Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A re-analysis of agricultural production and consumption: implications for understanding the British Iron Age

  • Article
  • Published:
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patterning in the carbonized seed assemblages from Iron Age sites in Britain has led to the development of several explanatory models. The most influential of these, by Martin Jones, proposed that grain-rich assemblages represent producer sites and weed-/chaff-rich assemblages consumer sites. The assumptions underlying this model and the method of constructing the diagrams are discussed and a new approach is put forward, stressing the need for appropriate levels of analysis and interpretation. It is concluded that a predominance of grain-rich samples is far more likely to be an indicator of the scale of production and consumption, than a means of distinguishing between the two. A review of the evidence from Iron Age Britain indicates that grain-rich site assemblages primarily occur in the south of the country, and frequently co-occur with pits, used for the storage of surplus grain. Moreover, such pits are concentrated in hillforts. It is proposed that the grain stored in such pits may have been used in large communal feasts and that the hillforts functioned as locations for feasting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In fact, Stevens uses the term “partially threshed ears” here but, as glume wheat ears inevitably break up into individual spikelets when threshed (Hillman 1981, 1984a,b), it is not clear how ‘partially threshed ears’ would ever be generated. As Stevens himself implies that both types of storage product are still in a state where the glumes (chaff) tightly invest the grain (i.e. they have not undergone the dehusking process), the term ‘unsieved spikelets’ is used in place of ‘partially threshed ears’.

  2. We agree with Stevens (2003) that it is unlikely that M. Jones’ ‘consumer’ sites in the upper Thames Valley were purely ‘pastoralist’ sites, as this would imply a level of agricultural specialisation (in crops or animals) not known in Britain until the mid 1900s. Non-farming pastoralists are rare, and are typically found only in extreme environments such as deserts. Instead, we interpret these sites as having little emphasis on arable production, or as occupied for a short period of time only. Indeed, the concept of consumer sites of cereals is one we would see as having little relevance for rural settlements in Iron Age Britain, with the possible exception of ‘special’ sites such as the port-of-trade at Hengistbury Head.

  3. Corvée, a day's work of unpaid labour due to a lord from a vassal; labour exacted in lieu of paying taxes (The Concise Oxford Dictionary).

  4. Commensal, from mensa = table, meaning ‘eating together’; eating at the same table as another (The Concise Oxford Dictionary).

References

  • Appadurai A (1981) Gastropolitics in Hindu South Asia. Am Ethnologist 8:494–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakels C (1996) Growing grain for others or how to detect surplus production? J Eur Archaeol 4:329–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett J (1994) Fragments from antiquity. Blackwell, Oxford

  • Bersu G (1940) Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire. Proc Prehistoric Soc 6:30–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman S, Jones G (1990) Experiments on the effects of charring on cereal plant components. J Archaeol Sci 17:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley R (1978) The prehistoric settlement of Britain. Routledge, London

  • Campbell G (2000) Plant utilization: the evidence from charred plant remains. In: Cunliffe B (ed) The Danebury environs programme. The prehistory of a Wessex landscape, vol I: introduction. (English Heritage and Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 48), English Heritage, London, pp 45–59

  • Campbell G, Hamilton J (2000) Danebury environs: agricultural change in the Iron Age. In: Bailey G, Charles R, Winder N (eds) Human ecodynamics. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 114–122

  • Charles M (1984) Introductory remarks on cereals. Bull Sumerian Agric 1:17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles M, Bogaard A (2001) Third millennium B.C. charred plant remains from Tell Brak. In: Oates D, Oates J, McDonald H (eds) Excavations at Tell Brak, vol 2, (McDonald Institute Monographs), McDonald Institute, Cambridge, pp 301–326

  • Cooney G (1997) Images of settlement and the landscape in the Neolithic. In: Topping P (ed) Neolithic landscapes. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 23–31

