1988_S. Needham_Selective Deposition in the British Early Bronze Age

7/21/2019 1988_S. Needham_Selective Deposition in the British Early Bronze Age

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1988s-needhamselective-deposition-in-the-british-early-bronze-age 1/21

http://www.jstor.org

Selective Deposition in the British Early Bronze Age

Author(s): Stuart P. Needham

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 20, No. 2, Hoards and Hoarding, (Oct., 1988), pp. 229-248

Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124472

Accessed: 17/07/2008 03:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org/stable/124472?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/124472?origin=JSTOR-pdf



elective

deposition

n

t h

r i t i s h

a r l y

r o n z e

g e

Stuart P. Needham

The metalwork of the

Early

Bronze

Age (henceforth EBA)

in

Britain is rich

and

varied

and

spans

a

millennium,

c.2400-1400

BC. Six broad

classes are

recognised:

axes,

small

tools,

daggers,

halberds,

spearheads

and

ornaments. Two of

these

classes contain

a

number of

types.

Small tools

include

knives,

razors,

awls and

chisels,

whilst ornaments

include

beads,

bracelets, sun-discs,

lunulae

and

other

neckrings,

hair-rings,

earrings,

pins,

button

covers and other ornamental

furnishings,

in

gold,

copper

or

bronze.

In

contextual

terms,

to the

standard finds

of

single,

funerary

or hoard

type

can

be

added more

specialised

categories:

mound

deposits,

henge

associations,

bog

deposits

and

river contexts.

Metalwork is at

present

lacking

in

settlement

contexts

for

EBA

Britain;

similarly

metalworking

debris has

yet

to

be

recognised

apart

from

isolated

mould

finds.

General

patterns

It

is no

new

discovery

that the

interaction

between some

of

the

metalwork

classes

and

context

types

takes the

form

of non-random

patterns

of

association. In

particular,

it has

long

been

recognised

that

while

daggers

are

standard burial

accompaniments,

axes

dominate the

hoard record

and halberds

reside in their own

discrete set of

hoards

(Britton 1963).

Similarly,

the

gold

types

so

frequent

in

Ireland,

lunulae

and

sun-discs,

are

each found in

isolation

from other

types

of

metalwork.

The six

metalwork

classes

split

conveniently

into

two sets

according

to

contextual

preference (Table 1):

Set 1: small

tools,

daggers

and ornaments are all

overwhelmingly predominant

in

graves;

Set 2:

halberds,

spearheads

and

axes are much

more common in

hoards

than in

graves.

A

number

of

more

specific

points may

be

made.

Firstly,

the

majority (fifty-nine)

of

the

sixty-six

ornaments

from

hoards

come from a

single

exceptional

hoard,

Migdale,

Highland

Region

(Piggott

and Stewart

1958:

GB

26);

this find

apart,

the

ornament

distribution is

completely

in

line

with

daggers

and

awls.

Secondly,

the

figures

in

the

table's first

column

(single

and

unknown

finds)

are

also seen to be

significant.

In

Set 2

'single

and unknown' finds

equal

or

outnumber

the

combined associated

finds. In

Set

1

they

are

vastly

outnumbered

by

associated

finds,

and

may

originally

have

constituted

an

even smaller proportion; for example, a fair number of 'single' daggers were in or beside

World

Archaeology

Volume 20 No.

2 Hoards and

Hoarding

? Routledge

1988

0043-8243/88/2002/229

$1.50/1



230

Stuart

P.

Needham

Table1

The

context

of

Early

Bronze

Age

metal

equipment

n Britain.1

OBJECTS

SINGLE

&

UNKNOWN

RIVER

LAKE

&

BOG GRAVES HOARDS

KNIVES,

RAZORS,

39

3

-201(9)

5

245(9)

AWLS

,

CHISELS

DAGGERS

48

8(1)

2(1)

144(17)

21(1.)

213(18)

ORNAMENTS

20

-

2

131(7)

66(9)

220(16)

HALBERD

PENDANTS

- -

-

3

-

HALBERDS

26

1(1)

3(5)

(3)

19(5)

45(8)

SPEARHEADS

42

8

3(2) 1

23(3)

66(3)

H

AXES

c.800

33(6)

11(3)

15(9)

182(45)

c.997(54)

TOTALS:

c.975

53(8)

21(11)

495(45)

316(63)

c.1786(108)

barrows and probably originated in a burial context. The same is probably true of some

'single'

ornaments and tools.

Thirdly,

with the

possible exception

of

halberds,

river

finds

are

more

important

than

bog

finds,

although

neither context is

particularly

common.

The

river finds

tend

to

belong

to the last

phase

of

the

EBA

and herald the more common river

deposits

of

the Middle and Late

Bronze

Age

(e.g.

Needham

and

Burgess

1980).

Exceptions

to

the

prevalent

associations

should

be of

equal

interest

to

us

for,

if

there

were

well-formulated

regulations controlling

metalwork

deposition,

we

might

ask

on

what occasions and

why

were

they disregarded?

In

addition

to

the

Migdale

anomaly

already

mentioned,

there

are

interesting

groups

of

daggers

in

hoards,

and

axes in

graves

and

these

will be

dealt with below.

Patterns

of

association

in

hoards and

graves

Certain

aspects

of

selection

may

be

considered

by contrasting

the

frequency

and

association

of

the different

metalwork

types

in hoards and

graves.

