices accompanying the depositions. Chossenot makes the observation that the abundance of pottery seems to be linked to the importance of funerary offerings (1997:187), and at Sommesous the presence of a structure and large amounts of pottery indicates that major acts of ritual were performed. It would seem that in a small cemetery 6,000 ceramic fragments relating to offerings is an extraordinary number. That the sherd were a result of ritual feasting in which a complete social group participated is plausible, after which feasting debris was placed in ditches and post holes.

In the cemeteries with multiple enclosures, most of the enclosures contained burials although there was often one which was assigned a different function. This was well illustrated at Fère-Champenoise by Enclosure VI. This small enclosure featured an entrance and a central pit containing traces of burnt material. Amphorae fragments, which also seemed to have been subjected to fire, were found in the surrounding ditch walls, as was an amphora cremation which was placed on a bed of amphorae fragments and covered by a layer of burnt bones amongst which were fragments of iron and a broken vase. The enclosure was the most recent addition to the cemetery. The amphorae sherds (not associated with cremation), must have been placed during some other ritual activity and was presumably connected with the burnt debris in the central pit.

What else is happening in relation to the sherds which implies the occurrence of ritual practices? The amphorae were treated in a different way from other ceramics, even though other categories were also subjected to a broken pottery rite. The amphora sherds might be included with cremated remains, and were sometimes used to cover a deposition, but were more often assigned to ditch contexts with other fragmentary offering remains. As can be seen from the known positions of amphorae in enclosured cemeteries, there are 49 occurrences of amphorae related burials, or scatters associated with ditch areas. By comparison only nine were placed in the enclosure spaces. (We do not know the position of amphora deposits in the enclosures of Écury-le-Repos, Hallignicourt, Montepreux or Sommesous). The ditches were sacred areas so there was special importance attached to the broken amphorae of non-funerary deposits. Some sherds were separate from the interment of human remains, so suggest other accompanying rituals happening either at the time of interment or ritual activity at another time, possibly a memorial visit.

At Bezannes amphora fragments were found at the base of a post hole, perhaps as a chthonic offering and many sherds at Sommesous had been placed in post holes. These examples give a clue to the variety of ritualized practices which occurred within the enclosure environment. Can these practices be attributed to local tribal preferences, incoming newcomers, or external forces? Family groups often used cemeteries for a short period of time, and periods of abandonment and reuse were common. The cemetery at Bezannes was only used for two phases in the years between 80 and 40 BC (Friboulet & Verbrugghe 1993), and Prunay II was only used between Ad 14 and 37 (Bry & Fromiols 1938:155). This indicates frequent settlement shifts, with the possibility of new settlers using established cemeteries. Even though different groups may have used cemeteries in successive periods, the burial grounds show continuity of ritual practice. The use of enclosured cemeteries from bronze Age to Final Iron Age was a particular feature of Champagne, apparently stemming from a regional ideology. At the time of universal change from inhumation to cremation, there was also correlation in new grave goods assemblages. These changes were probably instigated by Gallic tribal movements and were assimilated into funerary practices which were still performed in an older familiar environment. The importance of pots in funerary ritual was regionally

Revisits to sites are conceivable, especially when one recalls the indications of an ancestor cult and the occasional use of vases which have been pierced with two or three holes near the shoulder. These allowed wine or other liquid to be trickled into the vessel and maintained communication between the world of the living and the dead (Chossenot 1997: 186). Examples were found at Le Chemin de Vadenay, Hauviné, “Feneux” Tomb 23, (also an amphora), and La Poterie Tomb 27, (not an amphora tomb). 153

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Fig 8.29 Regional divisions of Gaul as recognized by Caesar.

recognized, though at micro level minor variations indicate tribal preference. In the selection of goods and their treatment.

The Gallic village of Acy-Romance encompassed the settlement of La Warde and several cemeteries including “La Noue Mauroy”. Dressel 1 amphora sherd were recovered from the settlement site as well as the cemetery (Colin 1998:124). Wine was a commodity that was introduced from the Mediterranean to the Gallic peoples and the appearance of amphorae in settlements and burial environments was first and foremost a result of trade.

Pots were functionally used in settlement environment before later emerging in funerary contexts in sherd form. Like any other pot, amphora sherds in the burial environment pointed to an earlier history in settlement context, and one perhaps in which wine drinking took place. Amphora finds do little to establish the level of actual wine consumption within the native population.

However numerous cases of burials containing broken pots and amphorae in the Late Iron Age had nothing to 154

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 8.30 Some important Gallic tribes and the association of regional amphora burials.

do with the duality of Greek symposia and burial practices. The rite appeared to be a local mutation, owing nothing to the Roman influence apart from the availability of source material.

funerary ritual, stemmed from the outward display which advertised small communities. The presence of foreigners may have strengthened the need to confirm tribal identity and advertise territory.

Although Roman influence may not be the stimulus for ritual changes, it is worth noting that funerary practices involving sherd vessels were often concentrated on enclosures and ditches; structures that not only emphasized sacred boundaries but also had territorial significance (Collis 1996:87-94). The increased activity in these areas, which was not entirely confined to

Beyond the second half of the first century BC, new phases in the continuous process of change occurred in which amphora burials ceased and inhumation cemeteries were laid out. Brisson regards the use of the FèreChampenoise in the first two centuries AD as indicative of newcomers (1970:26), and it can be assumed that these later changes were a result of Roman occupation, 155

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Fig. 8.31 The occurrence of complete and sherd amphora burials in the sites of the Late Iron Age.

whereby in the presence of Roman militia and Gallic soldiers who had been in Roman employment, indigenous people gradually accepted the culture package that we term Romanisation.

disparate settlement groups with numerous individual preferences. Amphora burials are well defined in Gallica Belgica but are comparatively rare in Aquitania.

Why are the burials containing pottery and amphora sherds prominent in Champagne?

Physical characteristics and behaviour allowed Caesar to identify individual groups. In mainland Gaul regional groups sharing common social ideologies could be recognized.

There was never, even in earlier periods a common funerary ritual that was applicable to all mainland Europe. In the final Iron Age this can be simply explained away by the presence of numerous small,

Isolated amphora burials are to be found in Aquitania at 156

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Boé, Arras and Vernas. Similarly in Germania occasional burials contained amphorae, but it can be seen from Fig 8.29, that in some regions amphora burials are grouped. In a more detailed map of tribal regions, Fig. 8.30, there is confirmation that amphora burials can be pinpointed to particular named tribes.

evidence of élite ritual (1999:147).Such elements suggest power and wealth amassed by privileged individuals, but also ac community which supported the accompanying rites attendant on of elite burial, thus preserving the hierarchical order. Although cemeteries in the west of the area lacked such élite qualities, some smaller settlements produced evidence on a smaller scale of amphora imports. Fig 8.6 (earlier in this chapter, indicates that amphorae were imported into Remi and Catalauni territories in greater numbers then into the neighbouring regions of the Lingones and Suessiones.

In the Champagne region, more than any other area, several tribes perform funerary rituals involving amphora sherds as can be seen in burials of the territories of the Remi, the Catalauni and the Treveri. The large number of amphora related burials, concentrated in one area is significant, and in the territory of the Remi and Catalauni Tribes particularly, the practice of burials containing amphorae is prominent. The reason for this would therefore appear to relate to a particular tribal preference.

Correspondingly there is a lack of amphora related burials in the latter territories, confirming unsurprisingly that importation of wine in amphora must be a contributory factor in funerary practices involving the transport vessels. What if wine was also transported in barrels? This would obviously explain the lack of amphorae in burials!

Can the incidence of amphora burials be related to favourable trade and an accumulation of vessels?

Tchernia’s comparative study of amphora imports in the Late Iron Age led him to conclude that in terms of vessel numbers, fewer amphorae were imported into the Belgic provinces than any other region of Gaul (1986: 90) and this is confirmed in Matthew Loughton’s study (2003: 177-207). By this it can be inferred that there was little correlation between numbers of amphora imports and frequency of amphora related burials.

In the previous chapter Fig. 7.4 showed amphorae find spots by which a pattern of trade routes could be defined. Fig 7.15 by contrast only indicated amphorae which have been found in association with a burial. It can be seen from the comparison of the two maps which appear again below that the distribution of amphora find spots is dissimilar. If masses of traded amphorae, accumulated during healthy trade, had been the stimulus for the deposition of amphorae in burials, then the maps would have shown closer correspondence. In actuality cluster matches do occur on the central Mediterranean coast, the Paris basin, the champagne region and north of the Thames in Britain.

Can the incidence of amphora burials testify to proRoman relationships? One reason for amphora burials in some tribal territories and not others may be expressive of relationships with Romans and attitudes to wine drinking. The burials in the cemetery of Lamadeleine and the élite burials of Goeblingen Nospelt are placed in Treveri country. Treveri support for the Romans fluctuated, but after the Conquest there was a continued Roman presence in the region with the foundation of a colony centred at Trier. After the Conquest wine imports into Gaul could be linked to military presence as the Roman Army was credited with the consumption of large amounts of wine (Tchernia 1986: 87). By contrast the Eburones and Nervii would not allow the importation of wine (BG II, 15), and it is no surprise that amphora burials are absent from these territories.

In the Toulouse area, close to the Spanish border, the significant mass of amphora finds associated with trade are not reprised in burial evidence. Similarly in Brittany the considerable volume of traded amphorae does not translate into numerous amphora burials. In the Champagne region the highest proportion of settlement amphorae finds come from the sites of Aisne, and this indicates the ability to import large quantities of wine into an oppida. Trade conducted between Mediterranean peoples and local elites is also indicated in the north and west of Champagne by finds of prestige goods, including bronze jugs. The warrior burial near Chateau- Porcien oppida site contained a complete amphora and rich goods and four other cemeteries contained prestige goods. The warrior tombs of Hannogne and Saint- Germainmont, the vaulted tomb of Presles-St. Audebert, and the chamber tomb of Vieuxles-Asfeld revealed special burial arrangements and some complete amphorae amongst the grave goods. Dietler considers the ‘increased elaboration’ that included elements of wine drinking amongst the grave goods, as

The chamber tombs of Clemency and Goeblingen Nospelt were elite burials. Special funerary arrangements included the preparation of a chamber of large proportion or architectural merit, the inclusion of rich grave goods of rare and exotic merit, and imports connected with wine drinking ceremonies, placed in conjunction with warrior equipment. The Luxembourg elite burials have spawned a series of books and exhibitions. The chamber tomb at Clemency in particular seems to testify a Celtic desire to 157

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN celebrate wine-drinking and feasting ritual in a funerary capacity, but essentially these tombs denote a Gallic warrior class expressing an appreciation for Roman privileges.

In the Champagne region, amphorae are rare when compared to numbers found in other regions. Matthew Loughton lists find 100 spots from Bouches-de-Rhône, 157 in Tarn, 160 in Var and just 30 in the combined four regions of Champagne (2003: 190-1). Loughton’s list comprises settlement and burial contexts, but serves to remind us that the scarcity of the product in Champagne might have a bearing on their deposition in cemetery contexts.

It was stated earlier in this chapter that the Remi were loyal to Caesar from the beginning of the Gallic Wars, though there it is difficult to establish the effect of this bonding with Remi burial practices. The elite burials to the north west of Champagne are on the edge of the Remi occupied region, or are in Suessiones territory. If alliance with the Romans was a factor in amphora related burials, then this could explain burials in Remi territory, but not the absence of burials in the territory of the Lingones, who allowed over-wintering of Roman troops, and were said to be equally pro-Roman. We are not told how the Catalauni interacted with the Romans, but relationships were likely to be favourable as the tribe had amiable contacts with both Remi and Lingones. However it is difficult to decide whether sherds deposited in the burials of Hallignicourt or Fère-Champenoise could be in any way interpreted as a result of Roman contact.

There are strong indications that despite a peak in amphora imports just before and after the Gallic Wars (Cunliffe 1988:140), wine imports into Gaul decreased soon after 50 BC (Sealey 1985, Loughton 2003: 182). In the Champagne region amphora burials were placed within the years when imports had fallen, a time when the already few vessels were in short supply. This may justify Kossack’s theory that élite burials occurred when products were scarce (1984: 34). The rich burials of La Tène I, such as Somme Bionne, were found in the north east of Champagne, but the focus of prestige burials changed in the final century BC to the area of the Aisne border. Swords appeared in the elite tombs of Hannogne and Saint-Germainmont (Birchall 1965: 272), and at Hannogne the warrior burial also contained sherds of a Dr 1A amphora. This north western burial together with those of Chateau-Porcien and Presles-Saint-Audebert are probably the earliest amphora related burials in Champagne, Finds of amphorae from the nearby oppida of Variscourt, the settlements of Berry-au-Bac and Bisseuil, and the enclosure of Beaurieux were predominantly of Dr 1A typology, suggesting that imports peaked before the circulation of Dr 1B amphorae, of which fewer examples were found.

Though amphorae first appeared in southern Gallic settlement contexts from the third century onwards, burials containing amphorae in this region were unlikely to have been placed before the foundation of Gallia Narbonensis, though prestige goods in these burials hint at knowledge of the Roman symposium (Beaucaire Tomb I, Dedet et al. 1974). Similarly, although amphora trade was established together with a network of trade alliances before Caesar’s intervention in Gaul, amphora burials in Champagne were unlikely to have occurred before the onset of the Gallic Wars. The presence of the Roman Army almost brought about the unification of Gallic tribes, especially the in the revolt of 52 BC led by Vercingetorix. The Lingones and Remi did not join the action, and this support of Caesar attested to the communal spirit of the Champagne tribes, unified by Roman sympathy to the point of disunity with other parts of Gaul. Maybe this is why burial practices developed in a close, intimate regional atmosphere as a feeling of separation from other areas of Gaul evolved.

During the years of the Gallic Wars the presence of tribal warrior elites was crucial when social commitment and leadership depended on the very survival of the tribal units. Haselgrove has attributed the increase in warfare and trade as a contributory factor in wealth accumulation (1987: 110), and the rich burials situated in close proximity to oppida marks the presence of warrior nobility. The suggested dates for these burials are between 50 and 25 BC, soon after the Conquest. There were no warrior burials and no weapons in graves of the Catalauni, except a spear in cremation 43 at Normée. Without exception, all the amphora graves in the Champagne plain contained only sherds and not complete vessels. This seems entirely attributable to tribal boundaries and different tribal practices. The rarity of warrior tombs with arms during this phase indicates that changes had occurred in social structure and that cemeteries were possibly used by predominantly farming families. This is suggestion is reinforced by tombs of the Late Iron Age in which the most commonly found implement was the knife, as could be seen in many of the Acy-Romance assemblages. A knife was multi-functional

Why did the amphora related burials ‘start’ and why did they ‘stop’ at the points of time in which they occur? The enclosure cemeteries of Champagne have evolved gradually over centuries and the continued use in the Late Iron Age did not appear as a radical change of practice. Equally the change of rite from inhumation to cremation was a practice adopted throughout Gaul and was therefore unsurprising at this time. The more abrupt appearance of amphorae together with pots in sherd form was not a general practice but was seen only in some regions of Gaul. 158

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE and could be used in meat preparation, reed cutting or wood working (Chossenot 1997: 92).

outside influences may be cited as a factor in the occurrence, with a possible 50% of finds being attributable to ritual. Seriation tables were of considerable help in establishing a brooch chronology (1997:57), and similar tables are of value in noting the changes in burial practices of Champagne, and particularly the changes in assemblage contents including amphorae. A seriation table produced from the evidence from Normée appears at the end of this chapter.

Generally cemeteries were small both in terms of area and the number of burials contained. The individuals represented in cemeteries was only a proportional method of disposing of the dead, (projected figures suggest larger communities in Late Iron Age Europe than is evident from cemetery retrieval), so these cemeteries must be to some degree exclusive. Small numbers of occupants in a cemetery suggests that only a small proportion of the population was placed there, and thereby afforded selective treatment (Chossenot 1997: 288). This selection may have marked out social elites, war heroes or social outcasts, but not society at large. Taking the small number into consideration, any burial which was marked by funerary rites and furnished with grave goods symbolized special treatment whether the goods were prestige or not.

Why is there a lack of evidence of amphora related burials in other areas? The effect of physical geography meant that in the Late Iron Age more settlements and cemeteries were founded on the central plain in Champagne then in either the south or the forested Ardennes region to the north, where there was comparatively little activity. Physical factors were relative to settlement and burial preferences. In other regions forests or mountainous terrain may provide the simplest reasons for not adopting the burial practices that were characteristic of the Champagne region.

How can we be sure of the chronology? New influences and relationships meant that throughout the Iron Age changes occurred frequently and rapidly. Caesar’s accounts provide fixed points for the years 58 to 51 BC, and can provide limited and generalized social evidence, but local; preferences meant that chronologies based on settlement wares or burial goods were subject to variation. Nico Roymans believes that the first Roman influence could be observed in northern Gallic grave contents from about 20 BC (1990: 222). Occasional coins, fibulae or beakers d’Aco are important aids to pinpointing deposition dates with more accuracy. Amphorae are useful chronological tools, as explained in chapter 7 as production and circulation dates can be assumed with some precision. However, circulation dates do not take account of the discrepancy sometimes occurring between the projected dates of circulation and deposition. Matthew Loughton suggests this may occur as the amphora is conserved to allow wine to mature. If the amphora is to be placed in a burial, the amphora might be stored as the body lies ‘in state’ waiting for an appropriate time for interment (Niblett 1999: 58). Alternatively the amphora might be saved as a valued item, to be used as part of a burial assemblage as an heirloom item. These circumstances are likely to make the amphora less reliable as a dating tool in funerary circumstances than perhaps coins which at least produce a non–negotiable terminus ante quem.

Several Germanic tribes did not allow wine importations into their territories and therefore wine related burials were unlikely to enter the burial archive in such territories. Other tribes, content to import wine may not have regarded amphorae as suitable funerary vessels, and indeed it is difficult to reconcile ideas of why Champagne tribes would regard the coarse wares as fitting to mortuary practices. The explanation which has already been offered for other dilemmas may simply be given as ‘local preferences’. 8.5 Summary It is apparent that diversity amongst peoples, landscapes and traditions will produce different customs, and the variety of cultural responses witnessed throughout Gaul is repeated at local level in the Champagne region. Throughout the Iron Age change was endemic in Gaul, regional differences occurred in the pattern of change. With the change from inhumation to cremation, there was an accompanying change in the composition of burial goods. Cemeteries containing amphorae are in a minority in the Champagne Iron Age and represent a deviation rather than a regular practice in the area. It is this eccentricity which invites question.

Colin Haselgrove experienced similar problems relating to regional traditions when attempting to establish a British chronology for brooch depositions (1997: 51- 73). In common with amphora depositions of north-west Gaul, there was a notable increase in brooch deposition in the last century BC, which was taken to be a sign of Roman –Belgic culture (1997: 61-2). Haselgrove’s commentary on brooch deposition has noticeable parallels with amphora deposition in that both cases

The maps included throughout this chapter show that the physical geography of Champagne designated the central plain as an area bounded by mountains and forested regions, so forming a natural enclave. The tribes which occupied this area developed a degree of separateness, reflected in burial practices which differed from those of neighbouring groups. Although there no documentary evidence to link amphora related burials in Champagne with particular tribes, the incidence of burials in 159

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN close proximity to a large palisaded enclosure, and at Fère-Champenoise some inhumations which lacked skulls were placed in enclosure ditches. Although cremation destroys much evidence there is every likelihood that the individuals of other burials had been chosen by reason of singularity. In earlier phases of the Iron Age there was strong evidence of an ancestor cult and belief in communication with ancestral spirits which could be accessed during communal ritual acts, including memorial feasting. This belief was less marked in the final decades of the last century BC, as new ditches cut through earlier graves and burials were implanted in ditches apart from the satellite burial patterns of the enclosure interiors. Effort was put into producing ditches which marked the division between the worlds of the living and the dead. Amphorae, pottery and animals were transported to the site, motivated by the need to participate in communal acts in a sacred environment and once the ditched limits had been crossed everything within the enclosure was charged with ritual significance. Only certain goods were selected to accompany the burial. The Late Iron Age tombs contained few luxury items, and ceramic goods made up the greatest proportion of the burial catalogue. Ritual activity achieved new dimensions centred on the enclosure ditches and broken offering rites. In cremation not only was the body destroyed but often the furnishings too. In elite tombs swords were bent or ritually ‘killed’, and in more mundane burials, pottery was smashed sometimes after being subject to fire. Only some of the pieces of pottery were later selected for deposition. In the Champagne plain, amphorae were only found in broken form even if other pots were complete. The amphorae sherds were not confined to graves of enclosured cemeteries but were frequently placed in the burials of enclosure ditches.

Fig. 8.32 Generalised characteristic areas of the Champagne region.

Catalauni and Remi territory suggest that the two tribes practiced similar funerary rituals, and that amongst ceramic assemblages, amphorae merited special treatment.

Even in cemeteries which did not contain amphorae sherds, the broken pottery rite prevailed, perhaps pointing to a fear of the dead. The finality of the cremation pyre and the ‘killing’ of personal possessions was emphasised by the selection of bones and pots from the cremation scene, preventing a resurrection from the dead. Mike Parker Pearson details an example of nineteenth century Americans placing broken pots on graves to ensure the dead did not return (1999: 10). Few cemeteries were situated close to a settlement and it is this isolation from the living community, the cemetery strongly defined by the enclosure ditch and the destruction of goods and bodies placed therein which emphasise the fear experienced in contemplation not of death, but of the dead.

Fig 8.32 gives a simple overview of the physical regions superimposed over tribal territories. It shows that the correspondence between these regional divisions and the occurrence of amphora related depositions cannot be overlooked. It is also apparent from the cluster of ‘rich’ burials and finds in a prosperous oppida zone and the lack of similar evidence in the south east and west, that there existed what Haselgrove has termed an ‘overt wealth distinction’ (1987: 106). It is strongly suggested that only certain members of society were selected for burial, with most cemeteries containing fewer than 20 graves (Roymans 1990: 222). The small number of burials in proportion to projected population figures marks out each burial as special. At two of the cemeteries where amphorae sherds have been found there are strong indications of human sacrifice. At Acy-Romance pits containing human sacrifices appear in

Amphorae sherds often acted as ritual markers. Hearths, postholes, human sacrifices and scatters of pottery, often with amphorae inclusions, are some of the features of the Champagne cemeteries which hint at ritual activity. 160

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Cemeteries were often abandoned and then reused, and Parker Pearson suggests that when population shifts occurred, people had to return to an ancestrally designated burial ground to perform burial rites.(1999). This is a more understandable explanation than one of new populations with no ties and past traditions. It is safe to suggest that apart from the obvious function of interment, the need for a ritual arena was satisfied by Late Iron Age cemeteries. We are not permitted to know the logic which sustained ritual performances, but appeasement and contract to supernatural gods were likely influences. The more complicated was the arrangement of the cemetery enclosure and its internal features, the greater was the variety of ritual practiced there. It is with conviction that the Champagne cemeteries are offered as an example of regional practice where preference and selection are operative words. Ritual behaviour gradually evolved in enclosured cemeteries, taking little account of outside influences. The special treatment of pots, and in particular amphorae, is as not yet understood, but is eminently worthy of further study. Far from being mundane artefacts in non-élite burials, amphorae sherds are potentially an unexplored path to greater understanding of cultural contexts at the end of the Iron Age.

161

162 Normée 1 Normée 2 Normée 3 Normée 4 Normée 5 Normée 6 Normée 7 Normée 8 Normée 9 Normée 10 Normée 11 Normée 12 Normée 13 Normée 14 Normée 15 Normée 16 Normée 17 Normée 18 Normée 19 Normée 20 Normée 21 Normée 22 Normée 23 Normée24 Normée 25 Normée 26 Normée 27 Normée 28 Normée 29 Normée 30 Normée 31 Normée 32

Table 8.1 Seriation Table: Normée Iron Age Cemetery

Inhumation Cremation Adult Child Male Female Bronze bracelet Bronze fibula Iron fibula Iron ring Iron axe-head Lignite bracelet Amber bead Chainette Iron bracelet Black jet bracelet Bronze ring Lance head Sword Suspension chain Shield Glass bead Bronze neck collar Sheath Gallo-Roman black dish/ dishes Gallo-Belgic pottery fragments Amphora Burnt bones Socketed axe Pottery fragments Tiberian coin Large vase- broken Iron nails/ studs Black lustre vase/ wares Gallic coin Lid Jug/ flagon fragments Complete dishes Dolium fragments Vase used as a container Loose cremation remains Sacrificial knife Painted vase Catalauni coin Remi coin bottle Neronian coin Bent iron spike Hone stone Pig teeth Blue glass bracelet Iron object Sheep bone Samian ware Large stone

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

163 Normée 33 Normée 34 Normée 35 Normée 36 Normée 37 Normée 38 Normée 38 Normée 39 Normée 40 Normée 41 Normée 42 Normée 43 Normée 44 Normée 45 Normée 46 Normée 47 Normée 48 Normée 49 Normée 50 Normée 51 Normée 52 Normée 53 Normée 54 Normée 55 Normée 56 Normée 57 Normée 58 Normée 59 Normée 60 Normée 61 Normée 62 Normée 63 Normée 64 Normée 65 Normée 66 Inhumation Cremation Adult Child Male Female Bronze bracelet Bronze fibula Iron fibula Iron ring Iron axe-head Lignite bracelet Amber bead Chainette Iron bracelet Black jet bracelet Bronze ring Lance head Sword Suspension chain Shield Glass bead Bronze neck collar Sheath Gallo-Roman black dish/ dishes Gallo-Belgic pottery fragments Amphora Burnt bones Socketed axe Pottery fragments Tiberian coin Large vase- broken Iron nails/ studs Black lustre vase/ wares Gallic coin Lid Jug/ flagon fragments Complete dishes Dolium fragments Vase used as a container Loose cremation remains Sacrificial knife Painted vase Catalauni coin Remi coin bottle Neronian coin Bent iron spike Hone stone Pig teeth Blue glass bracelet Iron object Sheep bone Samian ware Large stone

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

164 Normée 67 Normée 68 Normée 69 Normée 70 Normée 71 Normée 72 Normée 73 Normée 74 Normée 75 Normée 76 Normée 77 Normée 78 Normée 79 Normée 80 Normée 81 Normée 82 Normée 83 Normée 84 Normée 85 Normée 86 Normée 87 Normée 88 Normée 89 Normée 90 Normée 91 Normée 92 Normée 93 Normée 94 Normée 95 Inhumation Cremation Adult Child Male Female Bronze bracelet Bronze fibula Iron fibula Iron ring Iron axe-head Lignite bracelet Amber bead Chainette Iron bracelet Black jet bracelet Bronze ring Lance head Sword Suspension chain Shield Glass bead Bronze neck collar Sheath Gallo-Roman black dish/ dishes Gallo-Belgic pottery fragments Amphora Burnt bones Socketed axe Pottery fragments Tiberian coin Large vase- broken Iron nails/ studs Black lustre vase/ wares Gallic coin Lid Jug/ flagon fragments Complete dishes Dolium fragments Vase used as a container Loose cremation remains Sacrificial knife Painted vase Catalauni coin Remi coin bottle Neronian coin Bent iron spike Hone stone Pig teeth Blue glass bracelet Iron object Sheep bone Samian ware Large stone

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

165

11.