  • Cunliffe B (1991) Iron Age communities in Britain. Routledge, London

  • Cunliffe B (1992) Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age. Oxford J Archaeol 11:69–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunliffe B (1994) After hillforts. Oxford J Archaeol 13:71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunliffe B (2000) The Danebury environs programme. The prehistory of a Wessex landscape, vol 1: introduction. (English Heritage and Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 48), English Heritage, London

  • Dennell RW (1974) Prehistoric crop processing activities. J Archaeol Sci 1:275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennell RW (1976) The economic importance of plant resources represented on archaeological sites. J Archaeol Sci 3:229–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietler M (1996) Feasts and commensal politics in the political economy: food, power and status in prehistoric Europe. In: Wiessner P, Schiefenhövel W (eds) Food and the status quest. An interdisciplinary perspective. Berghahn, Providence, pp 87–125

  • Edmonds M (1997) Taskscape, technology and tradition. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29:99–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton A (1983) Grain storage in pits: experiment and fact. In: O’Connor A, Clarke DV (eds) From the Stone Age to the ‘forty-five’. John Donald, Edinburgh, pp 567–588

  • Gent H (1983) Centralized storage in later prehistoric Britain. Proc Prehistoric Soc 49:243–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Gransar F (2000) Le stockage alimentaire sur les établissements ruraux de l’âge du Fer en France septentrionale: complémentarité des structures et tendances évolutives. In: Marion S, Blancqaert G (eds) Les installations agricoles de l’Âge du Fer en France septentrionale. École Normale Supérieure, (Études d’Histoire et d’Archéologie 6), Paris, pp 277–297

  • Grant A (1984) Survival or sacrifice? A critical appraisal of animal burials in the Iron Age. In: Clutton-Brock J, Grigson C (eds) Animals and archaeology 4: Husbandry in Europe (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 227), BAR Oxford, pp 221–227

  • Grant A (1991) Economic or symbolic? Animals in ritual behaviour. In: Garwood P, Jennings D, Skeates R, Toms J (eds) Sacred and profane. (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 32), Oxford, pp 109–114

  • Haselgrove C (1999) The Iron Age. In: Hunter J, Ralston I (eds) The archaeology of Britain. Routledge, London, pp 113–134

  • Hill JD (1995a) How should we understand Iron Age societies and hillforts? A contextual study from southern Britain. In: Hill JD, Cumberpatch CG (eds) Different Iron Ages. Studies on the Iron Age in temperate Europe. (British Archaeological Reports S602), Oxford, pp 45–66

  • Hill JD (1995b) Ritual and rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a study in the formation of a specific archaeological record. (British Archaeological Reports, British Series 242), Oxford

  • Hill JD (1995c).The pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain and Ireland (ca. 800 BC to AD 100): an overview. J World Prehist 9:47–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman G (1981) Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops. In: Mercer R (ed) Farming practice in British prehistory. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 123–162

  • Hillman G (1984a) Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In: van Zeist W, Casparie WA (eds) Plants and ancient man. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1–41

  • Hillman G (1984b) Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in modern times: part I, the glume wheats. Bull Sumerian Agric 1:114–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson N, Stobbs GC, Van der Veen M (2001) An Iron Age settlement and remains of earlier prehistoric date beneath South Shields Roman Fort, Tyne and Wear. Archaeol J 158:62–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones G (1984a) Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: ethnographic models from Greece. In: van Zeist W, Casparie WA (eds) Plants and ancient man. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 43–61

  • Jones G (1987) A statistical approach to the archaeological identification of crop processing. J Archaeol Sci 14:311–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones G (1991) Numerical analysis in archaeobotany. In: van Zeist W, Wasylikowa K, Behre K-E (eds) Progress in old world palaeoethnobotany. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 63–80

  • Jones G (2000) Evaluating the importance of cultivation and collecting in Neolithic Britain. In: Fairbairn AS (ed) Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond. Oxbow, (Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers), Oxford, pp 579–584

  • Jones G, Rowley-Conwy P (2006) On the importance of cereal cultivation in the British Neolithic. In: Colledge S, Conolly J (eds) The origin and spread of domestic plants in SW Asia and Europe. UCL Press, London