The record

of

association

presented

in

Table 2

reinforces

the dominance of

object

Set 1 in

graves

and

Set

2 in

hoards.

Looking

first at

graves,

most of the small

tools,

daggers

and ornaments

occur

as the

sole metalwork class in a

grave

group,

but

the

three

classes

also occur

regularly

in

association with one another as might be expected. Halberds and spearheads,

exceptional

in

graves,

show

no

patterning.

Axes,

although

rare

in

graves,

occur

more

often with

other metal classes than alone.

This

suggests

that,

in their use as

grave

goods,

TOTALS:

(SINGLE, GRAVES

&

HOARDS)



Selective

deposition

in the British

Early

Bronze

Age

231

axes

were

generally

added to

an

established

funerary

repertoire,

rather than

supplanting

it.

In

hoard

associations,

spearheads,

uncommon on

their

own,

recur with

axes,

daggers

and

small

tools in

descending

frequency.

In

contrast,

halberds are

largely

confined to

halberd-only

hoards.

Daggers,

but

a minor

component

of the

hoard

association,

are most

often found with axes.

However,

the four associations with

spearheads

form

the

greater

proportion

in

relation to

their

overall

frequencies

in hoards.

Table

2

The

associationbetween differentmetalworkclasses in

graves

and hoards.2

KNIVES

ETC

DAGGERS

ORNAMENTS HATRERDS

SPEARHEADS

KNIVES

RAZORS,

AWLS

155

17

14

- -

5

CHISELS

-

(6) (1) (1) (1)

DAGGERS

101

16

-

1

6

2

1

\(11) (1)

ORNAMENTS

36

1 4

(5)

(3)

HALBERDS

- -

4

(

2)

(1)

)

(1)

(2)

SPEARHEAD

2

4

2

AXES

(&

AXE-

4

CHISELS)

3

8

4

-

5

26

(3)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(16)

HOARDS

A further

aspect

of the

basic

dichotomy

between

metalwork

of Sets

1

and 2

is

illustrated

by

axes and

daggers

which

are

associated

six and

eight

times

in the

grave

and

hoard

records

respectively.

Daggers

outnumber

axes

(2:1

and

3:1)

in three of the

grave

associations

and

equal

them

(1:1)

in

the

other

three

grave

groups.

Meanwhile

axes

outnumber

daggers

in seven

of

eight

relevant

hoards

(mostly

listed

in Table

2).

Shifts in the hoard record

The tables

considered

so

far

inevitably suppress

any

chronological

or

geographical

A

X.



232

Stuart

P. Needham

variation in

depositional practice.

In

this

and

the

following

three

sections attention will

be

focused on a number of instances of uneven distribution

in

the

archaeological

record.

Hoards

are treated first

because

they

represent, together

with

single

finds

which

show

similar

concentrations,

the

largest body

of

metalwork and

so

can

serve as a

backcloth

against

which to view other contexts. Four

broadly

sequential

groups

of hoards

have

been

plotted

(Figs

1 and

2) according

to their

'Metalwork

Assemblages'.

These

Assemblages

refer to

groups

of

associated

finds,

mainly

hoards,

and are

defined

using

detailed

axe

typology

(Needham

et al.

1985:

ii-iii).

The

maps

indicate

a shift

through

the

Copper

and

Early

Bronze

periods

from a

highland/Ireland

dominated

distribution

towards

a lowland concentration.

The

observed

pattern

raises

questions

of the

relationships

of

the hoards to

production

and of finds

densities

to the

original

metal

stock

in circulation.

None of the British

hoards

has any evidence connecting it explicitly to the process of metalworking; explanation of

the broken

objects

in

some

hoards

(e.g.

Coles

1968-9:33)

is

ambiguous,

and

therefore

they

cannot

necessarily

be

regarded

as

the

unretrieved

stock-piles

of

smiths,

or

indeed

of

merchants,

as

often

tacitly

assumed.

Only rarely

are the

circumstances

of

hoards

adequately

recorded,

but

sometimes

these

give

evidence

of

considerable

care

in

the

arrangement

of

objects

thus

hinting

that

deposition

was

not

only

deliberate,

but

intended

to

be

permanent.

Schmidt

(1978-9:319)

drew

attention

to a clear

case,

the

Irish

hoard

from

Carhan,

Co.

Kerry,

which

came from a hollowed rock

rising

from

a

stream channel.

Eleven

axes with

their

cutting

edges

outwards were

arranged

in

a

circle

around

a

heap

of

wood

ashes and bones

of

deer;

a slab covered the hollow

(Proceedings

of

the

Royal

Irish

Academy, IV (1847-50): 166-7). Here is something beyond a purely functional

requirement

in the

act of

their

burial. Other

hoards were

laid in

orderly

arrangement,

as

at Arreton

Down,

Isle

of

Wight (Needham

et al.

1985:A6),

stacked

as at

Milverton,

Somerset

(Minnitt 1974)

or

Bridgemere,

Cheshire

(R.

Turner,

pers.

comm.),

or,

like

Carhan,

covered

by

slabs

or boulders

as at Combe

Hill, Sussex,

Plymstock,

Devon,

Menai

Bridge, Anglesey,

and

Finglenny

Hill,

Grampian

(Britton 1963).

The

Plymstock

bronzes

were furthermore

'piled

upon

a

ledge

of the

rock'.

At Dail na

Caraidh,

Highland,

a sizeable

boulder was set

alongside

the

pit containing

hoard

deposit

2

(Gourlay

and Barrett

1984),

while

the

axes of the

Colleonard

hoard,

Grampian,

sat

blades

uppermost

in

a

pottery

vessel

flanked

by

two

stones

(Piggott

and

Stewart

1957:

GB 29). Some further hoards regarded as having been deposited in special locations are

to be discussed below.

The

shifting pattern

of hoard

deposition

is

best understood

in

terms

of

regional

metal

surpluses.

The

passage

of several centuries

appears

to have

seen

the

gradual

erosion,

by

the fertile

southeast,

of

a metal

surplus

at

first

naturally acquired

in

the

ore-bearing

highland

zone.

It

should

be

emphasised

that

the

archaeological

record

is in this

respect

probably

only

witnessing

the

surplus,

and

that,

due

to

efficient

recycling,

the

stock

in

circulation

which

gave

rise

to that

surplus

is a hidden

quantity.

At

any

time the

retained

stock

is

likely

to

have been

larger

than

the

amount

of

metal

permitted

to

be

consigned

permanently

to the

ground,

although

the actual ratios

between

recycled

stock

and

deposited 'surplus' could have been as variable as the utilitarian and symbolic

importance

attached

to

metalwork

by

different

societies.

Consequently,

although

it

may

never be

possible

to

extrapolate

the

relative

density

of metalwork in

circulation,

it

is



Selective

deposition

in

the British

Early

Bronze

Age

233

possible

to venture that the

perceived

distributions

are an

exaggerated

record

of real

regional

inequalities,

which are

changed through

time.

This

regionally

changing

metal

stock could

also

have led

to constraints on

other forms

of

deposition, notably

in

graves.

Regionalisation

and

specialisation

in

grave

metalwork

The

grave

record cannot

be treated

in

quite

the same manner

as

hoards because

graves

also

hold a

wide

range

of non-metal

materials.

Dealing

with this

diversity

is

beyond

the

scope

of

the

present paper,

but

its

exclusion

does not

detract

from some

important

features

of

the metal

grave

finds. For

example,

the

placing

of

ornaments

in

graves

provides

a

picture

of

regional preference

which

taken

at face

value,

might suggest

that

areas of circulation were not countrywide (Fig. 3). Metal beads are confined to south-

east

Britain,

hair-rings/earrings

are concentrated

in

central Britain

and bracelets

are

by

far

the

predominant

grave

ornament

in

the

north.

Does the

choice of ornament

type

for

consumption

in

funerary

rites

directly

reflect actual

preferences

in

pre-depositional

use?

Was

production,

which

logically

might

be

geared

to both

of

these

needs,

also

geographically

confined?

The

Migdale

hoard in northern Scotland shows another

possibility

as it includes tubular

beads,

taking

the

type

far

beyond

its southeastern

range

as documented

by grave

finds

(Fig.

3).

This

might

indicate that tubular beads

were

more

widely

circulated

but were

only

commonly

placed

in

graves

in one

region

and were

rarely

ever

put

in

hoards.

In this

model,

funerary

choice,

which is

represented

in

the

archaeological record, is set apart from selection in everyday or ceremonial use, which in

this case is

not

represented.

Production,

being

a

process

at

another

remove,

is

thus rather

unlikely

to

have a distribution

resembling

the

grave

record.

In

order

to choose between

the

two

explanatory

models

offered

we need more

diverse

evidence,

in

particular

manufacturing

remains.

At

present

no

metalworking

sites

are

known

in EBA Britain

and

casting

debris is confined

to isolated finds of stone moulds.

There are thirteen

secure

grave

associations

for

axes

and

axe-like

implements.

The

latter

qualification

covers the fact

that the

grave

axes are

not,

as a

group, representative

of the much

larger

axe series

from hoards and

single

finds.

Some

of the

grave

axes

are

standard,

some are

morphologically

compatible

but of diminutive

size,

and a few

are

atypical

in

morphology

(Fig. 4). An example of the last is the well-known Bush Barrow

axe

which is of a form

hard to match

precisely

amongst

class

4

axes

to

which

it

belongs

(Needham

1983:191-3).

It is

an

unusually

thin instrument

for

its size which

may

put

it,

along

with the

diminutive

axes,

functionally

out

of

line

with the mainstream.

Nevertheless,

most

grave

axes

can

be

phased

according

to hoard

chronology

and show

marked

regional

differentiation

(Fig.

5).

The well-known

Wessex

examples

are

outnumbered

and

clearly

pre-dated

by

an

important

group

in

northern

England,

amongst

them

a

newly-excavated

example

from

Manor

Farm,

Lancashire

(Olivier

1987).

Indeed

the

two main

groups,

northern

England

and

Wessex-Wales,

may

have no connection.

In

part

these

departures

from normal

grave deposition

practices

may

tie

in

with shifts

in

concentrations of metal stocks.

However,

although

the addition of normal-sized axes to

the

funerary

repertoire

takes

more metal

out

of

circulation

than

any

of the standard

funerary accompaniments

(including

daggers),

this

would not

apply

to diminutive



HOARD

D

EPOSITION

200

km

t

I

j,J

Figure

1

Hoard

depositio

n Metalwork

Assemblages

I-IH.

For

Key

se

MAI-I



236

Stuart

P. Needham

+

Earrings

Metal

beads

Q

*

Bracelets

0+

and bracelets n

grave

contexts.

precisely

the zone

of

our

early

metal

group

(Kinnes

1979).

Hoard composition n Mealworkssetmblage VI

Although

there is a

strong

element

of

continuity

in hoard

composition

during

the

EBA,

with

a

heavy

accent on the inclusion of axes and

in some

circumstances

halberds,

certain

assemblages

break

away

from traditional

patterns.

This

is

perhaps

most marked

in

the

Arreton

complex,

Metalwork

Assemblage

VI

(MA

VI).

Table 3 shows the

breakdown

of

18

certain

or

probable

MA VI associations

according

to the four metalwork classes

represented.

Axes are

by

far the

most

regular type;

indeed

six hoards are

axe-only,

perpetuating

a

long

insular tradition

of such

axe-only

deposits.

Spearheads,

a novel

type

in

this

period,

occur

in half

the

hoards,

even

though they

only

represent

a fifth of the objects

present

in the whole

group.

On three occasions they are

the dominant

type

in mixed

hoards,

and

twice

occur

as

pairs

without

other

types.

Daggers

never occur

alone,

nor as the dominant

type,

despite

occurring

in a third

of

all



Selective

deposition

in

the British

Early

Bronze

Age

237

Table

3

Hoard

composition

n

Metalwork

Assemblage

VI.

U)

8 g

cn m

IND

POSLINGFORD

(Suffolk)

HOARD

19

19

MENAI

BRIDGE

(Anglesey)

HOARD

8

8

COMBE

HILL

(Sussex)

HOARD 4

4

HOLYWELL

(Suffolk)

SUPPOSED HOARD 4

4

MILVERTON

(Somerset)

HOARD 3

3

THORNTON

CARRS

(Lincolnshire)

AREA FIND 2

2

WESTBURY

(AvonY

HOARD

3

1

4

PLYMSTOCK

(Devon)

HOARD

16

2

2

1

21

EBNAL

(Shropshire)

HOARD

3

2

2

1

8

BRIDGEMERE

(Cheshire)

HOARD

3

1

4

B

8

GAVEL MOSS

(Strathclyde)

HOARD 2

1 3

TOTLAND

(Isle

of

Wight)

HOARD

7 3 3

13

BUCKLAND

(Kent)

SUPPOSED HOARD 3

1

4

? -.

ARRETON DOWN

(Isle

of

Wight)

HOARD 4

2

10

16

PILSDON

(Dorset)

HOARD 1

2

3

c

LONG ASHTON

(Avon)

HOARD

1 4

5

LIGHTWATER

(Surrey)

HOARD

2

2

P 0

RODBOROUGH

(Gloucestershire)

HOARD

2

2

cn

m

Total of

type

83

5 11

26

125

Total

occurrence

in hoards

16 3 6

9

the hoards.

Their

consistently

subordinate

appearance

in

the hoard

record

complements

their continued funeral role

in the south at this

date.

The

small

tools

represented-

knives, chisels,

stakes

and

hammers

--

constitute another subordinate

class.

All

but

knives

are

rare

types

in

any

context

at this date.

Table 3

sets the

hoards in

order,

from

axe-only

hoards

at

one

end of the chart to

spearhead-only at the other. The 10 mixed tool/weapon hoards divide into a tool (i.e.

mainly axe)

dominant

set

and a

spearhead

dominant set.

The table

does

not

provide unequivocal

evidence

that

the

new

spectrum

of hoard



238

Stuart

P. Needham

1

2

3

cii

d

uD

EZIIIIIC

5

lit.'y "o

---*--,

c m

0

eiiiufi

|4 fj

^

iY1.,

Figure

4 A

selection of axes and axe-chisels

rom

grave

contexts:

1)

West

Overton

G1, Wiltshire;

(2)

Llanbleddian,

Glamorgan;

(3)

Bush

Barrow, Wiltshire; (4) Bryn

Crug,

Gwynedd;

(5)

Llanddyfnan,Anglesey;

and

(6)

Moot

Low, Derbyshire.

compositions

was

due

to a deliberate

policy

by

the

depositors,

rather than

say

an

incidental by-product of changes in the organisation of metalworking. Certain facts,

however,

would favour the former view.

In

addition to the

special

circumstances of

deposition

known

for

some of these

hoards

(described above)

there are

certain



Selective

deposition

in the British

Early

Bronze

Age

239

c.2400

2000

1800

1600

1400

B.C.

METALWORK

ASSEMBLAGE: TT-TTT

TV

NORTHERN

diiititiu,nh1I

WALES

WESSEX

SOUTH-WEST

ENGLAND

SOUTH-EAST

ENGLAND

iH|1?111111illi

I111111

I I

I

ii

II i

geographical

biases

in

the observed

compositions

which are not

necessarily

echoed

by

finds

in

other

contexts.

The three

hoards

with small tools

all come from

western

Britain.

Meanwhile

spearheads

are

included in

eight

of

eleven hoards from southern

counties,

yet

in only one of seven midland and northern hoards (defined as north of the River

Thames).

There

may actually

have been

some

choice

made

between

daggers

and

spearheads.

The

largest

mixed

tool/weapon

hoards

incorporate

both

weapon types (Fig.

6).

However,

depositors

of smaller hoards

may

have needed to

express

a

preference,

for

just

one

type accompanies

the usual

axes. Three such small hoards in

the south

include

spearheads

and

not

daggers,

while two hoards to the north

(Bridgemere,

Cheshire,

and

Gavel

Moss,

Strathclyde)

each have a

dagger alongside

axes

(Fig.

7).

Patterning

amongst

single

finds

If

interpretation

of

the

hoard evidence is

not

wholly

free from

ambiguity,

that

of

single

finds is even

more

hazardous since one

degree

of

freedom,

that of

patterns

of

Figure 5 The chronology of

axes

placed

in

graves.

1 Grave context (box area equivalent) containing:

Normal

size

axe

Diminutive

axe

Related

axe-chisels

v

VT



240

Stuart

P. Needham

ONLY

DAGGERS

A

A

ONLY

SPEARHEADS

AAA

DAGGERS

&

SPEARHEADS

A.

A

A

A

~-~?--^n~-T^n^

^i^

u

4

6

U

0

12

14

Figure

6

Weapons

in

mixed

hoards of

Metal-

work

Assemblage

VI in

relation to hoard size.

16

18 20 22

HOARD

SIZE

(NO.

OF

BRONZES)

0,

Figure

7

The

distribution

of

MA VI

hoards.

No

weapons

Daggers

with

axes

A

Spearheads

with axes

A

Spearheads

alone

Daggers

and

spearheads

associations,

is

precluded.

Certain

approaches

to

single

finds

can, however,

suggest

that

their

presence

in the

archaeological

record is

not

random. One

might,

for

example,

compare contemporary

object

distributions in one sort

of

context

in one

region;

casual

loss

might reasonably

be

expected

to have resulted

in

similar distributions.

Alternatively,

a

single

type

might

be

found

to

have

very

different

depositional

circumstances across

wider

regions

suggesting

that

its

importance

and overall

function

was

determined

by

society and not purely by intrinsic properties. Another possibility would be to consider

the

temporal changes

in

context observed

for a

given

type suggesting

changing

behaviour

patterns

behind

deposition

or

loss.

-

-- --



Selective

deposition

in

the British

Early

Bronze

Age

241

An

example

of the

first kind

may

be drawn

again

from Metalwork

Assemblage

VI

by

considering

the

deposition

of

the main

types

in the

river

Thames.

The linear

distribution

of

weapons

(spearheads

and

daggers

combined)

does

not

compare closely

with that for

axes

(Fig. 8)

and

it is not

easy

to

regard

all the

finds,

which

belong

to

one

tradition,

as

resulting

from a

single pattern

of

loss.

The

evidence

might

alternatively

be

understood

in

terms

of the deliberate

disposal

of

metalwork,

different communities

along

the

valley

choosing,

or

being

constrained,

to discard

different

types

of

object.

Other

case studies

can illustrate

the second

and third kinds

of

patterning

described

above.

The

tanged copper

dagger,

known

in

both

Britain and

Ireland,

appears

in

quite

distinct contextual

frameworks

in the

two islands

(Fig.

9).

In

Britain

they

belong

to a

familiar

grave package

within the

Beaker series

(Clarke 1970:448),

whilst in Ireland

where

none

accompany

burials almost

all are recorded

from

bog deposits.

In

Ireland

a

similar

bias

towards

bog

contexts

exists for

the

contemporary

axes

(Fig. 10; Lough

Ravel),

but

is seen to be

steadily

eroded

by

an increase

in river

deposition

as

the

EBA

wore

on

(Schmidt

1978:319-20).

Such

patterns

taken

together suggest

that

single

finds as

well

as

hoards

belonged

generally

to a

system

of

regular

deliberate

deposition;

the

system evidently

had

very

different

controls

than

applied

to

contemporary

funerary

deposits.

Special

and ritual contexts

Some more unusual context types to be considered are mound deposits and henge finds.

Axes

dominate these

contextual

groups,

but other

types

occasionally

intrude.

Central

to the

mound

deposit

category

are

five axe hoards

for

which

good

circumstances

of

discovery

exist

(Table

4),

indeed some were

found

under

excavation,

thus

giving

confidence

that no burial

remains

accompanied

them.

In

similarly good

contexts

are

examples

of

ornament

(Cairntable,

Strathclyde;

Henshall

1964:427,

fig.

1.2)

and

axe-weapon

deposits

(Dail

na

Caraidh

2;

Highland

Region;

Gourlay

and

Barrett

1984),

as

well

as the

Kintore,

Grampian

Region,

flat-axe

mould

(Britton

1963:322,

no.

10).

This

practice

of

non-grave

mound

deposition

was

probably

more

common,

as

may

be seen

from

other finds with

less well-documented

contexts

in or

close to mounds and

burial sites (Table 4). One wonders also whether the rich artifacts, including metalwork,

spread

across a flint

cairn within the Clandon

barrow,

Dorset

(Drew

and

Piggott

1936),

were

the

grave group

so often

assumed.

Mound

deposits

also

occur in Ireland

where

at least three

flat

axes were sited

on

mound

edges

at

Tully,

Co.

Fermanagh (Waterman

1978:11-12,

fig.

7.13),

Carrowlisdooaun,

Co.

Mayo

(Hencken

1935:77,

80,

fig.

4j),

and

Newgrange,

Co.

Meath

(O'Kelly

and Shell

1979).

It is

important

to

emphasise

that

in

these

mound

deposits

axes

are

predominant,

in

complete

opposition

to

the normal

grave

metalwork.

This

is

also a

feature

of

carvings

which decorate

part

of the

cist at four burial sites

at

Ri

Cruin,

Nether

Largie

1 and

2,

Strathclyde,

and at

Bradbury,

Dorset

(Schmidt

1978-79: 314-8). Symbolically the

multiple

object

carvings

may

therefore

be

surrogate mound-deposited

hoards,

the

different

manifestations

perhaps

being

determined in

part

by

local

tradition,

in

part

by



RIVER

THAMES

OXFORD READING

M'DNHEAD

R.WEY TWICK'MWANDS'TH

.LEA

II1

111

S

FLANGEDXES

WEAPONS:

EBA

SPEARHEAD

a

CAMERTON-SNOWSHILL

L_k_

_DAGGER

I

Figure

8

The distribution

of MA VI

bronzes

recovered from the river Thames

(length

straightened).

Each

bar

represents

one

object.

TANGED DAGGERS

v

dagger

knife

p%

v

poor findspot

o

grave

H

hoard

V bog

find

Figure

9

The

distribution

and

context of

tanged daggers

in

Britain

and

Ireland.

I



Selective

deposition

in the

British

Early

Bronze

Age

243

Figure

10

The

chronological Obog

a

river

trend

in

EBA axe

deposition

find find

in

wet environments

in

Ireland.

0

100%

5axes]

"

Lough

Ravel

14)

'

-I

-

.'

-

I

I~~

-

Killaha

10)

Batlyvaley

(34)

Derryniggin

7)

the

availability

of

metal

surpluses

or durable stone. The

carvings

on

cists are

obviously

primary

to

an act

of

burial,

whereas

mound

deposits

may

or

may

not be

buried

during

funerary

rites.

The carvings lead to the rather infrequent henge associations, since a fifth site with

multiple

axe

carvings

is

Stonehenge

(Atkinson

1956:30-4,

pl. 12).

The

suggested

dagger

at

Stonehenge

is at best

ambiguous

for it

may

well be two

superimposed

axes.

Two

other

henge

associations are of

single

bronze

implements:

an awl at Castell

Bryn Gwyn,

Anglesey

(Wainwright

1962),

and more

importantly

a

pristine

axe from the main

enclosure

ditch

at

Mount

Pleasant,

Dorset

(Britton

1979).

This

axe

is

convincing

as a

ritual

deposit, perhaps

following

earlier

practices

of stone

axe

deposition,

and

a motive is

not hard to

find. Its

stratigraphical position

in

the

14C-dated ditch

sequence, places

its

deposition

close

in

time to

the construction of the

large

timber

palisade

in

the

seventeenth

century

BC. What

better celebration

of

the colossal

undertaking

involving

considerable tree-felling than the deposition of one of the finest axes of that period.

Another

likely

ritual site

context

is

that

of the

Caerloggas

I

ring

cairn,

Cornwall,

where

part

of

a decorated

bronze

dagger,

tin

slag

and

a

piece

of

amber,

amongst

other

artifacts,

were found

scattered around

the interior

of the small embanked enclosure

(Miles 1975).

No burial

survived

on the

site,

and it is

thought

very unlikely

that

these finds

were

placed

as

grave goods.

Axes

as

non-utilitarian

artifacts

Further indications of the

special

status that axes

may

have held can be adduced from

aspects

of their decoration

and

apparent

lack

of

hafting. Although

a

large

number

of

axes

have come

from

bogs

in

Ireland,

surprisingly

not

one

is

reported

to have been found

with



Table

4

Early

Bronze

Age

metalwork

in ritual contexts.

MOUND

DEPOSIT

-

NO BURIAL

FROM

MOUND

-

UNCLEAR

CONTEXT

NEAR

CIST/BURIAL

BURIAL

MOUND

IN

CIST

-

NO BURIAL

AXE

CARVINGS

AXE

MOULDS

Kintore

(Grampian)

SINGLE

Brockhillstone

Laverstock

(Wilts)

Llanfyrmach

(Dyfed)

AXES

(Drumfries &

Lullington

(Sussex) Balbirnie (Fife)

Galloway)

Hill of

Redhall

(Tayside)

AXES

Wold

Farm

(N

Yorkshire)

Camptown

(Lothian)

Combe

Hill

(Sussex)

Barevan

Kirk

Dail

na

(Highland)

Caraidh

1

(Highland)

Durris

(Grampian)

Fortrie

of

Balnoon

(Grampian)

E

AXE-WEAPON

Dail na

Caraidh

2

Eildon

(Borders)

Sluie

(Grampian)

C (Highland)

ORNAMENTS

Cairntahle

Harlyn

Bay

Lumphanan(Grampian)

Orbliston

(Grampia

(+

AXE)

(Strathclyde)

(Cornwall)

Pettycur

(Fife)

MALL

TOOLS

DAGGER



Selective

deposition

in the British

Early

Bronze

Age

245

haft traces.

By

contrast,

an

example

from

Brockagh,

Co.

Kildare,

was

actually

recovered

in

a leather

pouch,

which

may

be taken as

contemporary despite

Rynne's

doubts

(1961-3:

460-1).

These two facts in

conjunction

might

hint at a role for the EBA axe in an

unhafted state. This can be

augmented

by

two further observations:

firstly,

the carved

axes

also lack

hafts;

and

secondly,

the haft

ends of axeheads are

frequently

decorated.

In

some

cases

the

decoration is

quite

simple,

in others it is

part

of

a

complex

overall

scheme

across the whole

of

the face.

Looking

at these instances

pragmatically,

it

is

logical

to

suppose

that

the whole

design

was intended

to

be

seen on certain

occasions,

thus

requiring

the axe

to

be in an unhafted

state.

If,

on the other

hand,

such axes were

kept

hafted

then their

decoration

assumes

anyway

a

decidedly

symbolic

role. Wear of the

haft-end decoration

observed

in

a few cases

suggests

that these axes did on

occasion find

utilitarian

use.

It

is

possible

in this

way

to

envisage

a role

for

the axes in

an

unhafted

state and

therefore

in a

non-utilitarian

capacity.

The role was concerned

with

display,

as

suggested

by

the

practice

of

decorating

the

objects

and the

portrayal

of

axes

in

carvings,

and

was

often

connected

to sacred

sites,

of both

funerary

and

ritual

function,

or in

some

regions

to

bog

or river

deposition.

A

general

theory

of EBA metalwork

consumption

An

attempt

must be

made to draw

together

the

many

and

varied

pieces

of evidence

presented, for they should be explicable in terms of a general theory of social behaviour,

albeit modified

by regional

idiosyncracies.

The

uneven distributions

of the

recovered

finds

are

probably

quite disproportionate

to

those that

originally

obtained in

circulation.

One

major distorting

factor is

considered to

have

been

un-standardised attitudes

amongst prehistoric

communities,

the extent

of

deliberate

deposition being

determined

by

the

surplus

above

their

perceived

utilitarian

requirements.

Such

factors have

not,

however,

clouded a view

of two

sets

of

metal

equipment

which

each had a

particular

significance

for

contemporary

society; certainly

they

were

used

in

contrasting

ways.

The

first set

(comprising

daggers,

knives and

other small

tools,

and

a

variety of lightweight ornaments) can be viewed as symbols of personal status, rank and

perhaps occupation.

There

may

have been

other

symbols

in use

through

life,

but those

cited

were the

ones

generally

permitted

to attend the

corpse

into the afterworld. We

have seen that their use in

graves

followed different

patterns

of

preferences

from

region

to

region,

and

through

time. A

feature

common

to

almost

all metal

accompaniments

in

graves

is

that metal was consumed

sparingly

and this

might

hint

at an economic

determinism

governing disposal

of this

valuable

resource

for

personal

aggrandisement.

Miniaturisation

of

some

types

for

funerary

use echoes this theme

(e.g. Piggott

1973:361,

365).

The

exceptions

to this

pattern

are the few metal-rich

grave

goods

(e.g.

Bush

Barrow)

which are

misleadingly

allowed to dominate

our inference

on

the status

of

the

elite.

Many

hoards and even

single

finds are

at variance with this

funerary

poverty;

much

larger

quantities

of

metal,

by weight,

could

evidently

be

consigned

to

the

ground

in



Selective

deposition

in

the British

Early

Bronze

Age

247

Colloquium

held

in

Stockholm,

May

1985;

the feed-back from

colloquium participants

deserves

warm

thanks,

especially

the enthusiasm of John Barrett. I am

vastly

indebted to

constructive

criticism from Sheridan

Bowman.

Amongst

the

many

museums

and

individuals who have

put

material

at

my disposal

I would

particularly

like to thank David

Dawson,

Robert

Gourlay,

Adrian Olivier

and Ric Turner

respectively

for

unpublished

details

of

the new

finds

from

Long

Ashton,

Dail na

Caraidh,

Manor Farm and

Bridgemere.

For

further

assistance,

with

maps

and

diagrams,

I am

grateful

to

Philip

Compton.

25.i.

1988

British

Museum

London WC1B 3DG

Notes

1

Figures

relate to the

number

of

objects

rather than

contexts;

those

in

parentheses

denote

uncertain

ontexts,

which are additional o the

main totals.

River,

lake

and

bog

totals are

also

includedwithin

'Single

& Unknown'

figures.

2

Figures

n

parentheses

ndicateadditionalbut

uncertain

associations.Cells

split by

the

diagonal

line relate

to

contexts

containingonly

one metalwork

lass.

References

Atkinson,

R. J.

C.

1956.

Stonehenge.

London:

HamishHamilton.

Barrett,

J. C. and

Bradley,

R.

(eds)

1980.

Settlement nd

Society

n the British

Later

Bronze

Age.

Oxford:British

ArchaeologicalReports,

British

Series

No.

83.

Britton,

D.

1963,

Traditions

of

metal-working

n the

Later Neolithic

and

Early

Bronze

Age

of

Britain,

Part 1.

Proceedings

of

the

Prehistoric

Society,

29:

258-325.

Britton,

D. 1979. The

bronze

axe from

MountPleasant:

description,

omposition

and affinities.

In

Wainwright

969:

128-38.

Clarke,

D.

L.

1970. Beaker

Pottery

of

Great Britain

and Ireland.

2

Vols.

Gulbenkian

ArchaeologicalSeries. CambridgeUniversityPress.