10.

9.

8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

Marne, France

Bouy, Le Guillardet

1st century BC- !st century AD LT IIIAugustan LT IIIAugustan

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Fère Champenoise F de C “A” Fère Champenoise

No available information

LT III

LT D1-D2

No available information

50-25 BC

Ecury-leRepos

Marne, France

Marne, France

Bouy, Chemin de Vadenay

Chalons-sur Marne

ChampagneArdennes, France

Ardennes, France

Ardennes, France

Bezannes, “Les Marsilliers”

Vieux-lesAsfeld, Tomb 3

Hannogne-SaintRemy, ‘Le Grand Chemin’

50-25 BC

LT D

Ardennes, France

Acy-Romance ‘La NoueMauroy, Tomb 7 Chateau-Porcien

Ardennes, France

Date of burial

Country and District

Tomb Name

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation in funerary enclosure.

A possible cremation.

Funerary enclosure ditch Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

No information available.

Cremation

Cremation

Burial rite

Table 8.2: Cemeteries and burials of Champagne (extracts from Table 7.1)

Type unknown.

Type. unknown

Type unknown.

1 Dr 1A

type unknown

type unknown

Dr 1

1 or more Dr 1A

1 Dr 1A

1 Dr 1B

1 type unknown

Amphora typology

No available information

Complete, large piece or sherds

1 oenochoe and an Aylesford pan.

2 oenochei

Metallic grave goods

Burnt ceramic sherds. Burnt ceramic

Stamped Gallo-Belgic wares, plates and dishes.

Ceramic fragments in cremation and enclosure ditches.

1 bowl, 4 urns.

5 painted barrel vases.

2A tripod vessel?

Large dish, fragment

Additional ceramics

Fibula, coins.

A bronze animal head, a spear head, a sword with sheath and a tripod. A bucket with bronze plaques.

Other grave goods 2 fibulae, 2 buckets

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Ceramic and metal fragments together with burnt bones. Offerings.

Burnt pig bones and other food offerings.

Burnt and ‘fresh’ pig bones.

Offerings

The exact amphorae positions are unknown.

A group of 4 cremations.

Enclosure with cremations, possibly contained pavilion structure.

Wagon elements. Described as a warrior burial.

Described as a warrior burial.

An adult aged more than 24 years.

Background information

Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970: 11 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet

Chossenot 1997:224

Fitzpatrick 1985:327

Gallia 27 p. 304 Chossenot 1968

Chossenot 1975

Fibroulet et Verbrugghe 1993

Lambot et al. 1994: 211227

Collis 1981:12, Pion & Guichard 1993:188, Lambot 1994 Collis 1981: 12, Roymans 1990:250-5

Lambot 1993: 211224

Reference

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

166

26.

25.

24.

23.

22.

21.

20.

19.

18.

17.

16.

15.

14.

13

12.

Hauvine Feneux 21 Hauvine Feneux 22 Hauvine TermeBaduad 1 Montepreux

Fère Champenoise F de C 65 Fère Champenoise F de C 74 Hallignicourt

F de C “B” Fère Champenoise F de C “C” Fère Champenoise F de C 6 Fère Champenoise F de C 19 Fère Champenoise F de C 24 Fère Champenoise F de C 25 Fère Champenoise F de C 26 Fère Champenoise F de C 28 Fère Champenoise F de C 41

Marne, France

Marne, France Marne, France Marne, France Last half of 1st century BC

LT IIIb

LT IIIb

LT IIIb

LT IIIAugustan

Marne, France

Marne, France

LT IIIAugustan

Augustan

Marne, France

Marne., France

LT IIIAugustan

Marne, France

Augustan

Marne, France LT IIIAugustan

LT IIIAugustan

Marne, France

Marne, France

LT IIIAugustan

LT III

Marne, France

Marne, France

LT IIIAugustan

Marne, France

Cremation/s

No available information No available information No available information

A possible cremation

Cremation

No information available.

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1

1 Dr 1

Type unknown

Type unknown burnt Type unknown

Type unknown

Inhumation

Cremation

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type. unknown

Type. unknown

Type. unknown

Type. unknown

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Inhumation

Cremation

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds. Ceramic sherds. Ceramic. sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

Burnt ceramic.

Platter fragment.

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

A vase and an urn.

A small vase.

Small vase.

sherds. Burnt ceramic sherds. Vase fragments.

Studs.

Coin.

Bracelet.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

The cemetery of 25 graves consisted of 2 enclosures surrounded by a ditch. Some cremations were placed in the ditch.

A large cemetery.

A large cemetery.

A large cemetery.

Cremation cemeteries.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

A cemetery of 5 enclosures.

Birchall 1965: 260, 312 Pion & Guichard 1993:190

Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:20 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:23 Chossenot 2000 (pers. comm.) CAG 52/ 1 :232-241 Roymans 1990:149 Roymans 1990:149 Roymans 1990:149

1970:11 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970: 11 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:10 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:22 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:22 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:22 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:23 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970:23 Brisson, Hatt & Roualet 1970 : 15

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

167

39.

38.

37.

36.

35.

34.

33.

32

31.

30.

29.

28.

27.

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 44

Normée 46

Normée 47

Normée 48

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 58

Normée 60

Marne, France

Normée 55

Normée 57

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 52

Normée 51

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 43

Normée 50

Marne, France

Normée 42

No available information

LT 111

Nero AD 54-68

Augustan

TiberianClaudian

End of LT III

Tiberian AD 14-37

No available information No available information AugustanTiberian AD 14-37

Tiberian AD 14-37

LT III

LT III

Type unknown. Type unknown.

Cremation Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Cremation

Cremation

Type unknown

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Sherds and a handle

Sherds and a handle

Sherds and a handle

Handle

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

Fragments of a small GalloBelgic vase, imitation Samian ware A large black, polished vase decorated with bands, covered with a conical lid. Part of a large jug, and 4 Gallo=-Belgic vases. Ceramic sherds.

The base of a Gallo-Belgic vase.

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

Ceramic sherds.

Metal fragments.

Metal fragments.

A coin (Nero).

A coin (Catalauni).

A Gallic coin.

Iron nails.

A coin (Tiberius).

A spear head.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

The bones were contained in the large vase.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones amongst amphora fragments.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

The amphora handle was found close to this cremation.

Brisson & Hatt 1969:33

Brisson & Hatt 1969:33 Brisson & Hatt 1969:33

Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 33

Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 32

Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 32

Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 32

Brisson & Hatt 1969:33 Brisson & Hatt 1969:33 Brisson & Hatt 1969:33 Brisson & Hatt 1969:33 Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 33 Brisson & Hatt 1969 : 32

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

168

54.

53.

52.

51.

50.

49.

48.

47.

46.

45.

44.

43.

42.

41.

40.

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 71

Normée 72

Normée 73

Normée 74

Normée 75

Normée 76

Normée 77

Marne, France

Normée 70

Marne, France

Normée 67

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 65

Normée 69

Marne, France

Normée 63

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 62

Normée 68

Marne, France

Normée 61

No available information

AugustanTiberian

Augustan

Augustan

LT III

Tiberian

Augustan

No available information No available information

No available information

No available information AugustanTiberian

AugustanTiberian

Augustan

Tiberian

Type unknown.

Cremation.

Type unknown. Type unknown.

Cremation

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Cremation.

Cremation

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Type unknown

Type unknown.

Cremation.

Cremation.

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Handle

7 fragments, (3 neck pieces).

2 fragments.

3 fragments, one a neck section.

The base of an urn.

Vase. fragments.

A vase and dolium fragments.

A vase and flagon fragments.

A vase and a goblet with fern pattern. An urn fragment.

Fragments from a large white clay flagon.

Fragments of a vase and a jug.

A Gallo-Belgic dish and some vase rims.

Ceramic sherds and fragments. Gallo-Belgic vases, dolium fragment. A dolium and flagon fragments. Ceramic fragments.

A metal object and an iron nail. 2 iron nails.

2 Gallic coins (Remi)

Burnt bones.

Burnt bone and a sheep knucklebone. Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Brisson & Hatt 1969:35 Brisson & Hatt 1969:35 Brisson & Hatt 1969:35

Brison & Hatt 1969:35

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:35

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

Burnt bones. No burnt bones.

No burnt bones.

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

Burnt bones.

A hone stone and metal fragments. Blue glass (bracelet).

Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:34 Brisson & Hatt 1969:34

Burnt bones.

Burnt bones.

Metal fragments.

2 iron nails.

Burnt bones.

A metal fragment.

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

169

66.

65.

64.

63.

62.

61.

60.

59.

58.

57.

56.

55.

Marne, France

Prunay II, 18

Marne, France

Marne, France

Prunay II, 5

Prunay II, 34

Marne, France

Marne, France

Pommacle, Montève

Prunay II, 3

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 93

Normée 92

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 82

Normée 83

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Normée 81

Normée 80

Normée 79

No available information

No available information

Augustan

Augustan

No available information No available information LT III

TiberianClaudian

AugustanTiberian

Augustan

Augustan

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Red!

Type unknown

Red!

Type unknown

1 Dr 1B

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown

Type unknown.

Type unknown.

Base

Half amphora

3 fragments nearby.

Vases and a small jar.

A large jar and a vase and a platter.

12 vases (two painted).

Ceramic fragments.

Ceramic fragments.

Fragments of tiles, a black cooking pot and an ovoid vase. 2 ovoid-bodied vases, a jug and fragments of 2 dishes.

Ceramic fragments, and goblet with fern decoration. Plate fragments.

Vase fragments.

A small white glass ring.

2 fibulae, studs bronze coin.

3 axes, 2 buckets, ladle, hone stone, piece of harness.

3 iron studs.

A stud.

Burnt bones.

Bry & Fromols 1938:154

Bry & Fromols 1938:154

Burnt bones.

Bry & Fromols 1938:154

Brisson & Hatt 1969: 35 Brisson & Hatt 1969: 36 Chossenot 1997: 355

Brisson & Hatt 1969:31

Bry & Fromols 1938:154

The burial was protected by a cabin structure.

The cremation remains and dish fragment were contained in a large vase which was covered by a dish.

No burnt bones.

Brisson & Hatt 1969: 35 Brisson & Hatt 1969:35

Brisson & Hatt 1969:35

Burnt bones in vases.

Burnt bones in a jar.

Burnt bones

Burnt bones.

Brisson & Hatt 1969:35

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

170

73.

72.

71.

70.

69.

68.

67.

ChampagneArdennes, France ChampagneArdennes, France

CharlevilleMezieres

Saint Germainmont

ChampagneArdennes, France ChampagneArdennes, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

Marne, France

AcyRomance “La Croisette” BagnogneRecouvrance

Sommesous

Prunay II, 55

Prunay II, 53

No available information. No available information. Cremation

LT D 50-25 BC

Cremation

Funerary enclosure ditches

Cremation

Cremation

LT D

LT D

Augustan

Augustan AD 10?

No amphorae.

No amphorae.

No amphorae.

No amphorae.

Type unknown

1 Dr 1 B

Dr 1 B or Dr 2-4

Fragments

Base

Fragments of collar

An oenochoe and an Aylesford pan.

An oenochoe.

Oenochoe

Ceramic?

Vase.

2 swords (1 bent), 1 sheath, beads.

A bucket, fibulae, and glass. A sword.

A fibula and some potin coins (Catalauni).

A fibula.

Burnt bones.

The amphora was stamped B.C.A. twice (Fitzpatrick 1985).

Pion & Guichard 1993:188 Collis 1981: 12 Pion & Guichard 1993:188

Pion & Guichard 1993:187 Pion & Guichard 1993

Guillier 1991

Bry & Fromols 1938:154

Bry and Fromols 1938:154

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

CHAPTER 9

Pits Containing Amphorae 9.1 Introduction: The justification for investigating pits

effectiveness of deducing parallels in a comparative study of amphora burials.

Across Gaul in the last two centuries BC cremation was the dominant rite, but regional practices pervaded and these affected tomb structure and layout, choice of grave goods, and graveside mourning. The Gallic burials of chapters 7 and 8 are examples of tombs associated with amphorae or symposium vessels. Elaborate chamber tombs, in northern, mid Gaul and Britain contained native ceramic wares, elements of the Celtic hearth, and luxury Mediterranean imports. These were élite burials.

The persistent changes in theorisation, as to whether the pits should be regarded as funerary, or non-funerary depositions, overshadows the fact that the pits form a valuable body of evidence. To some extent this is an effort to take a fresh look at an old knotty problem, but unlike the Champagne cemeteries, which are the subject of ongoing studies, pits are not currently part of intensive research. There is an inherent confusion in the interpretation relating to the pits, which makes the study problematical but intriguing.

In the funerary enclosures of Champagne simple graves contained fragmented goods. In the final century BC and the first century AD, sherds of Italian wine amphorae were ritually deposited in certain of these cemeteries. In each instance the amphora burials were a reflection of ritual practices developed by a particular community.

9.2 The ritual characteristics of pits The function of pits which are the subject of this chapter is questionable, but it is proposed that they are a manifestation of ritual, and possibly ritual feasting. The pits were categorised as ritual ‘funerary’ pits, in the 19th century by Abbé F. Baudry and this term was immediately seen to be contentious (Fouet 1958: 119). Jane Webster has painstakingly attempted to reduce the number of ‘Celtic’ pits granted ‘special’ status, reasoning that storage or rubbish pits did not constitute ritual (1997:134). She suggested that the pits of spectacular dimension which contained an impressive range and quantity of material goods were unlikely to be domestic rubbish deposits, but were ritual pits.

This is essentially a study of burial practices, but not just any burial practices. It is specifically an investigation into amphora burials in relation to the Mediterranean symposium and feasting ritual. The so-called ‘funerary’ pits, which are particularly numerous in the Toulouse region, are depositions which often contained vast quantities of amphorae. However, in order to justify inclusion the pits have to meet certain conditions: 1) 2)

3) 4)

The pit should display ritual characteristics. The pits should have some connection with funerary practices which enable interpretative understanding of burial archaeology in Late Iron Age Gaul. The pits should evidence symbolism in the deposition of amphorae or symposium wares. The pits should be seen as a phenomenon of the Late Iron Age which enables comment on social structure and feasting behaviour in relation to burial practices.

Spectacular dimension and impressive range and quantity of material goods recall the criteria of élite burial (7.5, p. 164). This is not the first time that analogies have been drawn between pits and rich amphora burials. In his study of pit A 19 Paris, Sénat, Matthieu Poux compares the deposition with rich tombs from Goeblingen-Nospelt, Fléré-la-Rivière and Welwyn Garden City (2000:139). Reminiscent of the ceremony that would have surrounded these burials, it is extremely tempting to suggest that the pits were also created during ritual procedures. 9.2.1 Dimension, construction and internal arrangement

The first three conditions will be considered by reviewing the material evidence of Late Iron Age pits. The fourth proviso will result from the summary of this evidence.

The square-cut pits, sometimes lined with stone or wood, are particularly numerous in the Toulouse area. Their occurrence in clustered groups suggests a ritual function. At Paris, Sénat, the pit studied by Poux (2000) was one of 20 such pits, and at Vieille Toulouse, more than 50 pits were found in close proximity. The pits at VieilleToulouse were just one of a number of such groupings found in the immediate vicinity of the emporium of Tolosa. There were also more than 50 pits on the plateau of La Planho, nine at Esterac, and more than 50 at SaintRoch. M. Labrousse draws attention to the earlier

9.1.1 Problems of approach Many of the reports relating to Champagne burials were considered as outdated, and similarly accounts of pits may be more than twenty years old. While the documentary evidence includes a wealth of high quality stratigraphical drawings, in-depth quantitative bone studies or vessel typologies are rarer. This reduces the 171

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN “Champs d’Urnes” tradition, from which the funerary pit may have retained the characteristic grouping (1968 215).

three had been broken on impact. A middle layer contained a further seven vases, four of which were placed in the corners of the pit, while the third layer contained five vases, four of these again occupying a corner position. Covering the vases, 40 centimetres of pebbles included a few sherds of pottery and just one coin. A mere 10 centrimetres of sandy yellow soil separated the pebbles from a layer of complete amphorae. Among the amphorae were fragments of bone, metal and pottery. Above this was a layer of burnt bone, carbon, metal and pottery fragments, and the pit was filled in to almost ground level by another layer of complete amphorae (Vidal 1978: 405-7). It can be seen that the layers varied in depth and composition.

The multi-period cemetery of Saint-Roch contained 150 cremation tombs, interspersed with funerary pits, ranging between four and six metres in depth, which date from the last two centuries BC (Labrousse 1968: 62). The pits of Esterac appear to be the most ancient of the Toulouse pits, dating from the last two centuries BC, which is relatively early for this phenomenon. The incidence of pits increased in the Roman era, but by the middle of the 3rd century AD, activity in pit areas ceased (Petit 1989: 133). The pits of Vieille-Toulouse were excavated in a square format, and were straight-sided to a depth of between three and 17 metres, while those of Toulouse, Saint Roch, again square-cut, were slightly shallower at between two and eight metres deep. Pit XXXV, Vieille-Toulouse was dug to a depth of more than 5 metres (Gallia 1978: 411). The pits at Agen are between 2.50 and 3.75 metres deep (Petit 1988: 131). Pit 9 at d’Esterac, Toulouse was more than 7 metres deep, so it can be seen that most pits were more than two metres deep, but few were more than 10 metres in depth. The pit at Sénat, 7 metres deep, differed in that it was circular in plan.

Importance was attached to corners and this motif has already been encountered in the burials at Arras, Primelles and Saint Germainmont, where amphorae occupied corner positions. This may have been to achieve an element of symmetry, or perhaps to subdue superstitions of evil hiding in corners. Cremations were placed in the corners formed by enclosure ditches of Fère-Champenoise and Normée.

The walls of the pits were often strengthened with a stone or occasionally wood lining. The pits of Agen were consistently stone-lined, as were those of Bliesbruck and Limoges (Petit 1988: 1310), while wood linings were known from several of the Toulouse pits (Vidal 1984: 103-114). The material was deposited in a specific order with different levels of material perceptibly obvious, and this would also seem to negate the possibility that these were domestic rubbish pits, randomly filled. The base of the pit was sometimes lined with a layer of sand or stones on which complete vessels were placed. At the base of Pit 9 at d’Esterac, Toulouse a base of compact earth was a platform for of offerings (Vidal 1991:189). In pit 41, Saint-Roch a layer of river pebbles and sand 20 cm. thick was covered with a scattering of minute fragments of pottery. These provided the surface on which was placed an upright dish containing an offering. Fig. 9.1 Pit 10, Saint-Roch, Toulouse (after Vidal 1972: 134).

The offering vessels at the base of pits are more likely to have been retrieved intact than the vessels of any other level. This level was sealed by a layer of packed earth, which formed an insulating barrier between the vessels which may have contained cremations and the offerings of the superior ‘libation’ levels.

Placed on the compacted sandy foundation layer of pit 9 Esterac, Toulouse, an iron helmet occupied a corner position. In the opposite corner was a situla. Between the two prestige items was placed an oenochoe. The corner position was important, but an additional intent to express symbolism was in the placing of three status vessels. The meaningful symbolism of ‘three’ not been overlooked by Vidal, who is confident that this had ritual overtones (1991:169). He explains that offerings comprising vases, some metal or wooden vessels, jewellery, weapons, amphorae and millstones, were placed on or near the base of pits, usually in a triangular

In pit 41, Saint-Roch the deposition material was composed of ordered layers, each layer exhibiting a marked character. The offering level was covered by 10 centimetres of sand, above which were three layers of vases interspersed with sand. The first layer contained 12 vases, of which nine were complete and the remaining 172

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE deposition; “selon une disposition presque toujours triangulaire” (1991: 169). Labrousse also referred to the frequent deposition in threes, “déposés par trois ou par multiples par trois” (1968: 226). The vessels might be placed upright or horizontal and in some cases buckets or vases were deliberately placed upside-down. In modern times the placing of a horseshoe up-side-down signifies that luck will run out. Although the meanings of the arrangement of status vessels in pits, there does seem to be a possibility that superstition affected actions.

amphorae, whole vases and pieces of rotary millstones, interspersed with intentionally broken pottery and cow horns. In the upper part of this level were five amphorae which had been decollared in antiquity, more millstones, pottery fragments and animal bones. The final two upper levels were composed of more fragmentary pieces of amphorae, animal bones and jewellery fragments (Fouet 1958: 115-145). Pit XIX, Vieille-Toulouse was 6.15 metres deep and was composed of six layers. The second level above the base contained a dipper and a coin. These were both placed against a pit wall. Occupying a central position was an oil lamp and against the opposite wall five Italian oenochoe lay horizontally side by side. (Vidal 1991: 176).

Labrousse believes that not only was significance attached to the placement of complete items, but that there was intentional separation of layers containing broken elements from those containing complete vessels, and occasional ‘lone’ items were also significant (ibid).

It is noticeable that most of the status items were placed in the deepest levels of the pit. If the pit is thought of as a chthonic route to the gods, the deepest level is obviously the nearest to the divinities.

Fig. 9.2 Pit 9, Esterac, Toulouse (after Vidal 198 : 49).

9.2.2 Pit contents

Fig. 9.3 Pit XI, Vieille-Toulouse (After Muller 1970-3, in Vidal 1991: 171).

The combination of mundane and élite objects seen at pit 41, Agen is typical of the range of items found in other ritual pits (Boudet 1996: 54-5). Funerary pit 1, VieilleToulouse contained seven different layers of deposition. The base level was more than five metres below ground level and featured a mixture of carbon, amphorae and ceramic fragments. Arranged on this surface in the east corner of the pit was the handle of a situla, part of a bucket, vases and a flagon, carbon and pieces of burnt bone. In this case not all of the corners were used, as the material occupied just one corner, but the arrangement still showed deliberation rather than a random scattering of goods. Above this a layer of sandy soil, containing no artefactual material, was replaced by a layer of complete

In pit XI Vieille-Toulouse three levels could be clearly defined. The base level comprised amphorae sherds and elements of a wooden bucket, on which the “principal deposit” of two oenochoes and a vase were lying horizontally against a wall (Vidal 1991:179). These three items reinforced the symbolism of the triad grouping, but were also rich items arranged at the base of the pit in the area in sacred space. Goods reserved for this purpose were status items rather than local domestic wares, which featured more often in the upper pit levels. In the middle of this group was scattered a a broken flagon and vase, and another single complete vase was placed against the pit wall.

173

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Pit XVI, Toulouse at a depth of 11.30 metres, contained three situlae placed in separate levels. These were prestige items, but each was also accompanied by other rich goods, a helmet, an oenochoe, a complete vase and bronze rings. The lowest seven levels in this pit each contained a a few rich items, in contrast to the layer above which contained a mass of small items of jewellery, coins, glass beads, vegetable matter and one complete amphora placed in an upright position. The smaller ceramic and metallic fragments were commonly found in the topmost levels.

a tendency that marks out the difference between pits and burials, where helmets rarely featured. Bronze helmets of the ‘Coolus’ jockey type were found at Agen, Rodez and Vieille-Toulouse. These helmets dated from the 3rd to the 1st centuries BC and were probably made for the Roman army in the pre- and post-conquest years by Celtic armourers (Wilcox and Treviño 2000: 65). Animal bones Petit groups the artefactual depositions into two categories: those “carefully deposited” or placed in a pattern and those “thrown in at random” (1988: 234). The objects in the first carefully-placed category were the luxury items mentioned above, and also included some bones These tended to be non meat-bearing bones, such as skulls and shoulder blades. The second randomlythrown category comprised ceramic sherds and bone fragments, of which the bones might show traces of cutting, indicating meal remnants. The bones were rarely burnt. As bones therefore could appear in both categories, to be categorised as feasting debris, the bones would need to appear in deposition levels containing fragmentary materials, thrown into the pit at random.

Ceramic material All of the pits exhibited a mixture of indigenous goods and imported wares. At Vieille-Toulouse, pit 1 contained indigenous pottery types, notably high forms and combed vases (Fouet 1958: 127). From the sherds it was possible to recognise the remains of 30 different vases, but of these only six could have been complete when thrown into the pit. The number of combed vases and more rarely painted vases are typical of those found on oppida sites, and near the Mediterranean shores of Gaul in LT III. Labrousse describes the combed pots from Toulouse as being a hand-crafted native ware, often in the form of a shallow ‘footless’ dish (1968). Italian imports were also evident. Campanian wares, Samian vessels and pouring vessels were found in many pits.

The numerous Bliesbruck pits rarely contained amphorae. Although only one pit here was fully analysed, a general summary states that 90-95% of bones came from domestic animals and often showed signs of cutting (Petit 1989: 232). This evidence at first seems to auger well for a feasting interpretation, but further evidence suggests that few bones were meat- bearing cuts, (as many as 14 cow horns were found in pits).

The pottery from pit 41 at Agen was a similar mixture of local settlement wares and imported amphorae and oenochoe. Indigenous pottery was more common than imported wares, and high forms of vase were favoured. The high form of vase, often featured in ritual pit contexts, is reminiscent of the popularity of similar high vase forms found in the Champagne cemeteries, and particularly associated with a funerary role. At Bliesbruck the sherds of pots showed “clean breaks” that must have occurred immediately before deposition. This is complimentary to a theory of the sweeping up of remains of ritual feasting (Petit 1988:232).

In pit no. 10, Saint Roch, there were 1,210 pieces of animal bone, of which over a third were pig bones. Domestic animal bones outweighed wild species, and sheep bones accounted for almost a quarter of the total amount, but cattle bones were fewer; dog bones in this case were as plentiful as the cattle bones, but these did not represent complete skeletons. This situation was echoed in pit 27, Toulouse, where of 214 bone fragments 95% came from domestic animals. Pig bones accounted for half of the domestic bones, and sheep bones the next largest amount. There were a few more cattle bones than dog bones (Vidal 1973: 87).

Millstones In Vieille-Toulouse the presence of millstones in pits is a reference to the customs of the Bronze Age and earlier, when stones were placed in tombs (Fouet 1958: 121). Six complete mill-stones were found, along with part of a seventh. The handmill in pit I, Vieille-Toulouse covered a bronze situla and burnt human bone. Millstones are less common in burials.

9.3 Funerary practices

Weapons

The combination of impressive structure, the arrangment of items within the pit and the deposition of status goods indicates that these were indeed ritual pits, but were they also funerary pits?

Élite burials were a product of a hierarchical warrior society, and commonly contained weapons, often swords, shield bosses and lance heads. The pits did contain weaponry, but a different range. By far the most common military element in the pits was the helmet. This again is

The period of use is consistent with that of amphora burials. Owing to the obvious correlation between the range of indigenous and imported goods appearing in burials and ‘ritual’ pits, and the suggestion of funerary role for some of the ritual pits, it seems applicable to 174

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE investigate the possibility of a parallel feasting tradition. Obviously to show that the pits were formed as part of funerary ceremony human remains should be found. Some pits it seemed did contain human skeletal material, and some contained cremated material which might be human or animal.

showed great similarity to assemblages of Late Iron Age amphora burials. The pits at Cavaillon date from the 4th to 3rd centuries BC and correspond to Greek foundations, containing Massiliote amphorae and Attic wares (Dumoulin 1965: 460).

Early theories of ‘funerary pits’ were discredited when it was claimed that a lack of human remains invalidated the ‘funerary’ description. However, since it appears that 30% of the Toulouse pits did in fact contain cremated human bone a reappraisal seems to be in order (Vidal 1989: 137).

The pits of Toulouse held great quantities of the transport vessels in complete and sherd form. At Vieille-Toulouse, pit I alone produced 50-60 amphorae, of which nearly all were of the Dressel 1 classification (Fouet 1958: 121). Dressel 1 amphorae which provide key dating evidence, were found in many of the pits, which led M. Vidal to assume they were used in the last two centuries BC (Vidal 1989: 137). Some of the amphorae in the pits were clearly produced many years before the creation of the pits, for example the Greco-Italic amphora found in pit 48, Vieille-Toulouse which dates to the 2nd quarter of the 2nd century BC. This is reminiscent of some of the amphora burials which contained vessel typologies that were no longer in current circulation, and suggested the importance of maintaining tradtional links with the past.

Pit I at Vieille-Toulouse contained carbonised human bone. (Vidal 1991: 171) This pit was only 3.60 metres deep. A layer of wood carbon provided a base on which was placed a bronze situla, in the centre of the pit but upside down. Around the situla, burnt human bones were collected, and this collection was further marked out by a triangular arrangement of two Gallic vases and an Italic flagon. Above this a hand mill covered the central elements of the arrangement. A layer of soil separated the cremated bones from a layer of complete vases and amphorae which were less carefully placed.

The offering level of the pits at Rodez was paved with a layer of decollared Dressel 1A amphorae and burnt animal bones (Gruat & Vidal 1992: 188). In the important base of the pit, the amphorae were usually in sherd form and were not restricted to the ‘prestigious’ corner positions. Once the prime offering had been sealed by a layer of soil, intact vessels were deposited. Frequently, amphorae were used in quantity to make up the bulk of different layers. Complete amphorae or decollared amphorae were often reserved in a separate level from those containing amphora sherds. At VieilleToulouse complete pots, (not amphorae), were found in the bottom of the pits, covered by a layer of amphorae, usually with the neck broken off or smashed (Petit 1988: 236).

The identifiable remains of two adults and four children were recovered from Pit LXII, Vieille-Toulouse, and this is one of the rare cases in which the age and sex of the deceased are known (Vidal 1989: 139). The bones appear to have been deposited after cremation. At Agen, apart from the amphorae, there were skulls of calves, a small mammal, bird and fish bones, but no human remains (Boudet 1992: 11). At the pit base was a layer of ‘offerings’, organised around a vase, a wooden box, a bronze helmet, and a Kelheim type oenochoe. Above this level, a jumble of Dressel 1a wine amphorae had been thrown in with no attempt at arrangement. A nearby ditch contained similar material, but with no human skeletal material (ibid 72).

Decollared amphorae were a consistent feature, appearing not only at Toulouse, but also at Agen Z1 (Boudet 1992: 27). In some cases, such as pit 2, Toulouse, it can be seen that the amphorae neck was broken with the impact of deposition, but in other cases this is clearly not so, as the collar had been removed before the amphora was thrown into the pit (Petit 1988: II plate 245). There was obviously a significance or choice involved here.

Petit believes that where human skeletal material it is recovered this is usually explained in sacrificial terms. Human sacrifices were evidenced at Argenton-surCreuse, possibly Paris, Sénat, Acy-Romance and FèreChampenoise. (1989: 235). 9.4 Amphorae and symposium wares

Labrousse terms the upper levels of the pits “les couches libatoires”, clearly regarding these levels as representative of wine poured as an offering to the gods, hence libations. “It seems that the preponderance of wine amphorae at the bottom of pit A19 (Paris, Senat) is not accidental, but a result of a deliberate act of deposition with obvious connections with the symbolism of wine and drinking” (Poux 2000: 159).

On the plateau of La Planho the debris of many amphorae was found; the quantity of sherds was so great, that in the 18th century land clearing operations for vine planting involved the removal of 3,000 cart loads of amphorae sherds (Labrousse 1968: 93). Many pits contained no amphorae, but a study of those that do, reveals that the pits also contained a range of goods that was impressive in quality and quantity and 175

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN The wooden bucket of pit XXVI, Vieille-Toulouse was found together with other rich items. The pit was very deep (17.10 metres) and was composed of nine levels. The bucket was on the first level above the base level at a depth of 15.40 metres. The depth had not prevented the bucket from being placed vertically and this was obviously a chosen position. The bucket could not have been randomly thrown into the pit. Vidal notes a significance in the deposition of items in threes; he also feels that the upright position of the bucket at this low level is related to the presence of funerary material (1976: 167, 172). Vidal’s instinct tells him that the position in the pit is the important factor and that upright buckets in lower levels relate to a cremation role, whereas buckets in upper levels possibly relate to wine drinking and feasting. Fig. 9.4 The six bronze situlae, from pit XXIII, VieilleToulouse (after Vidal 1991: 179).

9.5 The evidence for ritual, funerary practices and amphora symbolism

The uppermost levels were most likely to contain large numbers of amphorae fragments, and this may be as a result of feasting debris swept into the shaft before the pit was finally closed.

Having considered the material evidence from Gallic pits of the Late iron Age, it is possible to fulfill the first three conditions for justification of examination.

9.4.1 Bronze vessels

9.5.1 Ritual

Numerous bronze vessels were found in the pits which is indicative of the importance attached to these pits. The items are similar to bronze vessels found in élite burials, although the pits contain a larger percentage of bronze situlae and fewer dippers and strainers. A bronze strainer from Rodez and a dipper pit XIX, Vieille-Toulouse are rare examples of these utensils.

The quantity and quality of goods contained marked out the pits as being ritual rather than rubbish pits. Many of the items were imported wine-related artefacts. Tchernia reports that “the sites of Toulouse and Vieille-Toulouse certainly contain Gaul’s richest deposits of amphorae”. Ever since the seventeenth century the archaeologists of Toulouse have been maintaining that in the areas containing necropolises, the burial pits are full of the remains of amphorae; “you come across so many intact urns that they make the ground infertile” (1983: 90).

The bronze vessels often occupied the important corner spaces at the pit base, as seen by the Kelheim jug and situla which were deposited in the rich pit no. 9 at Esterac (Feugère & Rolley 1991: 169-191). Pit XVI, VieilleToulouse contained a bronze cauldron and three bronze situla, while pit XXIII contained the incredible number of six situlae. The six Italian situlae were found together with three helmets, a spearhead, a complete lamp and broken vases. Unfortunately the positions that the furnishings occupied was not recorded as during the excavation it was realised that the pit was unstable and mechanical aid was enlisted destroying the evidence before it could be recorded. In this pit the Italian imports outnumbered the local artefacts.

The pits also lacked any of the random deposits that were associated with rubbish pits. Vidal describes the typical pit as an “organised grave deposit of ceramic or metallic vases, sometimes weapons and in 30% burnt human bones” (Vidal 1989:137). The operative word here is ‘organised’, as regardless of quantity of items, pits layers were always discernible. In the pits any human remains, together with complete prestige items were placed in sacred space at the base of the pit. These were segregated from the upper offering levels, the division marked with a layer of sterile soil. The separating of human remains and worldly goods was paralleled in the high status burial at Welwyn Garden City, where a wooden studded door screened the cremation ashes from the worldlier grave goods. Perhaps this symbolised the rite of passage from the world of the living to the Otherworld.

Buckets were found in conjunction with other status items. There was merging of two cultures as the Italian bronze situla was found in the same contexts as wooden banded Celtic buckets. Iron situlae were present in three of the Vielle-Toulouse pits, one of the Toulouse pits and one at Esterac.

It was the upper levels, comprising complete and sherd amphorae, pottery fragments and burnt bone, that were most inclined to suggest that a feast had been part of the 176

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE deposition ceremony. Ritual activity around the pit was indicated by goods being thrown into the pit after the first layers of offerings had been carefully positioned. The elements in the upper levels are consistent with feasting debris. Small bones, pottery fragments and vast quantities of amphora sherds in the final layers to be added, are indicative of feasting.

oppidum boundary, close to other settlement activities and at Limoges pits were also close to a settlement area. A position within or near the settlement boundaries indicates that the local community maintained an interest in the pits beyond their initial construction. Vidal suggests this indicated a close correlation between the world of the living and the rites associated with the world of the dead (1992: 33-4). There was a definite relationship between existing cemeteries and funerary pits.

Mythic Significance Jane Webster proposes a relationship between the archaeology of pits and mythic traditions, whilst at the same time advising that these should be treated with caution as too much weight is placed on ‘text-led assumptions’ (1997:134).

Toulouse was the place where the independent Gauls came with their barrels in order to collect wine brought there by the Romans in amphorae, and the exceptional concentration of discarded amphorae is the result of the filling in of ‘burial pits’ with the empty vessels (Tchernia 1983: 94). To the north of Toulouse, on the frontier with independent Gaul, barrels were used by the inhabitants of Cahors (BG. VIII 42.1).

In Irish literature, there are several accounts in which pits occur as entrances to the Otherworld (ibid 1997: 140). Dermot jumps into a well with a wizard, and finds the Otherworld at the base (Pursuit of the Gilia Decair, ibid 140). Wells are the setting for magical events. In Da Dergas Hostel a woman washes her hair by the well, and in the Battle of Maige Tuired, warriors are revived in a well over which spells were castAncient and wide-spread beliefs related to the gods of Underworld. In the story of a journey to see the dead Tiresias, Odysseus secured a safe return by digging a pit and pouring a libation (ibid 1997:1390).

Sacrifice is a major possibility to be considered as a function of the pits, for while only 30% are said to include human skeletal material, human corpses with tied hands or skulls of decapitated victims are known from pits, for example pit XXXIX, Vieille-Toulouse (Gallia 1981: 485). Petit believes that the interpretation of a sacrificial pit at Argenton-sur-Creuse is reliable (1989: 233). The pit was within a sanctuary enclosure. With the sacrificial victim were domestic animals and a dog. This recalls Caesar’s description of Gallic funerals whereby “they cast into the fire all things, including living creatures, which they suppose to have been dear to them when alive” (BG VI.19 ). Of the pits examined by Petit (1988: 232), there is a very obvious link with dogs, as many contain dog bones, in particular skulls. Eleven of the Bliesbruck pits contained dog bones. Webster notes the frequency of dogs in wells and pits but on this occasion advises caution in concluding the mythic links between dogs and sacred significance, especially the divine, regarding this as ‘nebulous Celticism’ (1997:138)

The deep pits and shafts as channels provided direct communication with the gods of the Underworld. The ancient Greeks regularly offered wine to the gods and wine serving vessels and amphorae are the obvious choice to be cast into pits in ritualistic chthonic offerings to deities. This also adapts to Hatt’s interpretation of votive pits; “These pits were in fact sacrificial pits whose function was to provide a means of communication between men and the subterranean powers which protected the dead and dispensed riches to men” (1970: 82). The accompaniment of animal bones could then be seen as part of the same offering ritual, and even the occasional human remains could be explained as sacrificial offerings. 9.5.2 Funerary practices

Surrounding the surface of the pit at Argenton-sur-Creuse were numerous bones, indicative of a feast enjoyed by a large number of people (Petit 1989:133). The small pots placed in the pit were representative of offerings and wine amphorae had been swept into the pit after libations.

The prime evidence of funerary practices would be the presence of human bone, but this is not always forthcoming. However there are additional clues to that point to the likelihood of burial associations.

9.5.3 Amphora symbolism

The pits clearly represented a communication channel with the Otherworld. The numerous pits in VieilleToulouse were never far from the centres of arenas of activity. The Romans buried their dead outside the city walls but the Gauls placed cemeteries within oppida walls. Settlements and artisanal quarters were in close proximity to ritual pits. Pit 41 at Agen was within the

As in the burial contexts, amphorae represented different forms of symbolism according to whether the vessel was complete or in sherd form, and its position in the pit. Decollared amphorae were a notable feature of the pits, and this may well indicate ritual ‘killing’, as the amphorae, were beheaded.

177

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Some of the amphorae in the pits were clearly produced many years before the creation of the pits, for example the Greco-Italic amphora found in pit 48, VieilleToulouse which dates to the 2nd quarter of the 2nd century BC. This suggests that amphorae were saved for ceremonial use, and importance was exaggerated by the antique value.

social group. It is tempting to see this large group as participating wholeheartedly in feasting as a community practice, partaking of the wine made available through prosperous trade. One of the important aspects of the amphorae burials was how the condition and number of the amphorae, and the accompanying rich effects, expressed a division between rich and poor tombs. By contrast, the pits reveal a more uniform deposit of prestige goods, which calls into question how local groups could afford to deposit so many status items in one pit, thereby taking valuable items out of circulation. Particularly evident were bronze helmets and though these allude to warrior classes, more likely to be Roman rather than Gallic.

The many sherds of amphorae may have been produced by the throwing of vessels into the pit, but this does not explain the thousands of small fragments. These appear to have been formed by ritual smashing before being thrown into the pit. 9.5.4 A comment on social structure from the evidence of pits

It seems important to declare the pits ‘Celtic’ or ‘Gallic’, in order to visualise a community striving to stay Celtic against the conquest forces, and so maintain Gallic ritual traditions. Vidal suggests the tradition of ‘funerary’ pits represented a resistance to romanisation (1976:169), while Webster notes that in Britain the “distribution coincides strikingly with the distribution of RomanoBritish temples and villas” (1997:137). Although the pits contained many Italian imports, ideology is clearly not borrowed from the Romans. The inspiration for the pits was not influenced by Roman ideology, but the conquest was a catalyst and produced a need to redefine and strengthen community traditions.

Clearly much labour was expended over a relatively short period of time to enable so many ritual pits to be constructed. This implies a concerted community effort. The pits were supposedly created in the last two centuries BC (Vidal 1989:137), and are rarely found alone. In Bliesbruck and Toulouse, the pits number several hundred. At Allones the pits and shafts were close to a Romano-Celtic temple, while at Argenton-sur-Creuse the pits appeared in a twin sanctuary site (Petit 1989:133), though most were related to areas of domestic activity. These ritual pits often appeared at the heart of settlement sites, as can be seen at Vieille-Toulouse, where the pits were found within the boundaries of the emporium of the same name, and those associated with the cemetery of Saint-Roch were situated close to the ancient settlement. The proximity to settlement is also noted at Agen, where ritual pits are contained within the oppida boundaries.

9.6 Summary

J.-P. Petit makes a case for a “sacrifice, a feast, offerings and a final cleansing of the area” (1988:235). Petit’s scenario would explain the large amount of bones found in the pits as representative of a number of people feasting together, with the feasting debris afterwards being collected together and thrown into the pit.

A lively society was behind the formation of the pits and this was likely to be a society which regularly took part in large feasts, the evidence for which is contained within the pits. The pits were constructed and used during ritual practices. There is a strong impulse to state that this was also funerary ritual, but the evidence for a consistent burial rite pertaining to the pits is unsound. There is also a temptation to view the pits as sacrificial structures and a pointer to a frequently occurring episode in Gallic society.

While the ritual function of the pits is unclear, an outstanding feature of the pits which can be easily recognised is the social effort and commitment to construction. Whereas many of the Champagne cemeteries contained few burials, and seemed to suggest use by a family or small tribal group, the number of pits and the amount of effort that would have been involved in their construction indicates the concern of a large

The amphora were undoubtedly symbolically destroyed, marking a rite of passage. Complete, altered and sherd amphorae forms were cast into the pit with other prestige wine-serving vessels and feasting almost certainly took place. Comparisons with amphorae burials can be drawn. Both phenomena existed where imported goods, especially wine and symposium items were introduced into local culture, causing changes in ritual deposition.

178

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Fig. 9.5 Map of the amphora-associated Late Iron Age pits of Gaul and Britain; numbers relate to Table 9 which follows. Key to Fig. 9.5 and Table 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Agen Allones Argentomagus, Mersans Ditch 13 Bekesbourne Bergerac Blain, Chemin des Noyes Blain, Nouvel Hopîtal Blain, Nouvelle Gendarmerie, Pit 2 Bliesbruck Cavaillon Pit 1 Cavaillon, Pit 7 Cavaillon Pit 13 Dalmai, Jouevre Lagaste, pit 1 Lectoure Montmaurin Nanterre-les-Guignons Petite-Bersac Pit1 Rennes, Rue de Dinan Pit II Rennes, Rue de Dinan Rodez, Rauch Rodez, Jardin Touzery Saint-Pavin Saint-Symphorien-les-Vannes Senat Toulouse, Esterac, pit 8

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

Toulouse, Esterac, pit 9 Toulouse, La Planho, pit I Toulouse, La Planho, pit4 Toulouse, La Planho, pit 59 Toulouse, Pit 1 St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 2, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 5, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 13, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 14, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 25, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 27, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 35, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 36, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 37, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 38, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 39, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 40, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 41, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 42, St. Roch, Toulouse, Pit 43, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 44, St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 45, St. Roch, Toulouse, Pit 46,St. Roch Pit I, Vieille- Toulouse Pit 2, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 4, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 10, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 11, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 14, Vieille Toulouse

179

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82.

Pit 16, Vieille Toulouse Pit 18, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 19, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 20, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 21, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 22, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 23, Vieille- Toulouse Pit 25, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 26, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 27, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 35, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 36, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 37, Vieille Toulouse Ditch 38, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 39, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 48 , Vieille- Toulouse Ditch 50, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 51, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 62, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 63, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 64, Vieille-Toulouse Ditch 66 Vieille-Toulouse Ditch 67 Vieille- Toulouse Pit 70, Vieille-Toulouse Pit 75, Vieille-Toulouse Vic-Fezensac Gasfabrik

180

Blain, Nouvelle Gendarmerie, Pit 2

8

Bergerac

5

Blain, Nouvel Hopîtal

Bekesbourne

4

7

Argentomagus Mersans Ditch 13

3

Blain, Chemin des Noyes

Allones

2

6

Agen

1.

Site Name

France

France

France

Aquitaine, France

England, Kent

France

France, Sarthe

France, Tarn

District

Not known.

Not known.

2nd half of 1st century AD.

GalloRoman

PreRoman

Circa 30 BC

1st-2nd century AD

Roman

Date

No available information

No available information

No available information

None specified.

2 human corpses in one pit

2 human skulls

Funerary / human bone evidence

No available information

No available information

Fragments of amphorae and the neck of a Dressel 2-4 amphora.

Amphorae

1 amphora

Italian amphorae.

Unknown typology

Amphoraenumber and typology 3 Amphorae

Type and condition unknown

Almost complete

Amphorae state/ complete or sherds

Bronze basin

Bronze wares

Fragments of local and imported pottery. A ceramic strainer. Fragments of dishes, vases, plates, bowls and goblets.

Plate, jug, dishes and a bowl.

Samian ware, d’Aco and other fragments. 5 British urns at base level, further urn containing flints. Local pottery, fine wares and Samian wares.

Vases and other fragments

Ceramic

Fragments of knives, buckets, and other metal objects. 20 Republican coins, fragments of 4 lamps.

Half of a millstone.

Bones of horse, cow, sheep, goat, fish, birds and snails.

Clay figurines.

Animal bones.

Bones and jaws of different animals and the horns of a young ox.

Deer antlers with saw marks. Horses’ teeth and bones

15 dogs’ heads, 11 cattle skulls Animal bones

Offerings

7 coins. and fragments of a lamp.

Clay figurine

Iron helmet

Other material goods

TABLE 9: PITS OF IRON AGE GAUL AND BRITAIN WHICH CONTAINED AMPHORAE

About 6.50 m. deep and 1.50 m. diameter

7.50 m. deep and 1.40 m. in diameter.

3 pits, 8 ditches and a kiln site. The pits were stone-lined and were up to 10 m. deep with a diameter of 1.60 m. The deposit was arranged in layers. 2 pits with a diameter of 50 cm. The upper portion of both pits was lined with dry stone.

4 pits and 14 ditches

The deposits were protected by stones and tiles.

Stone-lined.

Additional information

Galliou 1989: 157

Galliou 1989: 157

Galliou 1989: 157

Gallia 39 1981: 487-8

Allain, Faudet & Dupoux 1987: 108 Webster 1997: 141

Petit 1988:172

Petit 1988:171

Author

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Montmaurin

16

Dalmai, Jouevre

13

Lectoure

Cavaillon Pit 13

12

15

Cavaillon Pit 7

11

Lagaste, Pit 1

Cavaillon Pit 1

10

14

Bliesbruck

9

181

France, VieilleToulouse

France, Gers

France, Aude

France, Loire

France

France

France

Germany,

LT III

Not known.

125-70 BC

30 BC

4th-3rd century BC

4th-3rd century BC

4th-3rd century BC

Not known.

No available information

Human bones

Human bones

None specified.

None specified.

None specified.

None specified.

1 or more Massoliot, and 50-60 Dr 1A amphorae.

Dressel 1B and Pascual 1 fragments

AmphoraeDr 1A

Amphorae

Sherds of Massiliote amphorae.

A few sherds of Massiliote amphorae.

A few of the many pits contained amphorae. Unknown typology

No available information.

Pottery amongst charcoal.

Bucket, cow horn, glass bead, fibula. sacrificial knife and flesh hooks.

Situla and dipper.

3 vases.

Cow, sheep and pig bones.

Bronze fibulae.

Animal bones

Bronze coins.

Ox, sheep and (seafood) shell.

Roman oil lamps, bronze fibula, 2 ‘epingles’, iron chain and nails.

4 fibulae.

Other ceramic fragments

2 bronze jugs

‘Phocean’, Campanian and Attic wares. Local coarse wares (vases, bowls and urn fragmentstypically Hallstatt). Local pottery including cooking vessels. Imported vases, goblets and urns. Red-figure and black-glazed wares and local urns. 104 fragments of pottery.

90-95% from domestic animals. Boar tusk, horse and cow bones.

Complete vessels formed a base layer, then a sterile layer, and above this amphorae, 16 ceramic fragments and animal bones

Hundreds of pits and shafts reinforced with stone.

Gallia 16 1956 Fouet 1958: 15886

Petit 1988:184 Beyniex 1992: 76-7

Périchon 1960: 205-12 Boudet 1996: Feugère et Rolley 1991:38

Dumoulin 1965: 58-60

Dumoulin 1965: 4-29

Dumoulin 1965: 30-34

Petit 1988: 488-9

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

182

26

Toulouse, Esterac pit 8

France, HautGaronne

France, Vannes

France, Aveyron

SaintSymphorienles-Vannes

Rodez, Jardin Touzery

22

France, Aveyron

France, Paris

Rodez, Rauch

21

Senat

Pit II Rennes, Rue de Dinan

20

France, Ile-etVilaine France Ileet-Vilaine

France, Le Mans

Pi 1 Rennes, Rue de Dinan

19

France, Dordogne

France, nr. Paris

Saint-Pavin

PetiteBersac

18

23

Nanterre-lesGuignons

17

125-70 BC

LT D2b

No available information

50-0 BC

118-108 BC

Gallo Roman

GalloRoman

No

End of 2nd - to mid 1st century BC

No available information.

No available information

Human remains.

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

Human bones

No available information.

No available information

Amphora fragment used as a cover for a funerary vessel. Dr 1 1B- 300 sherds including many handles and rims.

Dr 1A amphorae.

Amphorae

Amphorae

Large quantities of Dr 1 amphorae. Amphorae fragments

No available information.

No available information

2 complete body profiles.

Nearly complete.

No available information

.

Pottery sherds included a pedestal urn, 2 urns, and a bowl.

Little pots, an urn, Samian plate, jug

Other ceramic fragments Other ceramic fragments Vases.

Complete vases.

Kelheim jug

Bronze vessels.

Campanian wares

An iron scabbard, a whetstone, 2 fibulae, a bronze Gallic coin, a bronze belt buckle, and an iron shoe nail.

Imitation Campanian wares, combed vases and Gallic vessels.

Helmets and iron knives.

Bronze objects, coins.

Bronze objects and coins.

Bent/ destroyed weapons.

Animal remains.

Skeleton of boar, skull of dog.

Animal bones.

Animal bones.

Animal bones, shells. Animal bones.

Several pits, one of which contained amphorae.

More than 1.20 m. deep.

Pits ranged between 1.50 and 2.80 deep.

5 pits

5 pits.

4m. in depth

Animal bones

Feugère & Rolley 1991:40

Galliou 1989:156

Poux 1999: 53-62

Petit 1988: 184

Gallia 26, 1966: 4167 Gallia 38 1980:469

Petit 1988:234

Galliou 1989:155

Galliou 1989:155

Petit 1988:189

Petit 1988:186

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Toulouse, La Planho, pit I

Toulouse, La Planho, pit4

Toulouse, La Planho, pit 59 Toulouse, Pit 1 St. Roch

Toulouse, Pit 2 St. Roch Toulouse, Pit 5 St. Roch

28

29

30

32

183

Toulouse Pit 36 St. Roch

39

38

37

36

35

Toulouse, Pit 13 St. Roch Toulouse Pit 14 St. Roch Toulouse Pit 25 St. Roch Toulouse Pit 27 St. Roch Toulouse Pit 35 St. Roch

34

33

31

Toulouse, Esterac, pit 9

27

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France HautGaronne

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

Not known.

Not known.

Not known.

Not known

Not known

Not known.

1st century BC

100-50 BC

Not known.

1st half of 1st century BC

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information.

No available information.

No available information.

No available information.

No available information.

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae fragments of 50-60 vessels Amphoraepossibly 30 vessels

No available information.

Several nearly complete.

No available information.

No available information.

No available information.

Almost complete.

Ceramics included painted pots.

Ceramics included painted pots

2 situlae, bronze Kelheim jug iron helmet, shield boss, lance head, fibula, bronze coins

A ceramic oenochoe.

7 Campanian vases, ceramic oenochoe

Campanian wares

Bones from wild and domestic animals. Bones from wild and domestic animals.

A lamp.

7.10 metres deep

Gallia 36 1978: 405-7

Gallia 36 1978: 405-7

Pallas XIX 1972:132

Pallas XIX 1972:132

Pallas XIX 1972:132

Pallas XIX 1972:132

Pallas XIX 1972:132

Pallas XIX 1972:132

Feugère & Rolley 1991:32 Pallas XIX 1972:132

Labrousse 1968:93

Labrousse 1968:93

Vidal Feugère & Rolley 1991: 13, 40

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Toulouse Pit 45 St. Roch

Toulouse Pit 46 St. Roch

Pit I VieilleToulouse

49

50

Toulouse Pit 42 St. Roch

45

48

Toulouse Pit 41 St. Roch

44

Toulouse Pit 44 St. Roch

Toulouse Pit 40 St. Roch

43

47

Toulouse Pit 39 St. Roch

42

Toulouse Pit 43, St. Roch

Toulouse Pit 38 St. Roch

41

46

Toulouse Pit 37 St. Roch

40

184

France, Haut Garonne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st. century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

1st century BC

No available information

No available information

Bones of 3 yr. old child in vase.

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

Amphorae

A bronze situla.

Indigenous high and combed vases.

Ceramics included painted pots.

Ceramics included painted pots.

Ceramics included painted pots.

Ceramics included painted pots.

Ceramics included painted pots.

Ceramics included painted pots.

Ceramics included painted pots

Ceramics included painted pots

Ceramics included painted pots

Ceramics included painted pots

A bronze coin.

Bones from wild and domestic animals. Bones from wild and domestic animals. Bones from wild and domestic animals. Bones from wild and domestic animals. Bones from wild and domestic animals. Bones from wild and domestic animals. Cow horn and bones from wild and domestic animals.

Bones from wild and domestic animals. Bones from wild and domestic animals. Bones from wild and domestic animals. Bones from wild and domestic animals.

Fouet 1958: 115-45

Gallia 1978: 405-7

Gallia 1978: 405-7

Gallia 1978: 405-7

Gallia 1978: 405-7

Gallia 1978: 405-7

Gallia 1978: 405-7

Gallia 36 1978: 405-7

Gallia 36 1978: 405-7

Gallia 36 1978: 4057

Gallia 36 1978: 405-7

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

185

61

60

59

Pit 19 VieilleToulouse Pit 20 VieilleToulouse Pit 21 VieilleToulouse Pit 22 VieilleToulouse

58

Pit 14 Vieille Toulouse

55

Pit 18 VieilleToulouse

Pit 11 VieilleToulouse

54

57

Pit 10 VieilleToulouse

53

Pit 16 Vieille Toulouse

Pit 4 VieilleToulouse

52

56

Pit 2 VieilleToulouse

51

France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

1st half of the 1st century BC.

Not known.

Not known

Not known

Not known

LT III

No available information

Not known

First half of 1st century BC.

1st. century BC

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

Amphorae

Amphorae

Dr1A and Dr 1B amphorae. Amphorae

Amphorae

Dr 1B amphorae.

Amphorae

Amphorae

Greco-Italian amphorae typologies equate to those from wreck of the Grand Conglué.

No available information

Amphorae

Some rims.

No available information

No available information

No available information

Some complete

Mostly complete.

No available information

Many ‘decollared’ amphorae.

Many ‘decollared’ amphorae An oenochoe.

Situlae

Oenochoe.

A dipper.

Indigenous pottery Arretine bowl by potter A. Vibius Scrafula- (10 BC), oenochoe, jewellery and coins.

Bucket, cauldron, metal helmets.

Iron situla

Bones from wild and domestic animals. Mostly domestic animal bones, poultry and wild animals (rabbit etc.).

8.20 m. deep.

6.30 m. deep.

4 m. deep.

Fouet 1958: 11545 Pallas XIX 1972:132

Feugère & Rolley 1991: Pallas XIX 1972:132

Pallas XIX 1972:132

Vidal 1976:185 and Vidal in Feugère & Rolley 1991:174

Pallas XIX 1972 Feugère & Rolley 1991:13 Pallas XIX 1972:132

Pallas XIX 1972, Feugère & Rolley 1991:172 Gallia 36 1978: 410

Fouet 1958: 115-45

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

Pit 27 VieilleToulouse

Pit 35 VieilleToulouse

Pit 36 VieilleToulouse Pit 37 Vieille Toulouse Ditch 38 VieilleToulouse Pit 39 VieilleToulouse

65

66

67

186

Ditch 50 VieilleToulouse

Pit 51 VieilleToulouse Pit 62 VieilleToulouse

72

73

74

Pit 48 VieilleToulouse

71

70

69

68

Pit 26 VieilleToulouse

Pit 23 VieilleToulouse Pit 25 VieilleToulouse

64

63

62

France, Haut Garonne France, Haut Garonne

France, Haut Garonne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne France, Haut Garonne France, Haut Garonne France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne

France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne

Not known.

Not known.

Not known.

150-125 BC

10 BC

Early 1st century BC

Not known.

After 25 BC

30-25 BC

Not known.

35-10 BC

2nd half of 2nd century BC

Not known.

No available information

No available information

No available information

Human corpsehands tied, ritual sacrifice No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

GraecoItalian with painted inscription. Amphorae

Italian Republican amphorae. Republican Italian amphorae. Pascual 1 and Imperial 1-II amphorae.

Amphorae

Italian Republican I, II and III amphorae

GraecoItalian and Repiblican I, II and III amphorae.

Benoit Republican I, II and III amphorae.

Dressel 1A and 1B amphorae. No available information

No available information

Many complete. No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

Decollared amphorae.

Nearly complete.

Many decollared amphorae.

fragments

2 situlae; one in each of 2 corners.

An iron situla.

23 indigenous vases, 5 Italian flagons

Pseudo-Italian ceramics

6 indigenous vases Italian samian ware

Arretine ceramic

Indigenous and imported. Campanian ware, oenochoe, cup, dishes and bowls. Fragments of indigenous and imported vases.

Bronze bracelets, wooden bucket, dipper

Oil lamp, coin

40 coins

8 bronze Massoliote coins

40 coins

A bronze coin (Tectosages)

2 bronze fibulae

1 bucket and a ceramic lamp.

Food offeringsox neck

Depth 12.10m.

5 m. deep Wooden chamber or box construction

Bucket typical of LT III, but bronze plaques show Roman influence Depth: 17:10 m.

4.0m. deep.

Gallia 1981:486

Gallia 1981:486

Gallia 1981:486

Vidal 1983: 23-28

Gallia 1981: 484-7 Gallia 39 1981: 4847 Gallia 1981: 485

Gallia 36 1978: 410

Gallia 36 1978: 410

Vidal 1976: 167200.

Vidal 1976 Gallia 34: 167-200

Feugère & Rolley 1991:13 Vidal 1989:138

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

187

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

Gasfabrik

Pit 63 VieilleToulouse Pit 64 VieilleToulouse Ditch 66 VieilleToulouse Ditch 67 VieilleToulouse Pit 70 VieilleToulouse Pit 75 VieilleToulouse VicFezensac

Basle, Switzerland

France, Haut Garonne France, Haut Garonne France, Haut Garonne France, Haut Garonne France, HautGaronne France, HautGaronne France, Gers

Not known

10 BCAD 10

40-30 BC

40-30 BC

Early 1st century BC

Early 1st century BC

Early 1st century BC

40-30 BC

Human bones of 8 individuals.

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

A human skull

AmphoraeDr 1, mainly sherds but some complete.

Dr1A, Dr 1B and Pascual amphorae.

Dr 1A and 1B amphorae. No available information.

Republican 1 amphorae.

No available information

Republican 1 amphorae.

Amphorae

Decollared and sherd forms.

No available information

No available information.

No available information

No available information

No available information

No available information

Vases.

Ipndigenous and imported ceramic

A coin and a helmet used as a cauldron.

A bronze. Situla. Animal remains.

Wooden branches?

8.40 m. deep

Poux 2000:132

Feugère & Rolley 1991: Feugère & Rolley 1991:10 Gallia 1991.

Gallia 1981: 487

Gallia 1981: 487

Gallia 1981:487

Gallia 1981:486

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

PART III DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

190

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

CHAPTER 10

The Final Feast Greek characters and pre-conquest coins were inscribed in Greek. The Gallic Druids also used the Greek alphabet.

10.1 Introduction: Textual and archaeological concerns Throughout the investigation attention has been paid in achieving a balance between textual and archaeological evidence. Documentary sources have frequently supplemented what has appeared to be poor archaeological evidence.

If Greek language remained part of Gallic culture, it follows that knowledge of Greek myths, the Homeric tales and feasting ideologies were unlikely to have been erased from social memory. In the Homeric warrior society the feast and the funeral were inextricably linked in the ceremony of mourning. Funerary ritual also provided a model for later social practices and this did not go unnoticed by Fitzpatrick (1997:70). On reviewing the selection of white bones at Westhampnett he notes the parallel: “in this golden amphora your white bones lie”, (Odyssey 24, 73-76), and considering that the pyre may have been doused with wine, recalls the Trojans performing these same acts (Aenead 23: 237, 23: 238).

This means that the documentary study spans several centuries even though the corpus of burials relate to a period of less than 200 years. The Homeric examples of Greek feasting were set down more than 700 years before the Late Iron Age burials catalogued here, but this gap in time is not seen as detrimental to conclusions drawn. In contrast it will be shown that it is important to address the value of tradition in social memory and identity. While it is recognised that the Homeric myths and the Medieval Irish tales are not factual accounts, both reinforce the portrayal of feasting as an essential social rite.

Although it was admitted from the outset that though the content of the Homeric tales is mythical there is a conviction in the mundane detail that demands credence. The repetitive accounts of sacrificial offerings to the gods, of food preparation and traditions of hospitality and gift exchange are important in laying a foundation of ritual, and this ideology resurfaces in Iron Age practices.

A feast is essentially a meeting of selected individuals for the purpose of eating and drinking, but there are always expectations that something else will happen. Social rearrangements occurred during weddings as different kinship groups were united, and relationships were redefined at funerals. Power struggles in hierarchical, heroic groups were settled at the feast, which was the catalyst for anticipated action. This could be political intrigue, war- mongering, or challenges in which the ultimate forfeit was death.

The ritual procedures were consistently echoed in Gallic feasting practices. However, genuine comparisons can only be drawn when it can be positively stated both Homeric Greek and Late Iron Age Gallic societies were warrior-type hierarchical societies. Many of the élite amphora burials contained weapons and sometimes wagon elements, indicative of such a social class, but this cannot be said of the burials from the Champagne cemeteries where the lack of weapons or status goods in burials apparently indicate that this was a pastoral community.

It can be stated therefore that wherever feasting is evidenced, it can be certain that other societal transformations occurred. Where the corpus of amphora burials are indicative of funerary feasting, we are at the face of profound changes in social structure.

It is also noted that later Greek-style feasting on couches in andrones was a far cry from the Homeric model, and although Poux has tried to see a similarity between a Greek banqueting room and a structure in the Gallic enclosure of Arnac-la-Poste (Fig. 8.20), there is little to suggest that the Gallic feast mirrored classical Greek practices.

10.2 Identifying Late Iron Age feasting practices: Greek, Roman and Gallic feasting This study has concentrated on identifying the changes which took place in the burial practices of Gaul and Britain after the introduction of Roman symposium equipment, and yet references to earlier Greek imagery and ideology frequently occur.

Roman feasting An investigation into Italian feasting practices is best begun with the examination of Etruscan tomb paintings. Not only do the paintings present excellent imagery of the Etruscan feast, but they emphasise the link between the act of feasting and rites of passage.

There are clues that Greek culture was a subliminal influence long after Greek trade had diminished and southern Gallic foundations had become Romanised. Lists from a Helevetii camp were found drawn up in

191

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN The Etruscans reclined at the feast as did the Romans. Depictions on villa walls in Pompeii show elaborate bronze and ivory trimmed couches were covered with luxury drapes. In the triclinium large couches allowed three people to recline, rank denoted by position on the couch. In common with the Homeric feasting ideal, the images portrayed a model of feasting that was credible, and definite similarities could be identified between the Greek and Roman practices. It is obvious that both Romans and Greeks feasted in a prepared environment. Whether in Homeric hall, a Greek androne, or a Roman triclinium the environment was substantial, evidencing a degree of permanence which suggested feasting was a routine occurrence. The Gauls had no such constructions. In the Graeco-Roman feast separate vessels were employed for each stage of serving wine. This distinction was not made by the Gauls.

craftsmen to make cauldrons. He commanded and was obeyed. The feast is a method of receiving favours in return. In élite Gallic society the right to throw a feast depended on a status position. Many have relied on the ‘Lovernius’ text as an example of a noble using accumulated wealth to set up a feasting arena (Cunliffe 1997:216, 251, Poux 2000: 217-231, Méniel 2001:63, et al).

The Gallic Feast It has been stated that the Gallic feast was vital as a means of maintaining social equilibrium (Cunliffe 1997: 105-7, Arnold 1999:71). It would be expected that the evidence for such a fundamental institution would be plentiful. However, the limited archaeological and textual sources find agreement in the rather mundane likelihood of cauldron-cooked food eaten by the hearth. Participants sat on whatever material was available. Diodorus Siculus specified wolf or dog skins (V. 28. 4), and Caesar states that the Gauls carried “bundles of straw and sticks on which they sat” (BG 8.15). The implication that the Gauls collected items of feasting equipment when necessary and gathered a variety of wicker baskets, wooden bowls and multi-functional pottery vessels for eating and drinking suggests a ‘moveable feast’ that was likely to be performed in the open air. These facts do not conform to the preconceptions of lavish Gallic feasting.

In identifying separate types of feasting practice, it is very apparent that the Gallic feast bore no relation to the practices of Greek or Roman societies. However clichéed was the portrayal of the barbarian feast there is much certainty that the Gauls did not have specific feasting rooms, recline or use special vessels to distinguish between preparing, serving and drinking wine.

Jean-Louis Bruneaux believes that the aristocratic site of Montmartin satisfies the criteria for the enclosure which Lovernius set up (2002:273-84). It may be that the account is representative of the behaviour of a local élite, but it is still a dangerous proposition to elucidate normal practice from a sole example, and generally it has to be admitted that even temporary feasting structures are difficult to prove.

10.3 Changes in Late Iron Age Gallic feasting It is the intense difference between the Graeco-Roman style of feasting and the Gallic feast which makes the abundance of Italian bronze wares and amphorae appearing in settlement and burial contexts during the last century BC seem very significant. This is often interpreted as proof of Romanisation. G. B. Dannell in describing the changes in food and wine habits in preClaudian Britain, refers to a “Romanised table” ( 1979: 182).

The lack of defined feasting accommodation has prompted research into possible structures. If feasting structures had been constructed they would have been temporal. The description of Lovernius, who set up a vast enclosure and temporary structures, from which vast amounts of food and drink were served to all, has tempted Matthieu Poux to propose the possibility of pavilion structures within Late Iron Age enclosures (Posidonius in Athenaeus IV. 36). Eight post holes in the cemetery of Bezannes and five in the centre of the enclosure at Écury-le-Repos suggest structures, though these could have been formed in association with other ritual practices, not necessarily feasting. The link with the Lovernius text is tenuous and Poux himself reminds us that facts should be “manipulées avec la plus extrême prudence” (2000: 219). The Posodonius text narrates a unique episode; no other such examples occur in classical texts, but this passage has been given much attention and is regarded as an insight into Gallic feasting.

By Romanisation we refer to a specific process of cultural change. Incorporated in this mechanism are multi-stranded components of culture, including language, technology, religious belief, education, burial practices and material culture. Romanisation is a topic in its own right and it is not proposed to launch a full discussion at this point, but merely to contest the fact that amphorae in burials or pits was an indication of Romanisation. Amphorae are pointers to, but not indisputable proof of Romanisation (Woolf 1998: 179-185, Haselgrove 1997: 116). Greg Woolf further notes that “the Aedui adopted the Roman taste for wine, but not the Roman taboos about disposal of the dead” (1998: 10). If the mechanism of Romanisation was responsible for societal changes and modifications in feasting behaviour, changes would have occurred in all aspects of Gallic culture. Amphorae and symposium vessels therefore illustrate Gallic knowledge of Roman feasting, but the as the Gauls did not practice Roman-style feasting this cannot be regarded as a culturally significant or an indicator of Romanisation.

Lovernius represents Caesar’s Gallic princely ideal. He had the wealth to organise a feast and he ordered 192

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE The accessories of the Roman feast, (luxury furnishings of lamps, couches, covers and cushions and serving vessels of glass, silver and bronze), were essential to its staging. The feast could only be performed in Roman style if it took place with a room or environment with couches arranged to the satisfaction of the banqueters.

10.4 Élite society Classical texts generally depicted the Gauls as barbarians and were critical of their customs. Such criticism colours Caesar’s description of Gallic funerals, in which he explains that all dear to the deceased - goods and slaves are subjected to the funeral pyre (BG VI.19). Just as feasting references are few, and heavily relied on, so are funeral descriptions. Caesar’s account of magnificent Gallic funerals conjures up visions of ceremonial display. Caesar’s narrative related to status rather than general funerals. Élite burials were not just a Late Iron Age phenomenon, but occurred in other ealier and later eras. However the large number of prestigious burials which contained amphorae was an indication of dramatic changes in burial practices. Chamber tombs containing rich grave goods, weapons and wagon elements such as Hannogne, Antran and Boé testify to the occurrence of élite funerals as described by Caesar.

Also there was a problem with wine-serving vessels. It has been claimed that barbarians drank undiluted wine (Diodorus Siculus V, 26. 2-3). The Roman method of serving wine necessitated vessels for mixing, straining and warming the beverage, and where such vessels are found together it has been concluded that this signifies Roman-style wine-drinking. However, no two graves possess the same combination of drinking and service vessels, so there is no constant on which to model wine equipment assemblages. Because so much importance is placed on classical ideals, a great deal of discussion has concerned the function of bronze vessels in relation to wine serving, but it now seems likely that most bronze vessels were used in hand washing rituals. Paul Sealey is adamant that strainers were less likely to relate to wine-drinking than to native brews (in litt: 10.9.98). Many strainers were found in oppida contexts with no other symposium wares, and this implies that strainers were a multi-functional vessel with no special relevance to wine in Gallic feasting (Collis 1975).

Élite amphora burials have inevitably excited great interest. Boé (Boudet & Jerebzoff 1992), rich Bituriges burials including Fléré-la-Rivière, (Ferdière & Villard 1993), Lexden, (Foster 1986) and Clemency, (Metzler et al 1991) are among the burials which are indicative of the presence of a hierarchical warrior-class society. It cannot be coincidence that the greatest numbers of intact amphorae occurred in élite burials, and these were accompanied by other luxury goods. In identifying 265 burials from Gaul and Britain which contained amphorae or bronze wine-serving vessels, it is apparent that just over 70 of these have elements which suggest the tomb of a social élite.

The function of jugs, pans and patera remains problematical. These vessels express awareness of Roman symposium practices, but it is suggested that they were placed as status markers in prestigious burials and are not expressive of funerary feasting. Clearly the vessels alone could not represent Roman style feasting. It can be argued for example that cross-culturally traded products could have a different significance outside their country of origin. Using the example of the Japanese tea ceremony as an instance of this, it is apparent that only in Japan could the symbolism behind the ritual act be understood and meaningful (S. Esmonde Cleary pers. comm. 1999). At most, the presence of bronze vessels indicate symposium knowledge and contact with traders or a prestige goods mechanism, this only occurring in elite society. Élite burials contained wine-drinking equipment displayed status, and though Kossack maintains “that their appearance coincided with a culture change, at least on the periphery of the classical world”, this may be overstating the importance of outside influence in changes that occurred. (1998: 36).

J.D. Hill’s study of British burials led him to conclude that in the Late Iron Age certain people were actively seeking to alter and distinguish the ways in which they presented themselves (1997:100). This was expressed by impressive tomb structure, and the inclusion of wider categories of effects such as drinking equipment, toilet items, and other trappings of an altered life style. However this altered lifestyle is only apparent in symbolic form in the Gallic burials. The arrangement of vessels and a grill in the tomb at Clemency imitated a room equipped for feasting. It is unlikely that any feasting actually took place in the burial chamber itself. The four boars in the Clemency chamber were Otherworld supplies as were the 57 amphorae representing wine in the Neuvy Pailloux burial. The feasting room was a symbolic representation. However, not all of the Gallic amphora-associated burials present this image of warrior society, nor of Gallic nobility. Unfortunately, it is élite society that is most visible in both textual accounts and archaeological evidence. The references from Caesar’s combine to portray a hierarchical society composed of warring tribes, using powerful positions to excite others to fight. Trade conducted from oppida enabled possession of prestige

It is possible to state that although not evidencing Romanisation, Mediterranean drinking imports in burials did express a change in feasting customs.

193

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN goods, and prestigious funerals marked the passing of social élites.

knowledge of other sites. Even more remarkable is the communication revealed by uniform patterns of ritual activity which were repeated in cemeteries containing amphora sherds. These activities must have originated from shared ideologies, the diffusion of which necessitated regular group gatherings.

In contrast, the hierarchical class in which warriors contested in power struggles, where noble women held status positions, and wealth was advertised through prestigious burials bore little resemblance to the society evidenced in the Champagne cemeteries. The task of identifying feasting practices that were specific to a particular society depends on an accurate representation of that society. The social élites represented a minority of the population. In the Champagne cemeteries poorer grave goods did not include weapons, other than functional knives which more likely to have been placed for personal use. Bronze wares were absent from the cemeteries of Normée or Prunay, but wine was nevertheless the catalyst for change in local non-élite funerary practices. This was apparent in the appearance of amphorae in funerary contexts.

Human sacrifices were found in pits of Acy Romance and Normée, and the enclosure ditches of FèreChampenoise. At Hauviné, “Feneux” and “Le TermeBadaud” the arrangement of tombs is suggestive of an ‘ancestor’ or hero cult. It can be seen that the people who constructed the cemeteries were motivated by superstition, tradition and ritual. Opportunities to participate in ritual group practices would be invited. In order to carry out ritual practices, especially feasting, sympathetic neighbours would be invited. The need to extend invitations is reminiscent of Lovernius, but this time there was no inducement of prestige gifts, but the expectation of social commitment.

10.5 The Champagne cemeteries

10.6 Amphorae and ritual Amphorae appeared to add a new dimension to ritual activities. The lack of quality grave goods suggests that these were not introduced as part of an élite prestige gift mechanism, but through people movements and exchange of goods. However the amphorae did not appear in all cemeteries, though where they did there was similarity in the deposition of sherds.

The cemeteries of the Champagne area consisted of single quadrilateral enclosures or some multi-enclosured sites which included a sanctuary. Not only was the space within the enclosed compound sacred, but the ditches were also the focus of ritual acts as could be seen from the number of burials placed therein. The cemeteries displayed common characteristics in terms of spatial layout even though there were noticeable differences in the rites carried out within the enclosures.

There was a general agreement in classical texts that the Celts loved wine and exhibited a lack of finesse in drinking wine! Note the much quoted observance;

For the following reasons, it is proposed that the enclosures were not solely funerary sites, but were centres for ritual activity and meeting places for intertribal communion.

“The Celts are extremely addicted to the use of wine and fill themselves with the wine which is brought into their country by merchants, drinking it unmixed, and since they partake of this drink without moderation by reason of their craving for it, when they are drunken they fall into a state of stupor or madness. Consequently many of the Italian traders, induced by the love of money, which characterises them, believe that the love of wine these Gauls have is their godsend. For these transport the wine on navigable rivers by means of boats and through the level plains on wagons, and receive for it an incredible price; for in exchange for a jar of wine, they receive a slave, getting a servant in return for a drink” (Diodorus Siculus V, 26. 2-3)

Many of the numerous enclosure sites of Late Iron Age Gaul are still definable from the air today (Lambot 1996: 37-43). The sites were meant to be seen in the environment and were accessible, often lying on known routes. The society that created the cemeteries expected them to be visited. Many of the enclosures contained only a few burials. There were only nine burials in “La Noue Mauroy” (Lambot 1994: 77), and eight in Bezannes (Friboulet & Verbrugghe 1993). This indicates use by small communities. Strabo described “ dome-shaped houses, made of planks and wicker, throwing over them quantities of thatch” (Geography 4.4.3), by which we can deduce fairly basic structures, yet the ditched enclosures were created and maintained throughout the Late Iron Age by these few people.

Diodorus Siculus stresses that the Gauls drank so much that they fell in to a stupor. The Gauls were aware of the intoxicating nature of the wine. Central to the act of social gathering was to drink together in expectation of becoming intoxicated. In an atmosphere charged with emotional intensity which befitted the reason for feasting, (potlatch gift exchange or rite of passage), ritual acts were heightened by drink.

Even though each cemetery represented a separate group of people, local communication was evident from the similarity of enclosure layout which must have relied on 194

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE It was obvious that wine-drinking became associated with societal welfare, and was expected to be part of the afterlife. Incredible amounts of wine accompanied many deceased, including the tomb owner of Neuvy-Pailloux whose Otherworld supplies included 57 amphorae. In the élite amphora burials it is almost certain that the main grave deposit included amphorae that were intact at the time of deposition, making a symbolic statement on the belief on an afterlife which included eternal feasting. However wine was doubly symbolic in also representing the finality of death. The pouring of wine to quench the flames of the pyre was a representation of the extinction of life. It has been suggested that at Kerangouarec, Arzano that wine was poured over the pyre (Galliou & Jones 1991:61). Matthieu Poux draws a visible parallel with the red wine flowing from the amphora as lifegiving blood flows from the body, emphasising this finality (2002: 53). Wine or blood leaving the vessel, whether human or ceramic, signified destruction of the vessel, possibly in a sacrificial blow. In both the funerary pits of Toulouse and Brittany area, and the humbler burials of the Champagne cemeteries unprecedented ritual activities could be attributed to the introduction of wine and wine amphorae. The most intriguing aspect of the amphora depositions is the treatment of the amphora itself. It is apparent that the modification of an amphora or its reduction to sherds was as intentional as was the placing of a complete upright vessel. The amphora form may have been changed by unplanned breakage, but often modification was deliberate. The amphora form was sturdy, and first impact was likely to produce large pieces rather than small fragments. A substantial part of a broken amphora became a container for cremation remains at Cras, Murcens, and also at Prunay. At first it may seem that a humble transport vessel was not an appropriate choice as a funerary container. Pursuing the metaphorical theme whereby the amphora represented a sacrificed body, (the wine flowing as blood), the amphora might be linked with the final voyage to the Otherworld. When Vikings made this voyage, the vessel of passage was a ship which was burnt as part of the funeral. The amphora was a vessel designed to carry a commodity across water, and was then present at the cremation pyre. Why then should it not carry a departed soul on a final voyage? The Gauls of Champagne would no doubt make this symbolic connection.

Fig. 10.1 Funerary Pits 25 and 28, Vieille-Toulouse, showing deposition of ‘decollared’ amphorae (after Vidal 1989:139).

frequent ritual performed by the Homeric Greeks (Chapter 2), and chthonic libations to gods and ancestors were possible, using the amphora as an instrument.

Examples of amphorae used for libations are rare in Gallic burials, but this is almost certainly the function of the upright amphorae of Vernègues (Ferdière 2000: 119). This could also be applicable in the case of Laissac, although in this case the amphorae were truncated (Pion & Guichard 1993: 193). Offering wine to the gods was a

In the cemeteries of Bezannes and Lamadeleine, cremation deposits were covered and protected by large pieces of amphora and this seems straightforward and 195

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN functional. However, in warrior burials a shield would often be placed over the upper body, and this was an important role, here entrusted to the amphora which could represent both life and death as has been discussed.

The amphora may have similarly passed through a threefold killing; beheaded, shattered and buried. Many of the pots could not have been broken by being thrown into the grave. At Folly Lane the pots were already broken and the scatters of material appeared to be handfuls of pottery fragments which shattered on contact with the ground. In the pits some pots and amphora were thrown from a height, but most were deliberately broken before being placed in the pit. We are therefore looking at a very intentional physical ritual act. Particularly in the case of the amphora, a tool would have been needed to break the amphora, perhaps a large stone or a millstone.

‘Decollared’ amphorae were not only found in some burials but were present in even greater quantities in some funerary pits and sanctuaries. It can be clearly seen in the examples of Pits 25 and 28 of Vieille-Toulouse that the number of amphorae which have no collars is not due to accidental circumstances (Vidal 1989: 139). Amphorae are designed to stand upright. The vessels are tall, their form slightly humanoid with handles placed like hands on hips. The severing of rim and neck portion is equivalent to ‘beheading’ the amphora. This would have been achieved with a large stone or heavy object as amphorae were sturdy vessels. Sometimes millstones or large stones have been recovered from the pits, (Blain, Nouvel Hopîtal, pit 9 Esterac, Toulouse and pit 1, Vieille-Toulouse: Chapter 7), and it may be that these were the tools used to ‘ritually kill’ the amphorae. G. Fouet also sees a traditional link between the millstones and the large stones that were placed in Bronze Age burials (1958: 121). The amphorae were then deposited, not thrown, in the pit in order to preserve the body of the amphora.