  • Jones M (1981) The development of crop husbandry. In: Jones M, Dimbleby GW (eds) The environment of man: the Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon period. (British Archaeological Reports, British Series 87), BAR, Oxford, pp 95–127

  • Jones M (1984b) The plant remains. In: Cunliffe BW (ed) Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, vol 2. Council for British Archaeology, London, pp 483–495

  • Jones M (1985) Archaeobotany beyond subsistence reconstruction. In: Barker G, Gamble C (eds) Beyond domestication in prehistoric Europe. Academic Press, London, pp 107–128

  • Jones M (1996) Plant exploitation. In: Champion TC, Collis JR (eds) The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland, recent trends. Collis, Sheffield, pp 29–40

  • Moffett L, Robinson MA, Straker V (1989) Cereals, fruits and nuts: charred plant remains from Neolithic sites in England and Wales and the Neolithic economy. In: Milles A, Williams D, Gardner N (eds) The beginnings of agriculture. (British Archaeological Reports International Series S496), BAR, Oxford, pp 243–261

  • Monk M (2000) Seeds and soils of discontent: an environmental archaeological contribution to the nature of the early Neolithic. In: Desmond A, Johnson G, McCarthy M, Sheehan J, Shee Twohig E (eds) New agendas in Irish prehistory: papers in commemoration of Liz Anderson. Wordwell, Wicklow, pp 67–87

  • Palmer C, Jones M (1991) Plant resources. In: Sharples NM (ed) Maiden Castle: excavations and field survey 1985–1986. (English Heritage, Archaeological Report 19), English Heritage, London, pp 129–139

  • Percival J (1921) The wheat plant(1974 facsimile edn). Duckworth, London

  • Reynolds PJ (1974) Experimental Iron Age storage pits: an interim report. Proc Prehistoric Soc 40:118–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley-Conwy P (2000) Through a taphonomic glass, darkly: the importance of cereal cultivation in prehistoric Britain. In: Huntley J, Stallibrass S (eds) Taphonomy and interpretation. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 43–53

  • Sharples NM (1991) Maiden Castle: excavations and field survey 1985–1986. (English Heritage, Archaeological Report 19), English Heritage, London

  • Sigaut F (1988) A method for identifying grain storage techniques and its application for European agricultural history. Tools Tillage 6:3–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens CJ (2003) An investigation of agricultural consumption and production: models for prehistoric and Roman Britain. Environ Archaeol 8:61–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J (1991) Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Van der Veen M (1987) The plant remains. In: Heslop DH (ed) The excavation of an Iron Age settlement at Thorpe Thewles, Cleveland, 1980–1982. (CBA Research Report 65), Council for British Archaeology, London, pp 93–99

  • Van der Veen M (1991) Consumption or production? Agriculture in the Cambridgeshire fens. In: Renfrew JM (ed) New light on early farming. Recent developments in palaeoethnobotany. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 349–361

  • Van der Veen M (1992) Crop husbandry regimes. An archaeobotanical study of farming in northern England, 1000 BC–AD 500. Collis, Sheffield

  • Van der Veen M (2003) When is food a luxury? In: Van der Veen M (ed) Luxury foods, vol 34. World Archaeol 405–427

  • Van der Veen M (2006) Food as an instrument of social change: feasting in Iron Age and early Roman southern Britain. In: Twiss K (ed) The archaeology of food and identity. Southern Illinois University, (Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 34), Carbondale

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to D. Miles-Williams and J. Skinner for producing the illustrations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Archaeology & Ancient History, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK

    Marijke van der Veen

  2. Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield, S1 4ET, UK

    Glynis Jones

Authors
  1. Marijke van der Veen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Glynis Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marijke van der Veen.

Additional information

Communicated by G. Willcox

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van der Veen, M., Jones, G. A re-analysis of agricultural production and consumption: implications for understanding the British Iron Age. Veget Hist Archaeobot 15, 217–228 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-006-0040-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-006-0040-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation