Law and Order in the Iron Age Lecture 1 Powerpoint Slides (original) (raw)
Related papers
Throughout ancient Eurasia, there are several cases where it is not possible to speak of a linear, continuous and gradual evolution over the course of protohistory from more decentralised and egalitarian forms to others that were more centralised and hierarchical. Although on a long-term perspective a trend towards growing socio-economic complexity can be seen, this was neither a teleological nor a linear process. Instead, it included cycles of regression, crisis, reduced hierarchisation and demographic decrease. Moreover, it must be assumed that the changes did not always take place peacefully and that internal or external conflict was often involved. The aim of this contribution is to approach the topic of Iron Age conflict by looking at the changing cycles of centralisation and decentralisation that took place during the first millennium BC, and which were at least partly linked to dialectical tensions within and between communities.
Enclosed homesteads are a common feature of the European Iron Age, with examples being the Hallstatt ‘Herrenhöfe’ and Latène ‘Viereckschanzen’ in Germany and other parts of Central Europe, the French enclós, and the British enclosed farmsteads, but also the ‘ringforts’ of early medieval Ireland. While differing considerably in some regards, they also show some striking similarities, which can best be explained as a result of a shared religious ideology: a predominance of east-facing entrances, structured depositions in the settlement, and similar internal organisation, usually with a main building opposite of and facing the entrance across a relatively sizeable open courtyard. Linguistic evidence demonstrates that this enclosed settlement space was referred to by a common term: Gaulish lissos finds cognates in Old Irish les and Welsh llys, all meaning, amongst other things, ‘courtyard’ and ‘enclosure’. Interestingly, the Old Irish and Welsh terms also have other parallel attested meanings: Old Irish les also means ‘relief, redress, remedy; redress obtainable through court proceedings; cause, case, affair, matter’, while Welsh llys also refers to ‘a court of law, court case or proceedings’ and ‘a challenge or objection to a witness or juror’. Derived terms include Old Irish lesach, ‘successful in obtaining legal remedy’ and ‘legal representative’, and Welsh llysaf, ‘to object to or challenge a witness or juror; reject (a plea, judge etc.)’. Thus, as with the English word court, which also refers to both ‘an enclosed area, a yard’ and, amongst many other things, ‘an assembly of judges’, there seems to be a close association between the courtyard, the enclosed space commonly associated with settlements, and legal proceedings in the Celtic languages. The earliest law texts in Celtic languages provide us with substantial evidence for court procedure in the period between the 6th and 13th century AD. Particularly the practice of swearing oaths, assisted by oath-helpers or compurgators, finds a close parallel in early Germanic law, especially the 6th century AD lex Ribuaria. That oath-swearing was a common practice is also supported by linguistic evidence, with Celtic *oitos, ‘oath’ finding close cognates in Old Irish oeth and Old Welsh *ut as well as in English oath and German Eid. And that the provision of compurgators for court cases probably was already practice in the Iron Age is made likely by the famous report of the (failed) trial of Orgetorix by the Helvetians. Based on this evidence, this paper attempts to make some minimum assumptions about the court of law – as both a physical space and a social institution – and legal procedure in Iron Age ‘Celtic’ societies. As the structure of legal proceedings will also have had social consequences, it also examines the likely effect that such non-violent conflict resolution will have had on the constitution of Iron Age societies in central and north-western Europe.
Venclová, N. 2006: Enclosing, enclosures and elites in the Iron Age
Anthony Harding, Susanne Sievers and Natalie Venclová eds.: Enclosing the Past: inside and outside in prehistory, 2006
Enclosing is a specific type of defining a space. Iron Age enclosed areas offer a number of data contributing to the recognition (or at least, indication) of the function and significance of individual enclosures, and of the phenomenon of enclosing in general. The present paper pays attention mainly to local enclosures (serving individuals, family groups or other small groups of people, and located within settlements) and community enclosures (serving whole communities and delimiting whole residential areas, ritual areas etc.), although regional and supra-regional enclosures also existed. It is argued that some of the first, but mainly the second type of enclosures reflect types of behaviour characteristic of elites. This is mainly true of the single enclosures of the later part of the La Tène period, which fill the gap in Central Europe in the settlement structure between the oppida and emporia on the one hand, and rural settlements on the other.
Inegality during the Iron Age in France
2021
Research in comparative primatology has shown that from chimpanzees to humans, all societies are segmented into groups based on age and sex and that adult males are generally dominant. From the emergence of Homo Sapiens onwards, we can detect more arbitrary groups, socially constructed from ethnicity, nationality, caste, class, religion, etc., with differences in social positions (political authority, power, wealth, status privileges, main material resources, better conditions for education and health). In arbitrary groups, hierarchical position is more responsive to changing circumstances and context. The main cause of the presence of an arbitrary group system would seem to be the opportunity to generate an economic surplus facilitating differentiation of social roles and leading to the formation of a monopolistic political authority (professional army, police, administration, etc.), that is to say the State according to Weber’s definition : the monopoly of legitimate violence. The Iron Age (730-125 BCE) in France is of particular interest for examining the issue of inequality because societies evolved during these seven centuries through a process of non-linear complexity, from simple chiefdoms to archaic states. These are politically autonomous entities which marked quite strong social distinctions through the wealth of funerary deposits and more or less monumental tombs. As we know that burial practices are not a true reflection of social organization, we have to include the evidence for settlement hierarchy. Spectacular results have been achieved over the last thirty years due to extensive fieldwork, at last enabling the proper study of large settlements of this period, from simple farms to urban areas. These archaeological data complement the information provided by Greek and Latin textual sources for various discrimination strategies: social elites, ordinary free people and slaves, age-and gender-based categories in different groups, accumulation of economic surplus and exclusion. I intend to finish with some ideas for a theory of the growth of inequality before and during the emergence of the State. My basis for this is not only the development of organizational complexity, but also the political regimes that we are beginning to perceive better in the archaeological evidence.