Alternatively the sherds were perhaps a result of an early version of the Greek plate-smashing which features in modern marriages and celebrations. This would not signify the finality of ritual destruction, but would be incorporated in feasting, dancing and parading ceremonies, celebrating a rite of passage. However, unlike plates, amphorae are large and expected to stand up to the rigours of sea voyages, so any intentional breaking involved considerable effort. The noise of rhythmical smashing could have been accompanied by chanting and shouting. Perhaps this was a release of pent up emotion. The breaking of vessels may have been symbolic of freeing the recently departed spirit.

The burials of Agen, ‘Mas de Jallon’, Gard, and Laissac also contained decollared amphorae, and these too may have been ‘sacrificed’ as part of the ritual funerary ceremony.

We cannot know how or who was involved in breaking the vessels, or even what concept was behind the action. The destruction of complete vessels was an act of ritual, and although we cannot know the exact intention, there is no doubt that smashing the amphorae produced more than just pottery debris. In an emotionally charged atmosphere the ritually produced debris was accorded a fitting deposition in cremation pits, pavements, scatters, post holes and funerary pits.

Sherds There are a number of eventualities which could produce sherds, not least being during tomb robbing, which is considered by Lambot (1994:147), or plough damage. However the large number of burials which contain, or are associated with scatters of sherds are too numerous to be coincidental. The sherds are evocative of complex rituals.

In the cemeteries of Fère-Champenoise and Normée, the amphorae were not only present in burial pits, but sherd scatters were part of the ‘funerary landscape’, indicating a wider role of the wine.

It has already been suggested that decollared amphorae were ‘beheaded’, and the production of sherds may have resulted from another stage of the ‘ritual killing’. Deliberate removal of the amphora neck was the equivalent to beheading, thereby killing the amphora. This at first sounds fanciful, but a sword in the SaintGerminmont burial had been bent before being placed in the grave (Chossenot 1997:334). In a society where swords were ceremonially bent to denote ritual killing (Green 1995 b: 471), it is logical to believe that the amphorae were ritually sacrificed along with other personal effects.

Once sherds had been produced in ritual acts, care was given to their deposition. Bent swords were thrown into sacred watery contexts (Green 1995b: 470-1, Bradley 1998:151-4), or buried in graves (Table 7.1). Evidence of amphorae sherds in Late Iron Age burials is plentiful throughout this study, and amphorae sherds also appear in the other contexts where ritual depositions are common- pits and watery sites. Fragments of 24,000 amphorae have been recovered from the Saône River at Chalon (Wells 1984:153). These have been assumed to be a result of intensive river-borne trade. However, in the light of the previous statement that sherds of amphorae that are produced during ritual acts must be deposited in ritual conditions, it follows that a least some of these fragments are the result of ritual depositions. Richard Bradley has compared bronze vessels from rich Iron Age

Human sacrifice was a known practice in this Gallic society. Often the victim was subjected to a ‘triple death’. Lindow Man II received a blow to the head, had his throat cut and his neck garrotted (Magilton 1995:184). 196

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Table 10.1 A tentative reconstruction of the ritual stages in amphora deposition. 1. 2 2. 3. 4.

Cremation Inhumation- go to stage 8.

Complete amphora

Large pieces of amphora

Sherds of amphora

Lying in state of body.

Lying in state of body.

Lying in state of body.

Procession to pyre site

Procession to pyre site

Procession to pyre site

Cremation and possible feasting at pyre site. Sorting and selection of pyre material.

Cremation and possible feasting at pyre site. Sorting and selection of pyre material.

Cremation and possible feasting at pyre site. Sorting and selection of pyre material.

‘Beheading’ of amphora

‘Beheading’ of amphora Ritual smashing of any complete amphorae and ceramic goods. Selection of sherds. Procession to deposition site. Interment of pyre remains.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Procession to deposition site. Deliberate positioning of body/ pyre remains and grave goods. Sealing of tomb, adding marker, tumulus etc.

Procession to deposition site. Interment of pyre remains.

Feasting activities at graveside. Memorial meals.

Cover cremation with amphora pieces or place amphora upright for libations. Feasting activities at graveside. Memorial meals.

Scatter amphora sherds in pavement. Feasting activities at graveside. Memorial meals.

Table 10.1 A tentative reconstruction of the ritual stages in amphorae deposition.

graves and bronze vessels amongst river finds, and suggested the latter might also be ritual depositions (1998:167). A similar parallel is applicable to the amphorae sherds, especially when it is noted that the river at Chalons is in the centre of the Champagne region, the heart of the broken vessel rite.

the surface of a walkway showed evidence of trampling, and both here and at Clemency it might be that dancing, or a procession of mourners was included in the ceremonial rites (ibid: 59). Complete amphorae were deposited in the burial chamber at Clemency, where there was also evidence of ritual activity around the tomb. A pavement of sherds and scatters around the burial area represented 50 or more amphorae (Metzler et al. 1991: 78).

Sacrificial victims were placed in wells, (Senat, Poux 1999) or pits (Acy-Romance, Lambot & Méniel,1998: 361-87). Amphorae sherds, the product of ritual destruction were treated in similar fashion. Some were deposited in pits (Table 9), some in burials (Table 7.1) and many more in the ditches, post holes and structures of cemeteries including ‘pavements’.

At Boé and Nospelt Kreckelbierg Tomb 1, large numbers of sherds were evidence of the great number of amphorae destroyed on site, and the disposal of vast amounts of wine. Burnt sherds may be related to the pyre, or maybe remnants of a final feast, a wake in which all the community participated. As the corpse was transformed by the funeral pyre, the breaking of pots and smashing of amphorae corroborate the evidence of a symbolic extinguishing of utility and thus life. No complete amphora from a burial shows evidence of fire damage suggesting that intact amphorae were always reserved for the secondary deposit. However, fire was symbolic of ritual cleansing or purification, and the smoke rose to the gods as in Greek supplication and offerings to the gods.

Complete amphora depositions are associated with spectacular display and massive ceremonial practices, but involve fewer stages of ritual activity than sherdassociated burials. Table 10.1 and Figs. 10.2a, 10.2b and 10.2c show that even in a simple plan of ritual activities, there are more opportunities for ritual activity when sherds of amphorae form the deposit. Not only were there more opportunities for ritual during sherd-amphora depositions, but as there was high community involvement there was likelihood that feasting would have occurred.

Whereas it seems understandable to reserve some material from a cremation pyre, it is more difficult to explain the burnt amphora sherds from the inhumation at Nospelt Kreckelbierg. The burial at Nospelt Kreckelbierg may be representative of the link between amphorae and the ritual properties of fire, or may be a prime example of funerary feasting. If it is significant, it suggests a relationship between wine and fire, but a wider range of evidence is necessary before conclusions can be drawn.

This is not to say that complete amphora burials were devoid of ritual activity. It is apparent that unusual ritual activity marked the deposition of some élite burials. Rosalind Niblett suggests that a metal fragment in a post hole near to the pyre site at Folly Lane may have been from a priest’s head dress (1999:48). Also at Folly Lane

197

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Cremation

Inhumation 1.

1. Death occurs. The body may lie ‘in state’ until an opportune season.

Death occurs. The body may lie ‘in state’ until an opportune season.

2.

2.

The burial chamber is prepared. The chamber might be wood, stone or a chamber carved out of earth, but large enough to hold the amphora.

The burial chamber is prepared. The chamber might be wood, stone or a chamber carved out of earth, but large enough to hold the amphora.

3.

3.

The cremation takes place at the ustrinum, away from the tomb, or over the prepared chamber (bustum).

4.

No equivalent action.

4.

The pyre may be doused with wine. After the pyre has cooled bones are selected for the deposition and transported to the prepared chamber.

5.

The body is transported to the tomb.

5.

The cremation remains are placed in the prepared chamber which represents a feasting room.

The body is interred in the prepared chamber which represents a feasting room

6.

6.

The mourners may feast by the grave and memorial meals may take place on later occasions.

The mourners may feast by the grave and memorial meals may take place on later occasions.

Fig. 10.2a Amphora deposition: complete amphorae.

198

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

‘Decollared ‘

Body Section

1.

1. Death occurs. Body may lie in state until an opportune season.

2.

Large piece

1. Death occurs. Body may lie in state until an opportune season.

Death occurs. Body may lie in state until an opportune season.

2.

2.

3.

3.

. Cremation takes place at the ustrinum, away from the tomb.

3. The pyre may be doused with wine. After the pyre has cooled, bones are selected for the deposition and transported to the prepared burial pit.

4.

The pyre may be doused with wine. After the pyre has cooled, bones are selected for the deposition and transported to the prepared burial pit.

4.

The amphorae may be ‘ritually beheaded’

4.

The amphorae may be ‘ritually beheaded’

5.

5.

The pyre may be doused with wine. After the pyre has cooled, bones are selected for the deposition and transported to the prepared burial pit.

No equivalent action.

The amphorae may be ‘ritually beheaded’, then broken into smaller pieces.

5. Large pieces are selected from the amphora remains.

No equivalent action.

6.

6.

6.

7.

7.

Memorial meals take place and feasting debris, including amphorae sherds, is deposited in pits.

Large pieces of amphorae are placed over the deposit.

The pyre remains are interred in the amphora body.

The pyre remains are interred with the amphora body. The amphora remains upright to allow libations to be poured.

7.

Memorial meals take place and feasting debris, including amphorae sherds, is deposited in pits.

Memorial meals take place and feasting debris, including amphorae sherds, is deposited in pits.

Fig. 10.2b Amphora deposition: Large pieces or modified amphorae.

199

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Amphorae within the pyre effects. 1.

Amphorae propped against the pyre. 1.

Death occurs. Body may lie in state until an opportune season.

Death occurs. Body may lie in state until an opportune season. 2.

2.

Cremation takes place at the ustrinum pyre.

Cremation takes place at the ustrinum (pyre). Amphorae are propped against the pyre. The side nearest the pyre is fire-damaged.

3.

3.

Complete pots and amphorae are broken. The amphorae may be ‘ritually beheaded’ before being smashed into smaller pieces.

Complete pots and amphorae are broken. The amphorae may be ‘ritually beheaded’ before being smashed into smaller pieces.

4.

4.

The pyre may be doused with wine. After the pyre has cooled, bones are selected for the deposition and transported to the prepared chamber together with pieces of the broken pots.

The pyre may be doused with wine. After the pyre has cooled, bones are selected for the deposition and transported to the prepared chamber together with pieces of the broken pots.

5.

5.

The human remains, broken pot fragments and selected pyre debris are interred, urned or un-urned in a simple pit. 6.

The human remains, broken pot fragments and selected pyre debris are interred, urned or un-urned in a simple pit. 6.

Graveside feasting and funerary ritual account for scatters of sherds, pavements of sherds and sherds in post holes throughout the burial environment. 7.

Graveside feasting and funerary ritual account for scatters of sherds, pavements of sherds and sherds in post holes throughout the burial environment. 7.

Memorial meals take place and feasting debris, including amphorae sherds, is deposited in pits.

Memorial meals take place and feasting debris, including amphorae sherds, is deposited in pits.

Fig. 10.2c Amphora deposition: sherds of amphorae.

200

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Unfortunately this is unreliable evidence as the majority of sherds cannot be identified by form, and it may be merely coincidental that drinking vessels are the most prominent. However, ceramic jugs or flagons appear in complete form in 17 instances and five times in sherd form, which does indicate liquid refreshment was frequently served.

10.7 The duality of Late Iron Age feasting and burial ritual All of the corpus burials contained amphorae or symposium vessels, often in conjunction with other ‘feasting items’. However this is not irrefutable evidence of feasting. No stoppers or corks were found in the tombs, so it can be assumed that the amphorae were empty, but there is no way of telling where or when the contents had been consumed. Rosalind Niblett seems certain that a funerary meal was partaken in or near the Folly Lane shaft (1999:59). Broken tableware and amphorae on the floor seems to reinforce the theory of a feast with oven 1 being used for meal preparation.

In all these assumptions, there must be a cautionary comment that pottery vessels are easier to trace than wooden cups or bowls, goatskin wine holders and baskets, all of which were likely to have been employed. There is also no reason to expect that those vessels would be deposited in the tomb after the ceremony. Communal vessels may have been returned to the settlement after the ceremony.

Many of the Champagne burials contained fragmentary evidence of bones, pottery and amphorae, in fact all the elements which may result from feasting. Sometimes, as at Fère-Champenoise, burnt amphora sherds were mixed with burnt bones. An intriguing collection of eight post holes in the centre of the enclosure at Bezannes represented a one-time structure. Between two of the post holes was a collection of pottery and amphora sherds. These were not part of a burial and therefore could represent memorial feasting.

Méniel points out that though in Gaul a funeral was an occasion to feast, archaeologically the traces of these practices are difficult to find (2001:73). To identify the practice of feasting long after the cessation of activity, we must hope either to find the elements of the feast in situ, or the post-feasting debris, namely pottery sherds from the preparation and serving vessels, together with burnt animal bones swept in ditches and pits, or appearing in scatters in the burial environment. Later deposits might suggest memorial visits and feasting..

Michel Chossenot believes that secondary deposits of bone and pottery fragments at Bouy, “Chemin de Vadenay” were also indicative of memorial meals, the remains of which were placed in the ditches (pers. comm. July 2000). Some of the ditch contents were placed at a later date than the burials, which indicates a revisit to the site.

The difficulties of identifying feasting remains from the deposits of debris are best overcome by noting the earlier comment that feasting was always accompanied by other action and resolving social issues. The complexity of the enclosure sites strengthens the likelihood of feasting as this was an area of social gathering and action. In common with other Gallic and British sites, there is no way of providing absolute proof of feasting, but the Champagne cemeteries are representative of intense ritual activity that must surely have included feasting.

However, there is a major problem in differentiating between offerings and feasting debris. Quantities of animal bones, food preparation equipment, wine amphorae, and serving and drinking vessels imply that feasting may have occurred in the environment, but we can not state this with absolute certainty. The items might be present in burials or separately in non-funerary deposits. A ditch deposit at Bezannes was composed entirely of animal bones, and this seems to represent feasting, but such examples are rare.

10.8 Society A comparison of the distribution of Dressel 1 amphora from all contexts, with the evidence from amphora burials reveals two different scenarios. The overall distribution suggests that most of the indigenous population was involved with wine-drinking (Fig. 7.4). The map of burials, by contrast, emphasizes the localization of ritual related to wine (Fig. 7.15). In some areas of Gaul this was evidenced by the appearance of burials containing amphorae and in other areas, particularly Toulouse, this was manifest in ‘funerary pits’ (Fig. 9.5). The availability of wine only caused change in burial practices if social groups invited change.

In the corpus burials which contained complete amphorae, eating and drinking vessels are almost equally represented. In 90 instances drinking vessels were amongst the deposition, and in 99 cases eating vessels were present. This does not identify wine-drinking as a practice in its own right, but implies that wine-drinking and feasting went hand-in-hand. The Graeco-Roman feast differentiated between eating and drinking. By contrast, the Gallic version included wine-drinking at all stages of the feast.

Regionalisation was thus more pronounced than Romanisation. The localised response indicates that though Gaul was tending towards state formation, tribal groups maintained separate identities. The map of amphora-associated burials shows a cluster of depositions

In the sherd amphorae burials, the drinking vessels outnumbered dishes, bowls and platters which should suggest that drinking was more important than eating. 201

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN in southern England which indicate Belgic settlers perhaps fleeing in response to the activities of Caesar. The input of specific funerary codes may enhance their ‘otherness’.

the circulation period, and that of Prunay II, 55 was close to being outside the suggested circulation dates. Paul Sealey has suggested that Dressel 1 imports to Gaul were declining from 40- 20 BC, and a similar picture is emerging in Britain (forthcoming). The burials at Wincheringen, Goeblingen Nospelt A and Goeblingen Nospelt B contained Dressel 1 amphorae, but were all judged to have taken place after 20 BC together with seven more burials from Belgium and Luxembourg. Dressel 1 amphorae would have been in short supply or unavailable at this time, so the tombs would have held a rare commodity. Imports of Dressel 1 at Hengistbury “ended early in the 1st century BC”, and “at Elms Farm the decline in wine imports was under way by 10 BC at the latest” (Sealey: forthcoming).

10.9 Tradition Burials were often placed around an ancestral grave, and as Gaul fell to Roman power there were conscious efforts to maintain a link with the traditional past. Roymans emphasises this by proposing the belief in “sacred genealogies, in which entire peoples, subgroups or individual families traced their descent from mythical ancestors, usually gods or demigods” (1990: 24). ‘Antique’ items were valued links with the past and were included amongst prestige items in grave assemblages. Boube details all known finds of Kelheim jugs from the last two centuries BC, and suggests that in common with other late republican jugs, their manufacture echoed earlier Etruscan stylistic traditions (1991: 42). Lambot suggests that the wooden bucket with bronze decoration from Goeblingen Nospelt is older than the other grave goods, a sort of heirloom (1986-9: 223). These represent two instances of heirloom items which were placed in burials.

Table 7.2, which appeared at the end of Chapter 7, is repeated but in a format whereby the likely deposition dates are contrasted with the proposed circulation dates of each amphora typology. In this way it is possible to detect those amphorae which may have been ‘heirloom’ items. It can be seen from Table 7.2 that at least 14 amphora burials were likely to have been placed after the circulation dates of the amphorae contained therein. Another 20 burials contained amphorae which were soon to be unavailable as they were no longer produced and traded, and would have been in limited supply. At Neuvy-Pailloux 57 Pascual 1 amphorae were found, yet this vessel was not circulated within 15 years of the deposition.

It was not expected that amphora could be regarded as heirloom items, but it is now apparent that older vessels were specially valued. At Berry-Bouy, Palluau-sur-Indre, Dorton Goeblingen Nospelt B, the amphorae were complete, but more than one typology was present. This implies that the vessels had been collected together over a period of time and from different sources.

These burials form a strong statement about the attitude to tradition. Theses amphorae were clearly hoarded, sometimes it is expected with great difficulty until the appropriate time for burial. Most of the amphorae burials containing multiple, complete vessels belonged to the Roman period, after which time amphorae depositions occurred infrequently. Wine and amphorae were readily available, but because Dressel 1 series had been superseded by other forms, including the Pascual 1 vessels, the multi-amphorae depositions can be confirmed as chronologically at the end of the typological sequence.

A surprising revelation can be made that many of the amphorae placed in burials were items that were no longer traded and were likely to have been kept for such an occasion. A tomb at Armsheim in Germany contained a complete Graeco-Italic amphora (Fitzpatrick 1985:329). A conservative “pre-Caesar” date has been suggested for the amphora, but given that these amphorae were no longer shipped after 150 BC (Parker 1992: 32) and Anne Colin states that these vessels “disappeared from settlement sites” at the end of the 2nd century BC (1998:34), this is a very large margin for error. The burial of Octroi de Beaucaire, Nimes is almost certainly to have been placed after the circulation of Graeco-Italic amphorae had ceased, possibly as much as 75 years later.

Paul Sealey thinks the decline in wine imports explains why the wine consumed at elite funerals fell. This is mainly applicable to complete amphorae depositions where vessel numbers in tombs fell, but at Lexden, Folly Lane and King Harry Lane, amphora sherds implied increased ‘ritual’ activity.

The warrior burial of Hannogne-Saint-Remy and the cremation at Baldock, Britain belong the final years of the last century BC; yet they include amphorae of Dressel 1A typology that had ceased production. The amphora in the Baldock burial would have been the equivalent of an heirloom. It may have been acquired around 50 years before the deposition. Similarly the Dressel 1B amphorae in the burials of Chateau-Porcien, Trier-Olewig and Presles-Saint-Audebert were placed in the final stages of

If the amphorae were no longer in current circulation, vessels must have been stored for such an event. Being able to place several ‘antique’ amphorae would add to the prestigious nature of the tomb. Kossack theorised that élite burials always occurred when products were scarce (1998: 34). It is not possible to tell whether the wine 202

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE TABLE 7.2: THE CHRONOLOGY OF AMPHORAE IN LATE IRON AGE BURIALS OF GAUL AND BRITAIN. The burial sites in the table all contain defined amphora typologies. The table is set out in order that the suggested deposition dates are contrasted with the likely circulation dates of each amphora class. (It is realized that these facts may be subject to inaccuracies or assumptions made in reports). The terminology used for time periods is that used by Collis (1984). The historical events column includes the dates of some of the wrecks from which amphorae have been retrieved. This table already appeared on pp. 123-127; below the cell shading emphasises the possibility of deposition dates beyond the proposed circulation period of specific typologies. Amphorae were deposited during the proposed years of circulation.

Amphora typology GraecoItalic

Amphorae were deposited at the end of the proposed circulation period.

Site

Form and circulation date

Octroi de Beaucaire

Amphorae were deposited after the proposed circulation dates. Approximate date of deposition in burial

Insufficient information to relate circulation data to burial evidence

Central France (after Collis 1984: 24)

Southern Historical events during the periods of England (after Collis amphorae circulation 1984:24) and burial deposition.

La Tène III

Middle Iron Age

125-75BC

Armsheim

Pre-Caesar

124 BC Founding of Gallia Narbonensis 106 BC Revolt of Volcae and Tectosages. Romans annex Toulouse 75-60 BC Wreck of the Madrague de Giens (Hyères)

Nimes, Rue-deAlphonse-de-Seynes

Not known

AD 21 Revolt by Treveri

Gaul 300-125 BC Dressel 1

58-52 BC - Gallic wars c. 17 BC Foundation of Augusta Trevorum

Hauviné 21 Hauviné 22 Hauviné, Terme Badaud

125-75 BC

124 BC Founding of Gallia Narbonensis

106 BC Revolt of Volcae and Tectosages. Romans annex Toulouse Bezannes, ‘ Les Marsilliers’ Lamadaleine 6

100-50 BC

75-60 BC Wreck of the Madrague de Giens (Hyères) 58-52 BC - Gallic wars.

St. Remy-de-Provence III St. Remy-de-Provence V St. Remy-de-Provence VI Cutry 233

99 BC-0

175 BC-AD 25

56 BC Defeat of the Venetii, (disruption in communications between Britain and Gaul) AD 21 Revolt by Treveri

203

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Dressel 1 (cont.)

Dressel 1A

Bonnert 16 Bonnert 44 Lamadaleine 14 Lamadaleine 19 Lamadaleine 21 Lamadaleine 22 Lamadaleine 24 Lamadaleine 25 Lamadaleine 66 Lamadaleine 67 Lamadaleine 68 Lamadaleine 3 Lamadaleine 11 Lamadaleine 12 Lamadaleine 17 Lamadaleine 23 Lamadaleine 26 Lamadaleine 27 Lamadaleine 30 Lamadaleine 31 Lamadaleine 32 Lamadaleine 39 Lamadaleine 41 Lamadaleine 51 Lamadaleine 54 Lamadaleine 55 Lamadaleine 56 Lamadaleine 58 Lamadaleine 64 Cuiry-les-Chaudares Lamadaleine 15 Lamadaleine 33 Lamadaleine 37 Lamadaleine 42 Lamadaleine 45 Lamadaleine 48 Lamadaleine 52 Lamadaleine 72 Lamadaleine 75 Lamadaleine 77 Weiler Chatillon-sur-Indre Amiens Arras Wederath Belginum, 25 Kerangourex, Arzano Saint-Georges-lesBaillargeaux Beaucaire, “Mas de Jallon Tesson

c. 17 BC Foundation of Augusta Trevorum

50 BC-0

Roman

175 BC – AD 25

2 BC- AD 14- Augustus

0-50 AD

20-30 BC

225-125 BC

LT II a LT II b LT III

Middle Iron Age

124 BC Founding of Gallia Narbonensis

Roman

Late Iron Age

75-60 BC Wreck of the Madrague de Giens, (Hyères)

100-125 BC

Nimes, Tomb de la Placette Hannogne-Saint-Remy

125-25 BC

Baldock

25-10 BC

Chalons-sur-Marne Kr. Trier-Stadt Mompatch Vieux-les-Asfeld

AD 21 Revolt by Treveri Nobles.

Not known

50-25 BC

Not known

175-75 BC

204

58-51 BC Gallic Wars

AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Dressel 1B

Dressel 1B (cont.)

Dressel 1C

Pommacle Berglicht, St. Wendel Berglicht, St. Wendel, “unter dem Erker Beaucaire, Marronniers 2 Beaucaire, Marronniers 17 Beaucaire, Marronniers 19 Bonnert 9 Bonnert 14 Lachen-Speyerdorf Chateau-Porcien Trier-Olewig Presles-Saint-Audebert

125- 75 BC

Welwyn A Welwyn B Welwyn Garden City Prunay II, 55 Bonnert 74 Bonnert 9 Lamadaleine, 8 Clemency Ettelbruck Goeblingen Nospelt D Heffingen Hertford Heath Wincheringen Goeblingen Nospelt A Goeblingen Nospelt B Mont Bures Lexden Park Boiroux Lamadaleine, 46 Lamadaleine, 60 Sampont 42 Houillon Saarlouis-Roden 1 Saarlouis-Roden 2 Great Chesterford Lindsell Berglicht, Kr. Bernkastel 1 Butzweiler Colchester, St. Clare Rd. Great Canfield Jesus Lane Hadham Ford/ Little Hadham Marks Tey Mauldon Moor Old Warden Sampford Sandon Thaxted Trumpington, Dam Hill Westmill La Catalane, Beaux-de-Provence

50-10 BC

La Tène III

Late Iron Age

75-60 BC Wreck of the Madrague de Giens, (Hyères).

99-50 BC Roman 58-51 BC Gallic Wars c. 50 BC Wreck of the Dramont A, (Saint-Raphaël)

50 BC- AD 50 50 BC-25 AD

150 -25 BC (Gaul) 75 BC-25 AD (Britain)

27-14 BC 25 BC-50 AD

c. 17 BC founding of Augusta Trevorum 2 BC-AD 14 Augustus AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles

25 BC-50 AD 15 BC

AD 14-37 Tiberius

10 BC 10 BC 0-50 AD Not known

AD 40/3 Death of Cunobelinus. AD 43 Roman invasion of southern Britain

150-75 BC

LT II a LT II b

Middle Iron c. 120 BC Wreck of Age the Grand Ribaud A ( Iles d’Hyères) 125-100 BC Wreck of the Ilot Barthelémy (Saint-Raphaël)

150 BC-AD 50

205

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Dressel 2-4

Prunay II, 53 Elms Farm, Heybridge

AD 1-10

LT III

Late Iron Age

Roman Folly Lane The Towers, Essex

AD 50

Aston Clinton King Harry Lane, 272 Livange

Not known

GalloBelgic Roman

25 BC-AD 100

Pascual 1

Fléré-la-Rivière Antran Lamadaleine, 53

25 BC-AD 25

Neuvy Pailloux.

AD 40- 50

Roman

GalloBelgic

27 BC- AD14 Augustus AD 14-37 Tiberius AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles AD 40/3 Death of Cunobelinus AD 41- 54 Claudius AD 43 Roman invasion of southern Britain AD 49 Foundation of Colchester as a colonia AD 60/1 Revolt of Boudicca AD 79 Destruction of Pompeii 25 BC Wreck of the Cap Béar 27 BC-AD 14 Augustus

Roman AD 14- 437 Tiberius AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles.

50 BC-AD 25 Lamboglia 2

Boé (in this burial Dressel 1 amphorae were also present).

75- 25 BC

Roman

Late Iron Age

106 BC Revolt of Volcae and Tectosages. Romans annex Toulouse 58-51 BC Gallic Wars

175- 50 BC Haltern 70 (Baetican) or Dressel 20

Nospelt Krieckelbierg, XXVIII

75 BC-0

Bouchernes Farm King Harry Lane, 117

75 BC- AD 50

LT III Roman

Late Iron Age GalloBelgic

58-51 BC Gallic Wars AD 21 Revolt by Treveri nobles. AD 40/3 Death of Cunobelinus

Roman

AD 43 Roman invasion of southern Britain.

Late Iron Age

AD 41-50 Wreck of Port Vendres II

50 BC- AD 70 Dressel 7-11

75 BC- AD 50

King Harry Lane, 206

Roman

GalloBelgic

Roman

25 BC- AD 50

206

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Rhodian

King Harry Lane, 369

Gallic

Lamadeleine 73

AD 43-5

AD 43 Roman invasion of southern Britain.

0 - AD 100 AD

Roman

Late Iron Age

AD 10-30 Wreck of the Petit Conglué

Gallo-Belgic Roman

0-AD 100

contained in the amphorae had been consumed prior to the funeral ceremony, during the ceremony or at later memorial meals, and this gives rise to several alternative theories of how the funeral ceremony may have been conducted. The wine may have been consumed some time previously and far away in a settlement, the amphorae being saved for ritual use on such an occasion. This would account for the large number of ‘antique’ amphorae which were present in some burials. The mammoth task of transporting large numbers of amphorae and burial goods, could have taken place over a period of time. As the Gauls had no permanent feasting halls or rooms, feasting was subject to an opportune time or season when the community could gather. Rosalind Niblett suggested just such an interval before the funeral rites occurred at Folly Lane (1999: 58).

in the military sphere, but on more ‘civilised’ form of competition, such as conspicuous consumption of Roman luxury items” (Romans: 1998). In the western Champagne region there a handful of warrior graves has been discovered. The élite burials of Chateau-Porcien, Hannogne, Presles-Saint-Audebert and Saint-Germainmont represented burials within close proximity of the Champagne cemeteries where other distinct social groups could be identified. The élite burials contained complete amphorae, while the cemetery burials contained amphorae sherds. Needless to say the accompanying rituals also varied greatly. The different societies must have been aware of the presence of the other groups, but there was no suggestion in the burial practices that contact occurred. Each society performed its rites regardless of an outside world.

10.10 Regionalised responses A similar situation occurred in the Treveri region where the graves of Lamadaleine which consistently contained sherds of amphora are territorially close to those of the rich, complete-amphora burials of Goeblingen Nospelt.

Texts present an unbalanced view of Late Iron Age society as most accounts relate to élite society and take little heed of non-élite groups. The corpus burials all contained amphorae or symposium equipment, and most were also cremation burials. Even though the 265 burials are considered as one body of evidence, the many variations of deposition within the corpus reveal that no common practice is automatically represented by an ‘amphora burial’.

Across the whole of Gaul, Iron Age burials relating to amphorae display many different characteristics. At a generalised regional level, there is further variation of layout, deposition of goods, size of cemetery, and no more so than within the Champagne area. This may reflect a season of change not only over Europe, but at local community level, where there was a reflection of shared ideas, communication and interaction. These ideas may be manifest in memorial scenes at the graveside where traditional deference to ancestors, feasting and sacred landscapes incorporated artefacts that were a product of new relationships.

During the last century BC, changes were apparent in burial assemblages. Warrior elements were deposited less frequently, being replaced by drinking and feasting accoutrements. This indicated that warrior power amongst tribal groups was waning. As weapon graves virtually disappeared, it was recognised that “competition among the élites was no longer based on having qualities

207

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN 10.11 The way forward There is obviously much scope for investigating social rituals which are performed during rites of passage. This study has only skimmed the surface in an attempt to identify funerary feasting rituals and in doing so has shown that other complex ritual acts combined. The ritual of feasting is an important aspect of social structure. The rituals that combine funerary practice and feasting invite further investigation. Because it is difficult to separate the results of ritual offerings and ritual feasting, this area particularly would seem rewarding. It would be helpful to study accredited feasting evidence from later periods, (Medieval banquets), in order to suggest a methodology that might be superimposed on Ancient World models. The associated ceramic evidence in this study has only been lightly dealt with as it was a large archive, and further investigation into precise vessel function would clarify generalisations made here. Consideration was given to the proportions of food and drink consumed during funerary feasting as represented by ceramic debris. This did not address specific foods or the preparation of foods. A clearer picture might result from a comparison with settlement evidence and this would involve a wide regional investigation. Particular emphasis has been placed on the Champagne burials as illustrative of funerary ritual which encompassed feasting. In a further study it would be expected to widen the scope of investigation to focus on other regions in a comparison of ritual. The evidence from pits was included in this study as there was a possibility that these contained ‘funerary’ evidence. This was a valuable inclusion as aspects of ritual associated with amphorae were indicated. However, sanctuaries were not investigated except in the case of AcyRomance, Normée and Fère-Champenoise, where passing reference was made. Obviously, as ritual implantations, these are sites that should be considered when identifying changes in social activity. Matthieu Poux has reported on Corent (2002) and Arnacla-Poste (2000), and an examination and comparison of the British sanctuaries which contained amphorae would add a different study dimension. This study has identified amphora-associated burials in Gaul and Britain and there are further conclusions to be drawn on the cross-Channel effects of amphorae on ritual practices evidenced in sanctuaries and pits.

208

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE

APPENDIX

Glossary amphora atrium Aylesford pan

A large two-handled transport vessel for wine or sometimes oil and fish products. The central court of an ancient Roman house. A bronze vessel, shaped like a frying pan, may have a bent handle ending in a swan’s head terminal. Also known as poêlon. banquetAn elaborate feast (from French banc = bench). bustum (pl.= a) - A cremation which takes place in situ over a prepared pit. Celt: “Applied to the ancient peoples of Western Europe. A general name applied in modern times to peoples speaking languages akin to those of the ancient Gauls” (James 1999:145). In this study the term ‘Gaul’ is used in preference to Celt, and Gallic in preference to Celtic. cinerarium A vessel which contains a cremation. commensality Sitting at table, (Latin mensa = table) together (com). companions Those who eat bread together, (com = together + Latin panis = bread). company All those eating bread together- (as above). conviviumA lively feast taking place in good company. (com = together, Latin vivere =live). corma A wheaten beer drunk by the lower Celtic classes. dolium A large spherical terracotta wine container with a wide mouth, usually embedded in the floor. Dressel Amphora typology devised by and therefore named after Heinrich Dressel. feast A large or sumptuous meal, an annual religious celebration. firedog Hearth equipment consisting of a metal frame which provided support for roasting spits. (In French these may also be known as landiers or chenets). focus The centre of interest, but in Latin = fireplace, hearth. foyer An entrance hall, but in French = hearth household or home. garum A sauce made from fish innards, used to flavour food. Gaul The area of land which in the Late Iron Age corresponded to modern France, controlled by Roman Emperors. Hallstatt The earlier phase of the pre-Roman Iron Age in Central Europe is known as the ‘Hallstatt’ period after finds discovered in a prehistoric grave-field near Hallstatt (Maier 1997: 142). hetaera In ancient Greece, a prostitute, or the mistress of a aristocrat. Iron Age “Name given by archaeologists to the last phase before the literate, historical era begins with the arrival of the Romans (James 1999: 145). Kelheim jugs Bronze jugs, believed to have been made in Italy, and taking their name from two jugs discovered in Kelheim, Bavaria (Boube 1991: 39-40). Kline A Greek banqueting couch. Kottabos A game in which dregs of wine from a cup are flung at a target so as to dislodge it. Krater A large open vessel for mixing wine and water. Libation The pouring of wine in honour of a deity. Oenochoe A pouring jug, often with a ‘trefoil’ mouth. oppidum (a) A large fortified site, completely enclosed by a continuous rampart broken only by internal entrances, characteristic of Celtic Europe at the end of the Iron Age. panaria A baskets of provisions. philia A wine bowl. rhyton A drinking horn; a ritual pouring vessel sometimes in the shape of an animal head. situla Bronze bucket-type vessels. symposium A drinking party, especially in Graeco-Roman culture, with conversation after a banquet. thermopolium A tavern where hot drinks were served, (Pompeii). triclinium A room in a Roman villa with three couches or couches along three sides. trinkfest A drinking party, (German) ustrinum (a -pl) A pyre site located in a different place from the deposition site.

209

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN

Bibliography archaeologies Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Arcelin, C. 1979 “La vie quotidienne: moeurs domestiques, habits et parures, armement”, Les Dossiers de l’Archéologie 35, 76-85. Arcelin, P. 1979 “Croyances et vie religieuse: manifestations, cultuelles, rituels funéraires”, Les Dossiers de l’Archéologie 35, 99-107. Arcelin, P. & C. 1973 “La nécropole protohistorique de la Catalane aux Baux- de- Provence (B.-du- Rhone), Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise VI, 95- 195. Arcelin, P. & C. 1975 “Les sépultures préromaines de Saint-Rémy-de Provence”, Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise 8, 67-137. Arnold, B. 1995 “The material culture of social structure: rank and status in early Iron Age Europe”, B. Arnold & D. B. Gibson (eds.), Celtic chief and Celtic State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Arnold, B. 1999 “‘Drinking the feast’: alcohol and the legitimation of power in Celtic Europe”, Cambridge, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 9 (1), 71-93. Arnold, B. & Gibson, D. B. (eds.) 1995 Celtic chief and Celtic State. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Arnold, B. & Gibson, D.B. 1995 “Beyond the mists: forging an ethnological approach to Celtic studies”, in B. Arnold and D.B. Gibson (eds.), Celtic chief and Celtic State Cambridge, Cambridge University Press . Ashe, G. 1990 Mythology of the British Isles. London, Methuen. Atkinson, M. & Preston, S.J. 1999 “The Late Iron Age and Roman settlement at Elms Farm, Heybridge, Essex: Excavations 1993-5. An interim report”, Britannia XXIX, 85-110. Atkinson, M. & Preston, S.J. (forthcoming) Heybridge: a Late Iron Age and Roman Settlement, excavations at Elms Farm, 1993-5 East Anglian Archaeology Report, Chelmsford. Barbet, A. 1983 “La diffusion du IIIe style Pompéien en Gaule”, Gallia 41, 111-165. Barker, G. & Rasmussen, T. 1998 The Etruscans. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Bats, M. 1988 “Vaisselle et alimentation à Olbia de Provence (v. 350-50 av. J.-C.), modèles culturels et catégories céramiques”. Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise, Supplement 18. Baudoux, J. 1996 Les amphores du nord-est de la Gaule. Paris, DAF 52. Béal, J.-C. 1991 “La mausolée de Cucuron (Vaucluse) 2e partie: le lit funéraire à décor d’os de la tombe no. 1”, Gallia 48, 285-313. Beck, F. & Chew, H. 1989 Quand les Gaulois étaient Romains. Gallimard. Beck, F. & Chew, H. 1991 Masques de fer: Un officier romain du temps de Caligula. Paris, Editions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux.

Classical Texts Athenaeus Deipnosophistae, in J.T. Koch, (ed.) 1997 The Celtic Heroic Age: Literary sources for ancient Celtic Europe and Early Ireland and Wales. Massachusetts, Celtic Studies Publications, 1-12. Caesar, Julius in Wiseman, A. & P. 1980 “Julius Caesar: The Battle for Gaul” (BG), London, Chatto &Windus Ltd. Dio Cassius, Epitome, in: A. Smith, 2001 The differential use of sacred space in southern Britain, from the Late Iron Age to the 4th Century AD. BAR British Series 318. Justin The Philippic Histories in: Carcopino, J. 1941 Daily life in Ancient Rome. Lorimer, E. O. (trans.), London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 263-76. Juvenal, Satires in: Carcopino, J. 1941 Daily life in Ancient Rome. Lorimer, E. O. (trans.), London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 263-76. Homer, The Iliad in: R. Fitzgerald, (trans.) Homer: The Iliad. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Martial, Epigrams in: Carcopino, J. 1941 Daily life in Ancient Rome. Lorimer, E. O. (trans.), London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 263-76. Petronius Satyricon (Trimalchio’s feast) in: Carcopino, J. 1941 Daily life in Ancient Rome. Lorimer, E. O. (trans.), London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 263-76. Posidonius in: J. T. Koch, (ed.) 1997 The Celtic Heroic Age: literary sources for ancient Celtic Europe and Early Ireland and Wales. Massachusetts, Celtic Studies Publications 1-12. General Bibliography Adam, A.-M. 1992 “Les bronzes Étrusques du Cabinet des Médailles”, Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 175, 729. Adam, A.-M. 1995 “A propos de quelques recipients du service funeraire Étrusque (VI-IV siècle avant J.-C.)”, Revue des Études Anciennes 97 (1-2), 103-113. Adam, A.-M. 2002 “Les passoires dans le monde celtique: formes, origine, usage”, in: P. Méniel & B. Lambot (eds.), Découvertes récentes de l’âge du Fer dans les massif des Ardennes et ses marges: Repas des vivants et nourriture pour les morts en Gaule. Charleville, Mémoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, 16 (1), 143-156. Allain, J., Faudet, I. & Dupoux, J. 1987 “Puits et fosses de la fontaine des Mersans à Argentomagus : dépotoirs ou dépôts votifs?”, Gallia 45, 105-112. Arafat, K. & Morgan, C. 1994 “Athens, Etruria and the Heuneburg: mutual misconceptions in the study of Greek-barbarian relations” in: I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece: ancient histories and modern

210

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Boudet, R. 1996 Rituels celtes d’Aquitaine. Paris, Editions Errance. Boudet, R. & Jerebzoff, A. 1992 “La “Tombe” à char de Boé (Lot-et-Garonne)” in, R. Boudet (ed.) Les Celtes, la Garonne et les Pays aquitains, l’âge du Fer du sud-ouest de la France (du VIIe au Ier siècle avant notre J.-C.), Agen, 95-7. Bouloumié, B. 1988 “Le symposium gréco-etrusque et l’aristocratie celtique.” in: Les Princes celtes et le Méditerranée, Paris, Rencontres de l’ École du Louvre, La Documentation Française, 343- 383. Bradley, K. 1998 “The Roman family at dinner” in: I. Nielsen. & H. S. Nielsen (eds.), Meals in a Social Context: aspects of the communal meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World, Aarhus University Press. Bradley, R. 1998 The passage of arms: An archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoard and votive deposits. Oxford, Alden Press, (Second edition). Bretz-Mahler, D. 1971 “La civilisation de La Tène en Champagne”, Paris, Gallia, Supplement 5. Brion, M. 1960 Pompeii and Herculaneum: the glory and the grief. London, Elek Books Ltd. Brisson, A. & Hatt, J.J. 1969 “La cimitière de la Tempête à Normée (Marne)”, Memoires de la Societé d’Agricultre,Commerce, Sciences et Arts du Dep. de la Marne 84, 21-37. Brisson, A., Hatt, J. J., & Roualet, P. 1970 “Le cimitière de Fère-Champenoise, Faubourg de Connantre”, Memoires de Societé d’Agricultre, Commerce, Sciences et Arts du Dep. Du la Marne 85, 5-26. Briers, A. 1990 Eat, drink and be merry. Oxford, Ashmoleum Museum. Brun, P. 1995 “From chiefdom to state organization in Celtic Europe”, in: B. Arnold & D. Gibson (eds.), Celtic chief and Celtic State, 13-25. Brun, P. 1987 Princes et princesses de la Celtique. Le premier âge du fer en Europe 850- 450 av. J.- C. Paris. Brunaux, J-L. 1988 The Celtic Gauls: Gods, rites and sanctuaries. London, Seaby. Brunaux, J-L. 2001 “Guerre et guerriers celtes”, L’Archéologue/ Archeologie nouvelle, 55, 4-20. Brunaux, J-L. 2002 “Les guerriers à la table des dieux. Les fragments de Posiedonios dans les Deipnosophistes d’Athénée” in P. Méniel, & B. Lambot, (eds.) Découvertes récentes de l’âge du Fer dans les massif des Ardennes et ses marges: Repas des vivants et nourriture pour les morts en Gaule. Charleville, Mémoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, 16 (1) 273-84. Bry, M. & Fromols, J. 1938 “La nécropole gallo-romaine á incineration de Prunay II”, Bulletin de la Société Archéologique Champenoise 4, 133-56. Büchsenschütz, O . 1995 “Major settlements in European Iron Age society” in: B. Arnold & D. Gibson (eds.), Celtic chief and Celtic State. 13-25.

Bellingham, D. 1990 An introduction to Celtic Mythology. Grange Books. Berard, C., Bron, C., Durand, J-L., Frontisi-Ducroix, F., Lissaraue, F., Schapp, A. & Vernant J.-P. 1989 A city of images: iconography and society in Ancient Greece. Princetown University Press. Bergquist, A. 1990 “Sympotic space: a functional aspect of Greek dining rooms” in: Sympotica: a symposium on the symposium. O. Murray, (ed.), Oxford, 37- 65. Bergquist, A. & Taylor, T. 1987 “The origin of the Gundestrup Cauldron”, Antiquity 61, 10- 24. Bertucchi, G. 1990 “Le vin de Marseille”, Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 154, 55-48. Bertucchi, G. 1992 “Les amphores et le vin de Marseille Vie s. avant J.-C. - Iie s. après J.-C.”, Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise, Supplément 25. Beyneix, A. 1992 “Les puits de la fin du second Age du Fer de Vic-Fezensac et de Lectoure (Gers)”, in: R. Boudet (ed.) Les Celtes, la Garonne et les Pays aquitains, l’âge du Fer du sud-ouest de la France (du VIIe au Ier siècle avant notre J.-C.), Agen, 76-7. Bieg, G. & Prayon, F. 1995 “Zu Orvietaner Grabkontexte, Komposition und Wert”, Revue des Études des Anciennes 97 (1-2), 141-151. Biel, J. 1997 “The Celtic Princes of Hohenasperg (Baden-Würrtemberg), in: V. Kruta et al. (eds.) The Celts. New York, Rizzoli. Birchall, A. 1965 “The Aylesford-Swarling Culture: The problem of the Belgae reconsidered”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 10, 241-367. Birley, A.R. (trans.) 1999 Tacitus: Agricola and Germany. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bodart, H. 1997 “The material en bronze découvert à Sains-du-Nord (Nord)”, Revue Nord LXXXIX no. 323 161-6. Bolla, M. 1991 “Considerazioni sulla funzione dei vasi in bronzo tardorepublicani in Italia settrionale” in: M. Feugère & C. Rolley, La vaisselle tardo-républicaine en bronze. Dijon, 143-153. Boniface, J. 1999 Die Treverischen Adelsgräber von Schieirheck Internet – http://www.cpu./lu/gka/publicat/sch-heck (accessed 07/05/99). Bonnamour, L., Duval, A. & Guillaumet, J-P. 1985 “Les ages du fer dans la vallée de la Saône”, Revue Archéologique de l’Est et du Centre-Est 6. Bookidis, N., Hansen, J., Snyder, L., & Goldberg, P. 1999 “Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore”, Hesperia 68, 1 1-54. Booth, A. 1991 “The age for reclining and its attendant perils”, in: W. F. Slater, Dining in a classical context. 105-119. Boube, C. 1991 “Les cruches” in: M. Feugère & C. Rolley La vaisselle tardo-républicaine en bronze, Dijon, 23-45. R. Boudet (ed.) 1992 Les Celtes, la Garonne et les Pays aquitains, l’âge du Fer du sud-ouest de la France (du VIIe au Ier siècle avant notre J.-C.), Agen.

211

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Buchsenschutz, O. & Olivier, L. (eds.) 1989 Les viereckschanzen et les enceintes quadrilatérales en Europe Celtique. Association Française pour l’Étude de l’Age du Fer, Paris, Editions Errance. Bunson, M. 1994 Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire New York, Facts on File. Burchhardt, J. (trans., S. Stern) 1998 The Greeks and Greek Civilization, London, Fontana Press. Burkert, W. 1985 Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Oxford, Blackwell. Burridge, K.O.L. 1967 “Levi-Strauss and Myth.” In The Structural Study of Myth and Totemism. Ed. Edmund Leach. London: Tavistock,. 92- 101. Buxton, R. 1994 Imaginary Greece: The contexts of mythology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Callender, M.H. 1965 Roman amphorae with index of stamps. Oxford, Oxford University Press Campbell, D.A. 1983 The golden lyre. Duckworth. Carcopino, J. 1941 Daily life in Ancient Rome. Lorimer, E. O. (trans.), London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Carpenter, T.H. 1991 Art and myth in Ancient Greece. Thames & Hudson. Carr, G. & Knüsel, C. 1997 “The ritual framework of excarnation by exposure as the mortuary practice of early and middle Iron Ages of central southern Britain”, in : Gwilt & Haselgrove Reconstructing Iron Age societies, Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 71, 167173. Castoldi, M. & Feugère, M. 1991 “Les simpulums”, in: M. Feugère & C. Rolley, (eds.), La vaiselle tardorépublicaine en bronze, Dijon. Cattelain, P. et al. 2002 “Vestiges d’occupations du deuxieme âge du Fer dans la grotte de la roche Albéric à Couvin, (Province de Namur, Belgique)”, in P. Méniel & B. Lambot, (eds.) 2002 Découvertes récentes de l’âge du Fer dans les massif des Ardennes et ses marges: Repas des vivants et nourriture pour les morts en Gaule. Charleville, Mémoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, 16 (1), 23-32. Cavanagh, W. & Mee, C. 1998 A private place: death in prehistoric Greece. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, CXXV. Cerchiai, L. 1988 “La situle de type Kurd découverte dans la tombe 4461 de Pontecagnano”, in: Rencontres de l’École du Louvre, Les Princes Celtes et la Méditerrané. Paris, La Documentation Française, 103- 8. Chadwick, H. M. 1926 The Heroic Age Cambridge, Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological Series. Chadwick, N. 1970 The Celts. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Champion, T. 1995 “Power, politics and status” in M. Green The Celtic World Routledge, 85- 94. Champion, T.C. & Megaw, J.V.S. 1985 Settlement and society: aspects of West European prehistory in the first millennium BC. Leicester, Leicester University Press. Charpentier, V. (ed.) 1995 Redécouverte des Gaulois. Paris, Editions Errance.

Charpy, J.-J. 1997 “The Champagne region under Celtic rule during the fourth and third centuries BC”, in V. Kruta et al. (eds.), The Celts. New York, Rizzoli, 265274. Chausserie-Laprée 2000 “Á Martigues: Le nouveau visage de la Gaule Provençale”, Archéologia 370, 4249. Cherici, A. 1995 “Vassellame metallico e tombe con armi in Etruria”, Revue des Études Anciennes 97, (12), 115-139. Chossenot, M. 1968 Buoy, “Le Guillardet” . Marne, unpublished excavation report. Chossenot, M. 1989 “Enclos rectangulaires allongés et trapédoidaux en Champagne”, in: Les viereckschanzen et les enceintes quadrilaterales en Europe Celtique Editions Errance,107-115. Chossenot, M. 1990 “L’importance de la boisson et plus particulièrement du vin chez les Celtes champenoisè, du Vie siècle avant J.-C. au début de notre ère”, in: Archéologie de la vigne et du vin, Caesarodunum 24, 81-87. Chossenot, M. 1997 “Recherches sur La Tène Moyenne et Finale en Champagne: Étude des processus de changement”, Memoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise 12. Chossenot, M. 1999 “Les amphores vinaires en Champagne, (Ier siècle avant J.-C.-Ier siècle après J.C.): Inventaire et essai d’interpretation”, in V. Barrie (ed.) Vins, vignobles et terroirs de l’antiquité à nos jours. Actes et Colloque de Reims, 11-35. Chossenot, M. & Chossenot, D. 1975 Buoy, Chemin de Vadenay. Marne, unpublished excavation report. Christ, A. 1996 “Consuming bodies in Early Imperial Rome”, The Ancient History Bulletin 10, (3-4), 93109. Clarke, R.R. & Hawkes, C.F.C. 1955 “An iron anthropoid sword from Shoudham, Norfolk with related continental and British weapons”, The Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 21, 198-225. Cleere, H. 2001 Southern France: an Oxford Archaeological Guide. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cliquet, D., Remy-Watte, M., Guichard, V. & Vaginay, M. (eds.) 1993 Les Celtes Normandie: les Rites Funeraires en Gaule (IIIème- Ier siècles avant J.-C.). Actes du 14ème colloque de l’Association Française pour l’Etude de l’Age du Fer; Evreux-mai 1990, Revue Archologique de l’Ouest, Rennes 6. Colin, A. 1998 Chronologique des oppida de la Gaule non méditerranéenne. Paris, DAF 71, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Collins, D. 1979 The Origins of Europe. London, George Allen & Unwin. Collis, J. 1975 Defended sites of Late La Tène in Central and Western Europe. BAR sup. Series 2. Collis, J. 1977 “Pre-Roman burial rites in north-western Europe”, in: R. Reece, (ed.) Burial in the Roman World. CBA Res. Report 22, 1-12.

212

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Collis, J. 1984 The European Iron Age. London, Batsford. Collis, J 1995 “The first towns” in: M. Green The Celtic World. Routledge, 159- 175 Coulon, G. 1996 Argentomagus. Paris, Editions Errance. Coulon, G. & Villard, A. 1992 Tombes aristocratiques en pays Biturige. Catalogue d’Exposition. Crawford, M. 1992 The Roman Republic. London, Fontana Press. Creighton, J. 1999 “À la mode de Rome”, l’Archeologue 41, 24-27. Crummy, P. J. “Aristocratic graves at Colchester” Current Archaeology 132, 492-7. Crummy, P. J. (ed.) 1993 The “Warrior burial”, Colchester Archaeologist 6, 1-5. Crummy, P. J. 1997 “Colchester: The Stanway burials”, Current Archaeology 153, 337-42. Cunliffe, B. W. 1979 The Celtic World. London, Bodley Head. Cunliffe, B. W. 1987 Origins: The roots of European civilisation. BBC Books. Cunliffe, B. W. 1988 Greeks, Romans & Barbarians: Spheres of interaction. London, B.T. Batsford Ltd. Cunliffe, B. W. 1992 The Celtic World. London, Constable Cunliffe, B. W. 1997 The Ancient Celts. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Daire, M.-Y. & Quesnel, L. 2002 “Manger et boire en Armorique. Quelques témoignes de la céramique domestique au second âge du Fer”, in: P. Méniel & B. Lambot (eds.), Découvertes récentes de l’âge du Fer dans les massif des Ardennes et ses marges: Repas des vivants et nourriture pour les morts en Gaule. Charleville, Mémoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, 16 (1), 181190. Dalby, A. 1994 Siren feasts: A history of food and gastronomy in Greece. London, Routledge. D’Ambra, E. 1998 Art and identity in the Roman world. The Everyman Art Library. Dangréaux, B. & Desbat, A. 1987 “Les amphores du dépotoir flavien du Bas-de-Lyasse à Lyon”, Gallia 45, 115-153. Dannell, G. B. 1979 “Eating and drinking in pre-conquest Britain: The effect of amphora and Samian trading, and the effect of the Invasion of Claudius” BAR 73, 177-184. Davidson, J. 1998 Courtesans and fishcakes. Fontana Press. Dedet, B., Michelozzi, A. & Py, M. 1974 “La nécropole des Colombes, Beaucaire, (Gard), IIe-Ier siècle av. J.C.”, Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise VII, 59118. Delaney, F. 1989 Legends of the Celts. London, Harper Collins. Delaney, F. 1993 The Celts. Harper Collins. Delmaire, R. 1994 Carte Archéologique de la Gaule, Le Pas-de-Calais, 2 volumes, Paris.

Demoule, J.-P. 1999 “La société contre les princes” in P. Ruby, (ed.) Les princes de la protohistoire et l’émergence de l’état. Centre Jean Bérard École Française de Rome. Dennis, G. 1878 The cities and cemeteries of Etruria Vol. 2, London, John Murray. Dentzer, J-M. 1982 Le motif du banquet couché dans le proche-orient et le monde Grec du VIIe au Ive siècle avant J-C. Rome, École Française de Rome. Derks, T. 1998 Gods, temples and ritual practices: the transformation of religious ideas and values in Roman Gaul. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Destexhe, G. 1981 “Tombes de la Tène III de Horion Hozement”, Actes du XLVe Congrés de la Federation des Cerces d’Histoire et Archéologique de Belgique Comine, 97-110. Detienne, M. 1989 Dionysos at large. Harvard, Harvard University Press. Dietler, M. 1988 “A tale of three sites: the monumentalization of Celtic oppida and the politics of collective memory and identity”, World Archaeology 30, (1), 72-89. Dietler, M. 1989 “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. Dietler, M. 1995 “Early “Celtic” socio-political relations: ideological representation and social competition in dynamic comparative Celtic studies”, in: B. Arnold & D. Gibson, (eds.) Celtic chief and Celtic State. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 64-71. Dietler, M. 1989 “Greeks, Etruscans and thirsty barbarians: Early Iron Age interaction in the Rhône Basin”, in: T.C.Champion (ed.), Centre and periphery: comparative studies in archaeology, London,127-41, Unwin. Dietler, M.1992 “Wine, commerce and cultural contacts”, Études Massalietes 3, 401-410. Dietler, M. 1999 “Rituals of commensality and the politics of state formation in the “princely” societies of early Iron Age Europe”, in: P. Ruby, (ed.) Les princes de la protohistoire et l’émergence de l’état. École française de Rome, 135-152. Dietler, M. (ed.) 2001 Feasts; archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics and power. Washington & London, Smithsonian Institution Press. Dillon, M. & Chadwick, N. K. 1973 The Celtic Realms. London. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Dover, K. 1998 “The spoken and the written word”, in: B.A. Sparkes (ed.) Greek Civilization: an introduction. Blackwell, 146-169. Douglas, M. 1967. “Primitive rationing”, in: Themes in economic anthropology: [originated in a conference on economic anthropology at Oxford in June 1965] ed. by Raymond Firth, London, New York, Tavistock, 119-147

213

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Dowden, K. 1992 The uses of Greek mythology. Routledge. Drury, P. J. 1986 “Early settlement” in N. P. Wickenden, “Prehistoric settlement and the Romano-British ‘Small Town’ at Heybridge, Essex”, Essex Archaeological History 17, 61-5. Dumoulin, A. 1965 “Les puits et fosses de la Colline Saint-Jacques à Cavaillon, (Vacluse)”, Gallia 23, 185. Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1993 “Wine and water at the Roman convivium”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 6, 116141. Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1996 “Convivial spaces: Dining and entertainment in the Roman villa”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9, 66- 79. Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1998 “Ut Graeco more biberetur: Greeks and Romans on the dining couch”, in: I. Nielsen & H.S.Nielsen (eds.) Meals in a social context: aspects of the communal meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Oxford, Aarhus University Press, 81-101. Duroselle, J.-B. 1990 Europe, a history of its peoples. Penguin Books Ltd. Duval, A., Le Bihan, J. P. & Menez, Y. 1990 “Les gaulois d’Armorique: la fin de l’Age du Fer en Europe temperée”, Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest 3. Duval, A., Morel, J.-P. & Roman, Y. (eds.) 1990 Gaule Interne et Gaule Méditerrané aux Iie et Ier siècles avant J.-C.: confrontations chronologiques. Paris, Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise 21, 47-54. Duval, P.-M. & Hawkes, C. (eds.) 1976 Celtic Art in Ancient Europe: five historic centuries. Seminar Press. Duval, P.-M. & Kruta, V. (eds.) 1979 Les mouvements celtiques du Ve au Ier siècle avant notre ère. Paris, Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Eluère, C. 1992 Celts: First masters of Europe. London,Thames & Hudson. Engs, R. C. 1995 Do traditional western European practices have origins in antiquity? Addiction Research 2 (3) 227-239 http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/ar1096.htm, (accessed 29. 12. 01). Erith, F.H. & Holbert, P.R. 1974 “A Belgic pit at Ardleigh”, Colchester Archaeological Group Annual Bulletin 17, 4-19. Etienne, R. 1992 Pompeii; the day a city died .London, Thames and Hudson. Etienne, R. & Mayet, F. 2000 Le vin Hispanique. Paris, Boccard. Exley, H. 1994 Cooks quotations. New York. Fairon, G. 1986 “La nécropole de Gaichelknapp á Bonnert-Arlon (La Tène III et époque Romain)” Vie Archéologique 20, 9-87. Farley, M. E. 1983 “A mirror burial at Dorton, Bucks”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43, 269-302.

Feldherr, A. 2000 “Non inter nota sepulchra: Catallus 101 and Roman funerary ritual” Classical Antiquity 19 (2) University of California Press, 209-29. Ferdière, A. (ed.) 1993 Monde des morts, monde des vivants en Gaule rurale. Tours, Actes du Colloque Archea/ Ager; Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France, 6. Ferdière, A. (ed.) 2000 L’Archéologie funéraire Editions Errance. Ferdière, A. & Villard, A. 1993 La tombe augustéenne de Fléré-la-Rivière (Indre) et les sépultres aristocratiques de la cité des Bituriges. Memoire 2 du Musée d’Argentomagus. Feugère, M. 1991 “Les gobelets” in: M. Feugère & C. Rolley (eds.) La vaisselle tardo-républicaine en bronze. Dijon, 53-59. Feugère, M. 1996 “Les tombes à armes et l’aristocratie gauloise soux la paix romaine” in: M. Reddé (ed.) L’Armée Romaine en Gaule editions errance. Feugère, M., Gardeisen, A., Manniez, Y., Monteil, M. & Vidal, L. 1995 “Un espace funeraire du deuxieme quart du Ier s. avant J.-C. Nimes, Gard”. Gallia 52. Feugère, M. & Rolley, C. (eds.) 1991 La vaisselle tardorépublicaine en bronze. Dijon. Feugère, M. &De Marinis, R. 1991 “Poêlons” in: M. Feugère & C. Rolley (eds.) 1991 La vaisselle tardorépublicaine en bronze. Dijon, 97-112. Février, P-A. et al. 1989 La Provence des origines à l’an mil. Editions Ouest-France. Fichtl, S. 1994 Les Gaulois du Nord de la Gaule (150-20 av. J.-C.). Paris. Fichtl, S. 2000 La ville celtique; (Les oppida de 150 av. J.C. à 15 ap. J.-C.). Paris, Editions Errance. Field, D.M. 1977 Greek and Roman mythology. Hamlyn. Finley, M. I. 1956 The World of Odysseus. Penguin Books. Finley, M. I.1973 The ancient economy. London, Penguin Books. Fischer, F. 1995 “The early Celts of west central Europe: the semantics of social structure”, in: B. Arnold & D. Gibson (eds.) Celtic chief and Celtic State. 34- 40. Fisher, N. 1998 “Politics and public life: the urban scene”, in: B. Sparkes (ed.) Greek Civilization: An introduction. Oxford, Blackwell. Fitzgerald, R. (trans.) 1974 Homer: The Iliad. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Fitzpatrick, A. 1985 “The distribution of Dressel 1 amphorae in north-west Europe”. Oxford, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4 (3), 305-40. Fitzpatrick, A. 1993 “Ethnicity and exchange: Germans, Celts and Romans in the later Iron Age”, in: C. Scarre & F. Healey (eds.) Trade and Exchange in prehistoric Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 33, 233-244. Fitzpatrick, A. 1997 Archaeological excavations on the route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex, 1992, Volume 2: The Cemeteries. Salisbury, Wessex Archaeology Report No. 12. Fitzpatrick, A. 2000 “Ritual, sequence, and structure in the Late Iron Age mortuary practices in north-west 214

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Europe”, in: J. Pearce, M. Millett & M. Struck (eds.) Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World. Oxford. Flouest, J-L. & Stead, I.M. 1979 Iron Age Cemeteries in Champagne, The third interim report. British Museum Occasional Paper no. 6. Flouest, J-L. & Stead, I.M. 1977 “Recherches sur des cimitières de La Tène en Champagne in 1971-6”. Gallia 35, 59-74. Flouest, J-L. & Stead, I.M. 1977 “Une tombe de La Tène III á Hannogne (Ardennes)”, Memoires de la Société d’Agricultre, Commerce, Sciences et Arts de la Marne XCII, 55-72. Fontaine, P. 1995 “À propos des inscriptions Suoina sur la vaisselle metallique Étrusque”, Revue des Études Anciennes 97, (1-2), 201-216. Foss, P.D. 1994 Kitchens and dining rooms at Pompeii: the spatial and social relationship of cooking to eating in the Roman Household. Michigan, Ph.D. Thesis University of Michigan, 45-56. Foster, J. A. A.1986 The Lexden Tumulus: a reappraisal of an Iron Age burial from Colchester, Essex. Oxford, BAR British Series 156. Fouet, G. 1958 “Puits funéraires d’Aquitaine:Vielle Toulouse, Montmaurin”, Gallia 16, 115-196. Fouet, G. & Mounie, R. “Vieille Toulouse: puits funéraires no. funéraires”, Pallas IX, 219-244. Fox, C. 1923 The archaeology of the Cambridge Region. Cambridge. Foxall, L. 1998 “The Greek countryside”, in: B. A. Sparkes (ed.) Greek Civilization: an introduction. Blackwell, 99-114. Freeman, C. 1996 Egypt, Greece and Rome. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Freeman, P.W.M. 1993 “‘Romanisation’ and Roman material culture”, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 6, 438-445. Freeman, P.W.M. 1997 “Mommsen through to Haverfield: the origins of Romanization studies in late 19th-c. Britain”, in: D.J. Mattingly (ed.) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 23, 27-50 . Frere, D. 1996 “Les collections étrusques de deux musées de l’Ouest de la France: Beaufort-en-Vallée et Château-Gontier”, Annale de Bretagne et Pays de l’Ouest 103, 7-24. Frey, H. F. 1997 “The formation of the La Tène Culture in the fifth century BC”, in: V. Kruta et al. (eds.) The Celts. New York, Rizzola, 135- 164. Frey, H. F. 1997 “The first Celtic expansion: prehistory to history”, in: V. Kruta et al. (eds.) The Celts. New York, Rizzola, 206- 204. Frey, O. H. 1997 “‘Celtic Princes’ in the Sixth Century BC”, in: Kruta (ed.) The Celts. London, Rizzoli, 80102. Friboulet, M. & Verbrugghe, G. 1993 Bezannes, “Les Marsilliers”. Association pour les Fouilles Archéologiques Nationales (report).

Galaty, M.L. 1999 Nestor’s Wine Cups: Investigating Ceramic Manufacture and Exchange in a Late Bronze Age “Mycenaean” State. BAR International Report 766. Galliou, P. 1984 “Days of wine and roses? Early Armorica and the Atlantic wine trade”, in: S. Macready & F.H. Thompson (eds.) Cross-Channel Trade between Gaul and Britain in the pre-Roman Iron Age. London, Society of Antiquaries of London, Occasional Paper 4, 24-36. Galliou, P. 1989 Les tombes romaines d’ Amorique: Essai de sociologie et d’économie de la mort. Documents d’Archéologie Française. Galliou, P. 1992 “Commerce and société en Armorique romaine”, Revue des Études Anciennes 94 (1-2), 2340. Galliou, P. & Jones, M. 1991 The Bretons. Oxford, Blackwell. Garland, R. 2001 The Greek Way of Death. New York, Cornell University Press. Garmy, P., Miccelozzi, A. & Py, M. 1981 “Une nouvelle sépulture à Beaucaire (Gard): La tombe de Mas de Jallon”, Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise XIV, 71-87. Garnsey, P. 1999 Food and society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Gaudron, G. 1955 “Landiers gaulois en fer forgé du Musée de Laon, (Aisne)”, Bulletin Société Préhistorique Française 52, 275-7. Geoffroy, J.-F. & Barbé, (eds.) 2001 Les nécropoles à incinérations en Gaule Belgique: synthèses régionales et méthodologie Lille, Revue du Nord 8. Gill, D.W.J. 1995 Internet review De Puma, R.D. and Small, J.P. (eds.) 1994 Murlo and the Etruscans: Art and Society in Ancient Etruria. Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press in gopher://gopher.lib.virginia.edu/00/alpha/bmcr/v95/9 5-6-6 (accessed 23.10.1999). Gill, D.W. J. 1994 “Positivism, pots and long-distance trade”, in: I. Morris (ed.) Classical Greece: ancient histories and modern archaeologies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 49-107. Gill, D.W. J. & Vicker, M. 1995 “They were expendable: Greek vases in the Etruscan tomb”, Revues des Études Anciennes 97, (1-2), 45-76. Gomez de Soto, J. 1993 “Cooking for the élite: feasting equipment in the Late Bronze Age”, in: C. Scarre & F. Healey (eds.) Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Oxbow Monograph, 191-197. Gomez de Soto, J. et al. 1994 “Sépultures aristocratiques authentiques, apparences funéraires et practiques cultuelles dans le quart sud-ouest de la Gaule à l’âge du Fer et au début de l’ époque gallo-romaine. Aquitania XII, 165- 182. Goodman, M. 1997 The Roman World 44 BC-AD 180. Routledge Goudineau, C. 1996 “Le Gaule avant Caesar”, in: M. Reddé, (ed.) L’Armée Romaine en Gaule. editions errance, 9-12. 215

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Goudineau, C. 1999 “L’aristocratie celtique après la guerre des Gaules”, l’Archeologue 41, 30-33. Grace, V. 1979 Amphoras and the ancient wine trade. Princetown, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Gran-Aymerich, J. 1995 “Le buccherro et les vases metalliques”, Revues des Études Anciennes 97 (1-2), 45-76. Grant, M. 1979 The art and life of Pompeii and Herculaneum. New York, Newsweek. Graves, R. 1955 Greek myths. London, Cassell. Green, M. 1993 Celtic myths. London, British Museum Press. Green, M. (ed.) 1995 a) The Celtic world. London, Routledge. Green, M. 1995 b) “The gods and the supernatural” in M. Green (ed.) The Celtic world. London, Routledge, 465-88. Green, M. 1998 “Vessels of death: sacred cauldrons in archaeology and myth”, in: The Antiquaries Journal 98, 63-83. Griffin, J. 1980 Homer on Life and Death. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Griffiths Pedley, J. 1993 Greek Art and Archaeology. London, Laurence King. Gruat, P. 1992 “Rodez Gaulois: Aux origines de la capitale du Rouergue”, in: P. Gruat & M. Vidal Dix ans d’archeologue en Aveyron, recherches et découvertes. Musée Archéologie de Montrozier Guide d’Archéologie 3 Gruel, K. 1989 La Monnai Chez Les Gaulois. Editions Errance. Gruel, K., Vitali, D. et al 1999 “L’evolution du commerce des amphores : L’oppidum de Bibracte” Paris, Gallia 55, 1-140. Guichard, V. 1999 “Les derniers aristocrates celtes- Iie siècle avant J.-C.- Ier siècle après J.-C.”, l’Archeologue 41, 4-5. Guillaumet, J.-P.1977 “Les passoires de la fin de La Tène en Gaule dans la monde Celtique”, Paris, Gallia 35 239-246. Guillaumet, J-P. 1991 a) “La Gaule chevelue: Similitudes et différences dans la vaisselle metallique de l’Europe temperée”, in: M. Feugère & C. Rolley La vaisselle tardo-républicaine en bronze. Dijon. Guillaumet, J-P. 1991 b) “Les passoires” in M. Feugère & C. Rolley, La vaisselle tardo-républicaine en bronze. Dijon. Guillier, G. 1991 Une nécropole de La Tène II Á Sommesous, “La Côte d’Orgeval”. Société d’Agricultre, Commerce, Sciences et Arts de Marne. Guyonvarc’h, C.-J., and Le Roux, F. 1990 La civilisation celtique. Éditions Ouest-France. Gwilt, A. & Haselgrove, C. 1997 Reconstructing Iron Age societies. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 71. Haffner, A. 1971 Das keltisch-römisch Gräberfeld von Wederath- Belginum, 1- 3. 3 vol. (Trierer Grabungen und Forschungen, VI).

Haffner, A. 1997 “The princely tombs of the Celts in the Middle Rhieland”, in: V. Kruta et al. (eds.) The Celts. New York, Rizzoli, 173-190. Haffner, A. (ed.) 1998 Studien zur archaologie der Kelten Romer und Germanen in Mittel und Westeuropa. 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. Haselgrove, C. C. 1987 “Culture process on the periphery: Belgic Gaul and Rome during the late Republic and early Empire”, in: M. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen (eds.) Centre and periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press, 79-88. Haselgrove, C. C. 1989 “The later Iron Age in southern Britain and beyond”, in: M.Todd (ed.) Research on Roman Britain 1960- 89. London, Britannia Monograph 11, Society for the promotion of Roman Studies, 1-18. Haselgrove, C. C. 1996 “Roman impact on rural settlement and society in southern Picardy”, in: Roymans, N. (ed.). From the sword to the plough: Three studies on the earliest Romanisation of Northern Gaul. Amsterdam, Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 1, 127-187. Haselgrove, C., Armit, I., Champion, T., Creighton, J., Gwilt, A., Hill, J. D., Hunter, F., & Woodward, A. 2001 Understanding the British Iron Age: An agenda for action. A report for the Iron Age Research Seminar and the Council of the Prehistoric Society. Salisbury, Wessex Archaeology. Hawkes, C. F. C. & Smith, M. A. 1957 “On some buckets and cauldrons of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages”, The Antiquaries Journal 37, 131-98. Hayden, B. 2001 “Fabulous feasts: A prolegomenon to the importance of feasting”, in: Dietler, M. (ed.) Feasts; Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics and power, Washington & London, Smithsonian Institution Press. Hedegar, L. 1987 “Empire, frontier and the barbarian hinterland: Rome and Northern Europe from AD 1400”, in: M. Rowlands, M. Larceny & K. Christians, (eds.) Center and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hemphill, P. 1985 George Dennis: Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. Princetown, Princetowm University Press, abridged edition. Henna, B. & Bauxite, G. 1997 “Une tombe de La Tène D2 á Cuiry-les-Chaudardes (Aisne)”, Revue Archéologique de Picardie 1 /2, 107-113. Henon, B. 1993 “Les amphores”, in M. Friboulet & G. Verbrugghe Bezannes, “Les Marsilliers”. Association pour les Fouilles Archéologiques Nationales (report), 60. Herring, E., Whitehouse, R. D. & Wilkins, J. B. 2000 “Wine, wealth and war: Some Gravina tombs of the 6th and 5th centuries BC”, in D. Ridgeway et al. 216

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE (eds.) Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean setting: studies in honour of Ellen MacNamara, 235-56. Hesnard, A. 1990 “Les amphores”, in: A. Duval, J.-P. Morel, & Roman, Y. (eds.) Gaule Interne et Gaule Méditerrané aux Iie et Ier Siècles avant J.-C.: confrontations chronologiques. Paris, Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise, 21 47-54. Hill, J.D. & Cumberpatch, C.D. (eds.) 1995 Different Iron Ages: studies on the Iron Age in Temperate Europe. BAR International Series 602. Hussen, M-C. 1983 A rich Late La Tène Burial at Hertford Heath, Hertfordshire. British Museum Occasional Paper No. 44. Jackson, K. 1964 The oldest Irish tradition: A window on the Iron Age. Cambridge & New York. Jacques, A. & Jelski, G. 1991 “Arras Antique: Bilan et perspectives”, in: Les villes de la Gaule Belgique et dans le Nord de la France, Revue Archéologique de Picardie 3-4, 113-137. Jacquet-Rimassa, P. 1999 “Les représentations de la musique, divertissement du symposium Grec, dans les céramiques Attiques et Italiote, (440-300)”, Revue des Études Anciennes 101, (1-2), 37-63. James, S.1999 The Atlantic Celts: Ancient people or modern invention? London, British Museum Press. James, S. & Millet, M. (eds.) 2001 Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological perspective, CBA research report 125. Jannot, J.R. 1995 “Les vases metalliques dans les représentations picturales Etrusques”, Revues des Études Anciennes 97, (1-2), 167-182. Joachim, H-E. 1995 Waldalgesheim; Das Grab einer keltischen furstin. Koln, Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Jolivet, V. 1995 “Note sur la ceramique argentée de Faleries et de Bolsena”, Revue des Études Anciennes 97, 1(-2), 183-199. Jones, R. 1993 “Backwards and forwards in Roman burial”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 6, 428-9. Keay, S. & Terrenato, N. (eds.) 2001 Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization .Oxford, Oxbow Books. King, J. 2000 Kingdoms of the Celts: A history and guide. Blandford. Koch, J.T. (ed.) 1997 The Celtic Heroic Age: literary sources for ancient Celtic Europe and Early Ireland and Wales. Massachusetts, Celtic Studies Publications. Kossack, G. 1998 Towards translating the past: selected essays in archaeology. Rahden/ Westf. verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Krausse, D. 1999 “Romanization in the Middle Rhine and Moselle region: new evidence from recent excavations in Luxembourg, Rhineland-Pfalz and Saarland”, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 32, 54-70. Kristiansen, K. 1998 Europe before history. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Kruta, V. 1986 “Le corail, le vin et l’arbre de vie: observations sur l’art et la religion des Celtes du Ve à le siècle avant J.-C.”, Études Celtiques 23, 7-32. Kruta, V. et al. (eds.) 1997 The Celts. New York, Rizzoli. Labrousse, M. 1968 Toulouse Antique: Des origines à l’ établissement des Wisigoths. Paris, Editions E. de Boccard. La Genière, J. 1987 “Des usages du cratèr”, Revue des Études Anciennes LXXXIX, (3-4), 271-7. Lambot, B. 1993 “Necropoles, sanctuaires et rites funeraires en Champagne à La Tène Finale”, Revue Archéologique Ouest, Supplément no. 6, 211-234. Lambot, B. 1996 Cartes postales aériennes de Champagne- Ardenne: 3,000 ans d’histoire vus du ciel. Memoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise 11. Lambot, B., Friboulet, M. & Méniel, P. 1994 “Le site protohistorique d’Acy-Romance (Ardennes), volume II : les nécropoles sans leur contexte regional, 19861988- 1989”, Memoire de la Société Archéologique de Champenoise 8 (2). Lambot, B. & Méniel, P. 1998 “Le village gaulois d’AcyRomance (Ardennes). Morts et vivants, rites et sacrifices humains chez les Rèmes”, in Haffner, A. (ed.) Studien zur Arechaologie der kelte in Romer und Germanen in Mittel und Westeuropa, 361-387. Lardy, J-M. 1983 “La nécropole d’Épiais-Rhus (Val d’Oise): Approche chronostratigraphique- partie protohistorique”, in: Les Celtes dans le nord du Bassin Parisien (VIe- Ier siècle avant J.-C.). Actes du cinquième colloque tenu à Senlis, Revue archéologique de Picardie 1, 127-156. Larmigny 1911 Chateau-Porcien BSAC 2, 55-57. Laubenheimer, F. 1989 “Le vin gaulois”, Revue des Études Anciennes XCI, (3-4), 5- 22. Laubenheimer, F. 1990 Le temps des amphores en Gaule: Vin, huiles et sauces. Paris, Editions Errance. Leach, E. 1967 The structural study of myth. Association of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth. Leman-Delrive, G. 1990 “Les rites funéraires dans le Nord de la France”, in: Les Celtes en France du Nord et en Belgique, VIe- I er siècle avant J.- C., 120-124. Leman-Delrive, G. 2000 “Enclos funéraires et cultuels au nord de la Gaule et Belgique”, Revue Archelogie de Picardie 1 / 2, 67-76. Lequoy, M-C. 1993 “Le depot funéraire de la Maillerayesur-Seine (Seine-Maritime)”, Revue Archéologique Ouest 6, 121-133. L’ Erma & Di Bretschneider 1992 Rediscovering Pompeii Ministereo per I Beni Culturali e ambientali soprintenenza archeologica oli Pompei. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1963 The Raw and the Cooked (trans.), London. Lindsay, H. 1998 “Eating with the dead: the Roman funerary banquet”, in: I. Nielsen & H. S.Nielsen (eds.) 1998 Meals in a social context: aspects of the communal meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Aarhus University Press.

217

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Méniel, P. 2001 Les Gaulois et les animaux. Elévage, repas et sacrifice. Paris, Editions Errance. Méniel, P. & Lambot, B. (eds.) 2002 Découvertes récentes de l’âge du Fer dans les massif des Ardennes et ses marges: Repas des vivants et nourriture pour les morts en Gaule. Charleville, Mémoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, 16 (1). Metzler, J, Waringo, R. & Bis, R. 1989 “La riche tombe d’un prince gaulois”, Archéologie 249, 19. Metzler, J. 1991 “Late Celtic Horsemen’s Graves at Goeblingen-Nospelt”, in: S. Moscati (ed.) The Celts Bompiani. Metzler, J. & Bis, R. 1998 Goeblange/Nospelt“Scheierheck”; La fouille de la sepultre d’une princesse trevire á Goeblange-Nospelt Internet (accessed 03/06/98). Metzler, J., Waringo, R., Bis, R. & Metzler-Zens, N. 1991 Clemency et les tombes de l’acristocratie en Gaule Belgique. Luxembourg, Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée Natuional d’Histoire et d’Art 1. Metzler-Zens, N. & Metzler, J. 1998 “Die spätkeltische Aristokratie in Gallien: Überlegungen zur Selbstdarstellung einer sozialen Gruppe” in Haffner, A. (ed.) Studien sur Archaeology der Kelten Romer und Germanen in Mittel und Westeuropa. Metzler-Zens, N., J., Meniel, P., Bis, R., Gaeng, C., & Villemeur, I. 1999 Lamadeleine: une Nécropole de l’Oppidum du Titelberg. Luxembourg, Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée d’Histoire et d’Art VI. Millet, M. 1990 The Romanisation of Britain. Cambridge, University Press Cambridge. Mitard, P-H. 1977 “Une riche sepultre gallo-romaine découverte près de Niort”, Gallia 35 202-227. Mohen, J.-P., 1997 “The princely tombs of Burgundy”, in: V. Kruta et al., (eds.) The Celts. New York, Rizzola,116- 122. Mohen, J-P. & Eluère 1999 L’ Europe à l’âge du bronze: le temps des héros. Découvertes Gallimard Réunion des Musées Nationaux Histoire. Morris, I. 1987 Burial and ancient society: The rise of the Greek city-state. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Morris, I. 1994 “Archaeologies of Greece” in Morris, I. (ed.) Classical Greece: ancient histories and modern archaeologies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Moscati, S. 1971 Italia sconosciuta. Milan, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. Moscati, S. (ed.) 1991 The Celts. Bompiani. Murray, O.1985 “Symposium and genre in the poetry of Horace”, Journal of Roman Studies 75, 39- 50. Murray, O. (ed.) 1990 Sympotica. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Murray, O. 1990 “Sympotic History”, in: O. Murray (ed.) Sympotica. Clarendon Press, 3-13. Murray, O. 1991 “War and the symposium”, in: W. J. Slater (ed.) Dining in a classical context, Michigan, University of Michigan Press.

