| Abstract: |
Papers delivered at or arising from a conference held in May 1975 to review two recent major works on Iron Age Britain by Cunliffe and Harding. J Collis (1-7) finds neither book fully discussed the way in which pottery styles or metal types changed, and he considers a range of possibilities: the invasion model, commercial diffusion, reciprocity and so on. Historical, cultural and economic models are considered in turn and a neutral nomenclature suggested for the Iron Age phases. The study of distributions is Ian Hodder's topic (8-16), contrasting for instance the different mechanisms obtaining in centralized and non-centralized societies. The study of areas of overlap between distributions of inscribed Iron Age coin types appears promising. The same author with J W Hedges (17-28) considers the date, function, typology and distribution of 'weaving combs', finding some types extremely localized whereas others (?earlier) are more widespread. Scottish examples are mostly distinguishable from English. J Collis (29-31) believes the notion of ceramic 'style-zones' could be useful if very much more carefully defined than hitherto. P J Reynolds (32-40) discusses experimental archaeology with special reference to the Butser Ancient Farm Research Project, including fundamentals of interpreting excavations and of reconstructing buildings. Excavation of hillfort huts and guard chambers in the Northern Welsh Marches are considered by G Guilbert (41-50). Christopher Smith (51-60) calculates from air photographs of the Tame and Middle Trent Valleys an estimated figure of 1 settlement per 1.2km2 at any one time in the Iron Age or Roman period; nationally this would represent an RB population of 5 or 6 million. Ecological details from Fisherwick are appended. Commenting on the papers, B Cunliffe (62) remarks on two current major trends: the desire to apply new methods of analysis, however scrappy the evidence may be; and the design of large scale excavations to improve the quality of data-gathering. D W Harding (63-5) contributes a rebuttal, in some detail, of some of the arguments in the conference papers. |