Coles,

J. M.

1968-9. Scottish

Early

Bronze

Age

metalwork.

Proceedings

of

the

Society

of

Antiquaries f

Scotland,

101:

1-110.

Drew,

C. D. and

Piggott,

S. 1936.

Two

Bronze

Age

barrows,

excavated

by

Mr

Edward

Cunnington.Proceedingsof

the

Dorset

Natural

History

and

Archaeological ociety,

58: 18-25.

Gourlay,

R.

and

Barrett,

J.

C.

1984.

Dail

na Caraidh.Current

Archaeology,

8: 347-9.

Hencken,

H. O'Neill.

1935.

A

tumulusat

Carrowlisdooaun,

ountyMayo.

Journal

of

the

Royal

Societyof

Antiquaries

f

Ireland,

65:

75-83.

Henshall,

A.

S. 1964. Four

Early

Bronze

Age

armlets.

Proceedings f

the Prehistoric

ociety,

30:

426-9.

Kinnes,

I. A. 1979. Round Barrowsand

Ring-Ditches

n the BritishNeolithic. London:British

MuseumOccasional

Paper

7.

Miles,

H.

1975. Barrows

on

the

St Austell

Granite,

Cornwall.

Cornish

Archaeology,

14:

5-81.



248

Stuart P. Needham

Minnitt,

S.

1974.

Early

Bronze

Age

hoard

from

Milverton,

Somerset.

Proceedings of

the Somerset

Archaeology

and

Natural

History

Society,

118:

51-3.

Needham, S. P. 1983. The Early Bronze Age axeheads of Central and Southern England. Doctoral

dissertation,

University College,

Cardiff.

Needham,

S.

P. and

Burgess,

C. B.

1980.

The

Later

Bronze

Age

in the Lower Thames

Valley:

the

metalwork

evidence.

In Barrett and

Bradley

(eds)

1980:

437-69.

Needham,

S.

P.,

Lawson,

A.

J.

and

Green,

H. S.

1985.

Early

Bronze

Age

Hoards. British Bronze

Age

Metalwork:

Associated Finds

Series,

A1-6. London:

British Museum.

O'Kelly,

M. J. and

Shell,

C. A. 1979. Stone

objects and

a bronze

axe from

Newgrange,

Co. Meath.

In

Ryan

(ed.)

1979:

127-44.

Olivier,

A.

C.

H.

1987.

Excavation

of a

Bronze

Age

funerary

cairn

at Manor

Farm,

near

Borthwick,

north

Lancashire.

Proceediings of

the

Prehistoric

Society,

53:129-86.

Piggott, S. 1973. The Wessex culture of the Early Bronze Age. In Pugh (ed.) 1973: 352-75.

Piggott,

S.

and

Stewart,

M.

(eds)

1957.

Early

and Middle

Bronze

Age

Grave

Groups

and Hoards

from

Scotland. Inventaria

Archaeologica

GB 25-34.

London:

Garaway

Ltd.

Pugh,

R. B.

(ed.)

1973.

A

History of

Wiltshire,

1.2.

The Victoria

History

of the Counties

of

England.

London: Oxford

University

Press.

Ryan,

M.

(ed.)

1979.

The

Origins

of

Metallurgy

in Atlantic

Europe:

Proceedings of

the

Fifth

Atlantic

Colloquium,

Dublin 30th

March

to

4th

April,

1978. Dublin:

Stationery

Office.

Rynne,

E.

1961-3.

Notes on

some

antiquities

found

in Co.

Kildare. Journal

of

the

Kilkenny

Archaeological

Society,

13:

458-62.

Schmidt,

P. K.

1978-9.

Beile

als

Ritualobjekte

in

der

Altbronzezeit der

Britischen Inseln.

Jahresbericht

des Insituts

fir

Vorgeschichte

der Universitdt

Frankfurt

an

Main:

311-20.

Wainwright,

G.

J. 1962.

The excavation

of an earthwork

at

Castell

Bryn-Gwyn,

Llanidan

Parish,

Anglesey.

Archaeologia

Cambrensis,

111: 25-58.

Waterman,

D. M.

1978.

The excavation

of a court cairn

at

Tully,

County Fermanagh.

Ulster

Journal

of

Archaeology,

41: 3-14.

Abstract

Needham, Stuart

P.

Selective

deposition

in the British

Early

Bronze

Age

The contextual

and

spatial

distributions

of metalwork

in

Early

Bronze

Age

Britain make a

clear

case

for the differential use of

the various metal

equipment

available. This

paper

concentrates on

deposition

and

argues

that

various

depositional

modes were

intended

to

be

permanent.

There is

a

complex

interplay

between

and

within

grave

contexts,

hoards

and

single

finds,

with mutual

exclusion

as

a

dominant feature.

Extant distributions

are considered

to be

largely

due to

positive

selection

processes

in

deposition,

a conclusion with

implications

for the

metal

stocks

in

circulation.

Suggestions

regarding

the

use

of

early

metalwork

in

display

and

parade,

as

denoter

of

rank

or

symbolic

expression,

as well

as associations

with

ritual

sites,

contribute

to

a

social

theory

which is

advanced to account for the main

customs

of

deposition

observed.

1988_S. Needham_Selective Deposition in the British Early Bronze Age

Documents

Transcript of 1988_S. Needham_Selective Deposition in the British Early Bronze Age