Lissarrague, F. 1987 Un flot d’images: une esthétique du banquet grec. Adam Biro. Lord Smithson, E. 1968 “The tomb of a rich Athenian lady circa 850 BC.”, Hesperia 37, 77-116. Loridant, F. 1997 “Un tombe á incineration du Iie s. ap. J.-C. á Haussy (Nord)”, Revue Nord LXXXIX , 323, 167-170. Luce, J.V. 1975 Homer and the Heroic Age. London, Thames and Hudson. Maaskant-Kleibrink, M. 1995 “Evidence of households or of ritual meals? Early Latin cult practices: A comparison of the finds at Lavinium, Campoverde and Borgo La Ferriere (Satrium)”, in: Christie, N. (ed.) Settlement and Economy in Italy 1500 BC- AD 1500. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 41, 123-133. MacCulloch, J.A. 1922 Celtic mythology. London, Constable. Macready, S. & Thompson, F.H. (eds.) 1984 CrossChannel trade between Gaul and Britain in the preRoman Iron Age. London, Society of Antiquaries of London Occasional Paper, 4. McGrail, S. F. (ed.) 1990 Maritime Celts, Frisians and Saxons. London, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 71. McKinley, J. 2000 “Phoenix rising: aspects of cremation in Roman Britain”, in: J. Pearce, M. Millett & M. Struck, (eds.) Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 38-44. Magilton, J. R. 1995 “Lindow Man phenomenon: Ancient and modern”, in : R. C. Turner & R. G. Scaife Bog Bodies: New discoveries and new perspectives London, British Museum, 183-7. Mahr, G. 1967 Die jüngere Latènekultur des Trierer Landes. Berlin, Berliner Beirt. zur Vor- und Frühgesch, 12. Maier, F. 1991 “The oppida of the second and first centuries BC”, in: S. Moscati (ed.) The Celts. Bompiani, 411-425. Maier, F. 1997 “The oppida of the second and first centuries BC”, in: V. Kruta et al., (eds.) The Celts. New York, Rizzola, 423- 40. Malrain, F. et Pinard, E. 2000 “Les enclos sur le territoire des Bellovoques et ses abords”, Revue Archelogie de Picardie 1 /2, 179-195. Mansuelli, G. A. 1997 “The Celts and Ancient Europe”, in: V. Kruta et al., (eds.) The Celts. New York, Rizzola, 423- 40. Matonti, E. 1995 Paestum. Salerno. Mattingly, D.J. (ed.) 1997) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: power, discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 23. Méniel, P. 1999 “La privilège de la chasse”, l’Archeologue 41, 22-23. Méniel, P. 2000 “Des os dans les fossés et des animaux dans les enclos: diversité des fonctions et limites des interpretétions”, Revue Archelogie de Picardie1 /2, 267-270.

218

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Murray, O. 1993 Early Greece. London, Fontana Press. Nappo, S. 1998 Pompeii. London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Nash, D. 1987 Coinage in the Celtic World. London, Seaby. Nash, D. 1995 “Coinage”, in: M. Green The Celtic World. Routledge, 244-253. Niblett, R. 1992 “Warrior Burial”, The Colchester Archeologist 6, 1-9. Niblett, R. 1992 “A Catuvellaunian Chieftain’s Burial from St. Albans”, Antiquity 66. Niblett, R. 1999 The excavation of a ceremonial site at Folly Lane, Verulanium. London, Britannia Monograph 14, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Nicholls, R. V. 1979 “A Roman couch in Cambridgeshire”, Archaeologia, 106, 1-32. Nielsen, I. & Nielsen, H.S. (eds.) 1998 Meals in a social context: aspects of the communal meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Aarhus University Press. Nielsen, I. 1998 “Royal banquets: The development of royal banquets and banqueting halls from Alexander to the Tetrarchs”, in: I. Nielsen & H. S. Nielsen (eds.) 1998 Meals in a social context: aspects of the communal meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Aarhus University Press. Nilsson, M. P. 1933 Homer and Mycena. Methuen & Co. Ltd. Notte, L. 1997 “Une tombe à glaive à Ronchin (Nord)”, Revue Nord LXXXIX, 23, 153-160. Orme, B. 1981 Anthropology for archaeologists. London, Duckworth. Ørsted, P. 1998 “Salt, fish and the sea in the Roman Empire”, in: I. Nielsen, & H. S. Nielsen,(eds.) Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Aarhus University Press. Osborne, R. 1998 Archaic and Classical Greek Art. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Overbeck, J.1866 Pompeji. Leipzig. Pallottino, M. 1974 The Etruscans. Allen Lane. Pare, C. 1991 “Fürstensitze: Celts and the Mediterranean World. Developments in the West Hallstatt Culture in the 6th and 5th Centuries BC”, in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57 (2), 183-202. Parker, A. J. 1992 Ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean & the Roman Provinces. Oxford, BAR International Series 580. Parker, R. 1998 “Greek religious practices” in Sparkes, B.A. (ed.) Greek Civilization: an introduction Blackwell, 131-145. Parker Pearson, M. 1999 “Cosmologies in the British Iron Age with particular reference to East Yorkshire”, in Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9, 43- 69. Parker Pearson, M. 1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud, Sutton publishing.

Partridge, C.R. 1981 Skeleton Green: a Late Iron Age and Romano-British Site. London, Britannia Monograph Series 2. Pautreau, J-P. (ed.) 1999 Antran : Un ensemble aristocratique du premier siècle Musées de Poitiers. Peacock, D.P.S. 1971 “Roman amphorae in pre-Roman Britain”, in: D. Hill & M. Jesson (eds.) The Iron Age and Its Hill-Forts: Papers Presented to Mortimer Wheeler. Southampton, University of Southampton, 161-188. Peacock, D.P.S. 1977 “Roman amphorae:typology, fabric and origin”, in: G. Vallet (ed.) Méthodes classiques et méthodes formelles dans l’etude des amphores. Rome, Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 26178. Peacock, D.P.S.1984 “Amphorae in Iron Age Britain: A reassement”, in S. Macready & F. H. Thompson Cross- Channel Trade between Britain and Gaul in The Pre-Roman Iron Age. London, The Society of Antiquitities of London Occasional Paper 4, 37-42. Peacock, D. P. S. 1986 Pottery in the Roman World. London, Longman. Pearce, J., Millett, M. & Struck, M. (eds.) 2000 Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World. Oxford. Pedley, J.G. 1998 Greek Art and Archaeology. Laurence King. Peirce, S. 1998 “Visual language and concepts of cult on the Lenian vases”, Classical Antiquity17 (1 ), 59-95. Périchon, R. 1960 “Note préliminaire sur les recherches a l’oppidum de Joeuvre (Loire)”, Colloque d’Études Gauloises Protoceltiques, Ogam 208-12. Perkins, P. 1999 Etruscan settlement, society and material culture in central coastal Etruria. BAR International Series 788. Perrin, F. 1990 “Un dépôt d’objets Gaulois à Larina, Hières-sur-Amby (Isère)”, Circonscription des Antiquites Historiques. Perrin, F. 1999 a) “Pouvoir et richesse chez les Celtes”, l’Archeologue 41, 6-12. Perrin, F. 1999 b) “Les rites funéraires de l’aristocratie celte”, l’Archeologue 41, 12-18. Perrin, F. 2000 “Le mort et la mort en Gaule à l’Age du Fer”, in: A. Ferdière, Archéologie funéraire. 86-104. Petit, J.-P. 1988 Puits et fosses rituels en Gaule d’après l’exemple de Bliesbruck (Moselle): Tome I- Textes & Tome II- Planche, Le Concours du Departement de la Moselle. Pétorin, N. 1999 “Nouvelles découvertes:Saint-Georgesles-Baillargeaux “Les Varennes”, Vienne”, l’Archeologue 41, 29. Pfaff, C.A. 1999 “The Early Iron Age pottery from the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth”, Hesperia 68, 1 55-112. Philpott, R. A. 1991 Burial practices in Roman Britain: A survey of grave treatment and furnishing A.D 43410. Oxford, BAR British Series 219. Piggot, S. 1965 Ancient Europe: from the beginnings of agriculture to Classical Antiquity Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. 219

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Piggot, S. 1968 The Druids. New York, Thames & Hudson. Piggot, S. 1971 “Firedogs in Iron Age Britain and beyond”, in: M.A. Brown, & T. G. E. Powell The European Community in Later Prehistory. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 244-270. Pion, P. & Genty, P.-Y. 2002 “«Pain Pita» et pain gaulois: un four domestique laténian du genre tannur à l Ferte-Hauterive (Allier)” in: P. Méniel & B. Lambot (eds.) 2002 Découvertes récentes de l’âge du Fer dans les massif des Ardennes et ses marges: Repas des vivants et nourriture pour les morts en Gaule. Charleville, Mémoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, 16 (1), 209-230. Pion, P., Guichard, V. et al 1993 “Tombes et nécropoles en France et au Luxembourg entre le III ème et le Ier siècle avant J.-C. : Essai d’inventaire”, Les Celtes en Normandie. Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest 6, 175200. Pleiner, R.1993 The Celtic Sword. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Polfer, M. & Thiel, J. 1997 The Gallo-Roman cremation cemeteries of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; initial findings of current research. Internet Archaeology 4 http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue4/polfere_index.html (accessed 08.07.1998). Polfer, M. 2000 “Reconstructing funerary rituals: the evidence of the ustrina and related archaeological structures” in J. Pearce, M. Millett, & M. Struck, (eds.) Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World. Oxford, 30-44. Potter, T. 1987 Roman Italy. London Guild Publishing. Potter, T. W. & Trow, S.D. 1988 Puckeridge- Braughing, Hertfordshire. The Ermine Street Excavations 19712. Hertford, Hertfordshire Archaeology 10. Poulain, C. 1989 “Hommage aux archéologues régionaux. Charles Hypolite” Coyon (1842-19..) In Bulletin de la Société Archéologique Champenoise 82 (2), 39-60. Poux, M. 1999 a) Puits funéraire d’époque gauloise à Paris (Sénat). Une tombe d’auxiliare républicain dans le sous-sol de Lutèce. Proto-Histoire Européenne 4, Editions Monique Mergoil. Poux, M. 1999 b) “Le banquet des chefs”, l’Archeologue 41, 18-21. Poux, M. 2000 “Espaces votifs-espaces festifs; Banquets et rites du libation en contexte de sanctuaries et d’enclos”, in: J.- L. Bruneaux (ed.), Des enclos, pourquoi faire? Actes de la table ronde de Ribemontsur-Ancre (1989), Revue Archéologique du Picardie 1/ 2, 217- 232. Poux, M. 2002 a) “Corent: rites et festins gaulois”, l’Archeologue 59, 52-3. Poux, M. 2002 b) “L’archéologique du festin en Gaule préromaine acquis, méthodologie et perspectives”, in : P. Méniel & B. Lambot, (eds.), Découvertes récentes de l’âge du Fer dans les massif des Ardennes et ses marges: Repas des vivants et nourriture pour les

morts en Gaule. Charleville, Mémoire de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, 16 (1). Powell, T. G. E. 1958 The Celts. London & New York. Py, M. 1981 “Les rites funeraires préromaine de Nimes et de sa region”, Histoire et Archéologique, les Dossiers, 55, 12-31. Py, M. 1981 “Recherches sur Nîmes préromaine: Habitats et sépultures”, Paris, Xième Supplément à Gallia. Py, M. 1993 Les Gaulois du Midi. De la fin de l’Âge de Bronze à la conquête romaine. Paris, Hachette. Rankin, D. 1987 Celts and the Classical World. London, Routledge. Rathje, A 1990 “The adoption of the Homeric banquet in central Italy in the Orientalising period”, in: O. Murray (ed.) Sympotica. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 279-288. Reddé, M. (ed.) 1996 L’Armée Romaine en Gaule. editions errance. Reece, R. (ed.) 1977 Burial in the Roman World. London, CBA Res. Report 22. Reece, R. 2000 “Afterword”, in: J. Pearce, M. Millett, & M. Struck, (eds.) Burial, society and context in the Roman World. Oxford, 270-2. Reinert, F.1993 “Nécropoles rurales romaines précoces dans l’ouest du pays trévire (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg at régions limitophes)”, in: A. Ferdière, (ed.) Monde des morts, monde des vivants en Gaule rurale. (1er s. av. J.-C. - Ve s. ap. J.-C.). Reinert, F. 1996 La dernière aristocratie de l’ancien régime Internet article Archaeological excavation campaigns: Nospelt- “Kreckelbierg” ( accessed 03/06/98). Rencontres de l’École du Louvre 1988 Les Princes Celtes et la Méditerrané. Paris, La Documentation Française. Ridgeway, D.1992 The First Western Greeks. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Rieu, E.V. 1980 The Illustrated Odyssey. Rainbird Publishing Group. Rigby, V. & Freestone, I. 1986 “The petrology and typology of the earliest identified Gaulish imports”, Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 1. Ritchie, J. N. G. & W.F. 1995 “The army, weapons and fighting”, in: M. Green The Celtic World, Routledge, 37- 58. Roman, D. & Y. 1997 Histoire de la Gaule VIe siècle av. J.-C.- Ier siècle ap. J.-C. Fayard. Ross, A. 1967 Pagan Celtic Britain: Studies in iconography and traditition. London, Constable. Ross, A. 1986 The Pagan Celts. London, Thames and Hudson. Ross. A. 1995 “Ritual and the Druids”, in: M. Green The Celtic world. London, Routledge, 423-444. Ross, A. & Robins, D. 1989 The life and death of a druid prince: The story of an archaeological sensation. London, Rider. Roualet, P. 1979 “Cimitieres à incineration d’Hauvine de la Marne et de St. Clément-à-Arnes (Ardennes)”, 220

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Settlement, Excavations at Elms Farm, 1993-5. Chelmsford, East Anglian Archaeology Report. Settis, S. (ed.) 1985 The Land of the Etruscans. London, Frederick Muller Ltd. Slater, W.J. (ed.) 1991 Dining in a classical context. Michigan, The University of Michigan Press. Smith, A. 2001 The differential use of sacred space in southern Britain, from the Late Iron Age to the 4th Century AD. BAR British Series 318. Smith, R.A. 1912 “On late-Celtic antiquities discovered at Welwyn, Herts.”, Archaeologia 63, 1-30. Soutou, A. 1960 “Les puits funéraires de la Lagaste preromain de la voie d’Aquitaine”, Oxgam XII, 11. Sparkes, B.A. (ed.) 1998 Greek Civilization: an introduction. Oxford, Blackwell. Sparkes, B.A. 1998 “Crafts in the private sphere”, in: B. A. Sparkes (ed.) Greek Civilization: an introduction. Oxford, Blackwell. Spivey, N. 1997 Etruscan art. Thames and Hudson. Spivey, N. & Stoddart, S. 1990 Etruscan Italy. London, B.T. Batsford Ltd. Stead, I. M. 1967 “A La Tène III Burial at Welwyn Garden City”, Archaeologia 101, 1-62. Stead, I. M. 1979 “The Arras Culture”, The Yorkshire Philosophical Society. Stead, I. M. 1996 Celtic Art. London, British Museum. Stead, I. M. & Rigby, V. A. 1986 Baldock: the excavation of a Roman and pre-Roman settlement 1968-72. London, Britannia Monograph 7. Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Stead, I. M. & Rigby, V. A. 1989 Verulamium: the King Harry Lane site. English Heritage Archaeological Report No. 12. Struck, M. 2000 “High status burials in Roman Britain (1st- 3rd centuries AD) - potential of interpretation”, J. Pearce, M. Millett, & M. Struck (eds.) Burial, society and context in the Roman World. Oxford, 8596. Taffanel, O. & M. J. 1960 “Deux tombes de chef à Mailhac (Aude)” , Gallia 18, 1-37. Taffanel, O. & M. J. 1962 “Deux tombes de cavaliers du Ier Age du Fer à Mailhac, (Aude)”, Gallia 62, 3-32. Tarlow, S. 1999 Bereavement and commemoration: An archaeology of mortality. Oxford, Blackwell. Tassinari, S. 1991 “Pompei”, in: M. Feugère & C. Rolley La vaisselle tardo-républicaine en bronze. Dijon, 161-2. Tchernia, A. 1983 “Italian Wine in Gaul at the end of the Republic” in: Chatto & Windus Trade in the Ancient Economy, 87-104. Tchernia, A. 1986 Le vin d’Italie Romaine: Essai d’histoire économique d’après les amphores. Rome, École Française de Rome. Terninck, A. 1874 L’Artois souterrain. Arras. Thiel, J. 1998 Burial laws and funeral rituals: Introduction to the tombs and burial grounds of the Treverians during the Roman Empire. Internet (accessed 03/06/98).

Memoires de la Société d’Agricultre, Commerce, Sciences et Arts du Departement de la Marne 94, 1730. Roualet, P. 1987 “L’Italie et la Champagne Celtique”, Dossiers Histoire et Archeologie 112, 90-96. Roualet, P. 1997 “The Marnian Culture of Champagne”, in: V. Kruta et al. (eds.) The Celts. New York, Rizzola. Rowlands, M., Larsen, M. & Kristiansen, K. (eds.) 1987 Centre and periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Roymans, N. 1990 Tribal societies in Northern Gaul. Cingula 12. Roymans, N. 1996 From the sword to the plough: Three studies on the earliest Romanisation of Northern Gaul. Amsterdam, Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 1, 127-187. Ruby, P. (ed.) 1999 Les princes de la protohistoire et l’émergence de l’état. Centre Jean Bérard École Française de Rome. Sabine, R. 1998 “Ein ‘keltisches’ symposium”, in: A. Haffner (ed.) Studien zur Archaologie der kelten Romer und Germanen und Westeuropa. Santamaria, C. 1975 “ L’épave á Cap Dramont (SaintRaphaël): Fouilles 1971-1974”, Revue Archéologique Narbonnaise VIII, 185-197. Salviat, F. Barruol, G.1976 Provence et Languedoc Méditerranéen sites protohistoriques et GalloRomains, Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, IXe Congrès. Salzman, L. F. (ed.) 1938 Cambridge and the Isle of Ely. Victoria County History, Cambridgeshire, Vol. 1. Sankot, P. 1978 “Le rite funéraire des nécropoles latèniennes en Champagne”, Études Celtiques XV, 49- 94. Scarpi, P. (ed.) 1991 Storie del vino. Diapress/ Documenti. Scarre, C. & Healey, F. (eds.) 1993 Trade and exchange in prehistoric Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 33. Schönfelder, M. 2000 “Le moblillier métallique de la tombe à char tardo-celtique de Boé, (Lot-etGaronne)”, Bordeaux, Aquitania XVII, 59-81. Schukin, M.B. 1989 Rome and the Barbarians in Central and East Europe 1st Century BC to 1st Century AD. International BAR Series 542. Sciallano, M. 1990 L’Art du Tonnelier. Musée d’Istres. Sciallano, M. and Sibella, P. 1991 Amphores : Comment les identifier? Edisud. Sealey, P. R. 1985 Excavtions at Sheepen (Cochester). British Archaeological Report 142. Sealey, P. R. 1996 “The Iron Age in Essex” in Bedwin, O. (ed.),The Archaeology of Essex: Proceedings of the 1993 Writtle Conference, Chelmsford, Essex County Council, 59-68. Sealey, P. R. 1997 “The Ardleigh cauldron pit”, in: The Colchester Archaeologist, 1-25. Sealey P. R. forthcoming “Amphoras” in M.Atkinson & S.J. Preston Heybridge: a Late Iron Age and Roman 221

PAMELA ELIZABETH CRAVEN Thompson, I. 1982 Grog-tempered “Belgic” Pottery of South-eastern England. BAR British Series 108. Thullier. J-P. 1995 “Pretium Victoribus: L’example des vases Étrusques” Revues des Études Anciennes 97, (1-2),153-166. Todd, M. 1975 The Northern Barbarians. London, Hutchinson University Library. Todd, M. 1977 “Germanic burials in the Roman Iron Age”, in: Reece, R. (ed.) Burial in the Roman World. CBA Res. Report 22. Todd, M. 1985 “Oppida and the Roman Army: A review of recent evidence”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4 (2) 187-195 Todd, M. (ed.) Research on Roman Britain 1960- 89. London, Britannia Monograph 11, Society for the promotion of Roman Studies. Tomlinson, R. 1987 “King Philip of Macedon” in: B. Cunliffe Origins: The roots of European Civilisation. BBC Books. Toynbee, J.M.C. 1971 Death and burial in the Roman World. Baltimore and London, The John Hopkins University Press. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1973 Animals in Roman life and art. Baltimore and London, The John Hopkins University Press. Tranoy, L. 2000 “La mort en Gaule Romaine”, in: A. Ferdière (ed.), Archéologie funéraire. Paris, Editions Errance, 86-104. Trucco, F. 1987 “Les coutumes funeraires des Celtes d’Italie”, Dossiers Histoire et Archeologie 112, 8489. Turner, R.C. & Scaife, R.G. 1995 Bog bodies: New discoveries and new perspectives. London, British Museum. Tyers, P. 1996 Roman pottery in Britain. London. Tyers, P. 1996 Roman amphoras in Britain, Internet Archaeology 1. Ucko, P.J. 1969 “Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains”, World Archaeology 1, 262-277. Unwin, T. 1991 Wine and the vine: A historical geography of viticulture and the wine trade, Routledge. Van Andringa, W. (Ed.) 2000 Archéologie des sanctuaires en gaule romaine. Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne. Vernant, J-P. 1974 Myth and Society in Ancient Greece. Sussex, Harvester Press. Vidal, M. 1972 “Nécropole toulousaine de Saint-Roch: le puits funéraire no. 10”, Pallas XIX, 131-165. Vidal. M. 1973 “Nécropole toulousaine de Saint-Roch: Le puits funéraires No. 27”, Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise VI, 73-86. Vidal, M. 1976 “Le seau de bois orné de VieilleToulouse (Haute-Garonne): Étude comparative des seaux de La Tène III”, Gallia 34 ( I), 167-200. Vidal, M. 1983 “Les inscriptions peints en caracteres ibéques de Vieille-Toulouse (Haut-Garonne)”, in Revue Archéologie du Nord XVI, 23-28.

Vidal, M. 1984 “Les coffrages en bois des puits funéraires du Toulousain”, Revue Archéologie du Nord XVII, 103-114. Vidal, M. 1987 “Habitats et necropoles de la protohistoire”, Dossiers histoire et archéologie 120, 18-22. Vidal, M. 1989 “Les puits funéraires du Toulousain au deuxième et premier siècle av. J.-C.”, in: Les Viereckschanzen et les enceintes quadrilaterales en Europe Celtique Archéologie Aujourd ‘Hui: Protohistoire, Editions Errance, 137-144. Villard, M. 1991 “La vaiselle tardo-républicaine en Gaule du Sud-Ouest: Chronologie et fonction, d’après les contextes clos”, in: M. Feugère & C. Rolley (eds.) 1991 La vaisselle tardo-républicaine en bronze. Dijon, 169-191. Villard, P. 1988 “Le mélange et ses problèmes”, Revues des études anciennes, XC (1-2), 19-33. Villard, A. et Coulon, G. (eds.) 1992 Tombes aristocratiques en pays Bituriges Musée d’Argentomagus. Visser, M. 1991 The rituals of dinner: The origins, evolutiuon, eccentricities, and meaning of table manners. London, Viking. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1994 Houses and society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton, Princeton University Press Webster, J.1995 “Sanctuaries and sacred places”, in: M. Green The Celtic World. London, Routledge, 445-464 Webster, J. 1997 “Text expectations: the archaeology of ‘Celtic’ ritual wells and shafts” in: Reconstructing the Past. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph, 135-144. Wells, P. S. 1984 Farms, villages and cities: Commerce and urban origins in Late Prehistoric Europe. Cornell University Press. Wells, P. S. 1995 “Trade and exchange”, in: M. Green The Celtic World. London, Routledge, 230-243. Wells, P.S. 1995 “Different Iron Ages”, in: J. D. Hill & C. D. Cumberpatch (eds.) Studies in the Iron Age in Temperate Europe. BAR International Series, 14-19. Wells, P. S. 1999 The barbarians speak: How the conquered peoples shaped Roman Europe. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Wells, P. S. 2001 Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians: Archaeology and identity in Iron Age Europe. London, Duckworth. Wheeler, M. 1966 Pompeii and Herculaneum. London, Spring Books. Whimster, R. 1981 Burial practices in Iron Age Britain. Oxford, BAR British Series 90. Whitehouse, R. D. 1995 “From secret society to state religion: Ritual and social organisation in prehistoric and protohistoric Italy”, in: N. Christie, (ed.) Settlement and economy in Italy 1500 BC-AD 1500. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 41, 83-88. Whitely, J. 1991 Style and society in Dark Age Greece: The changing face of a pre-literate society 1100-700 BC, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

222

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT IRON AGE AMPHORA BURIALS IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE Whitley, J. 1994 “Protoattic pottery: a contextual approach” in Morris, I. (ed.) Classical Greece: Ancient histories and modern archaeologies Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Whitley, J. 1995 “Tomb and cult hero in Archaic Greece”, in: N. Spencer, (ed.) Time, Tradition and Society in Ancient Greece. 50-63. Wickenden, N. P. 1986 “Prehistoric settlement and the Romano-British ‘Small Town’ at Heybridge, Essex” in Essex Archeol. Hist. 17, 7- 8. Wigg, A. 1999 “Confrontation and interaction: Celts, Germans and Romans in the Central”, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 32, 3553. Wilcox, P. and Treviño 2000 Barbarians against Rome: Romes Celtic, Germanic, Spanish and Gallic enemies. Oxford, Osprey Publishing Ltd.. Wilkins, J. 1955 Food in antiquity. Exeter, University of Exeter Press. Wood, M. 1985 In Search of the Trojans. British Broadcasting Company. Woolf, G.D. 1993 “The social significance of trade in Late Iron Age Europe”, in: C. Scarre & F. Healey, (eds.) 1993 Trade and exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 33. Woolf, G. D.1998 Becoming Roman: The origins of provincial civilization in Gaul. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. anon. 2001 “Le doux confort de la maison gauloise” in L’Archéologue 55, 32.

223