Bronze Age hoards

From Smalleypedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Recent authors have pointed out that in principle there is no difference between hoards and single finds of Bronze Age metalwork in terms of the reasons behind their deposition. Critically discuss this statement with specific reference to Northern Europe.

Ruiha Smalley, February 2006

Introduction

The majority of our knowledge of the Bronze Age comes from finds of bronze objects retrieved in hoards, as single items or from underneath massive burial mounds (Sherratt, 2001). Many of these objects appear to have been deposited deliberately. The specific reasons behind these depositions have been discussed by a number of authors. The following essay examines the theories put forward and looks at the consideration given to single finds and hoards, covering finds from Northern Europe.

Bradley

Using Bronze Age metalwork in north and northwest Europe as an example, Bradley (1982) argues that the main forms of deposits (grave goods, hoards, water finds and single finds) were related by an underlying pattern.

Grave goods

Material left with the dead can normally be regarded as one version of the social identity of the dead. Displays of wealth emphasise social position and the provision of rich grave goods may reinforce existing power structures. Artefacts have been found that are unlikely to serve any utilitarian purpose and therefore appear to have been made for use as grave goods, for example, shields too fine to withstand a blow and axes too weak to use as a tool (Bradley 1982, p.109).

Hoards

Bradley interprets hoards as an economic phenomenon with a common factor in that they consist of an accumulation of complete or broken metalwork buried together in apparent isolation. He gives reasons for why such hoards could have been buried:

  • Hoards of complete objects are viewed as personal equipment and stored with the intention of recovery;
  • Broken metalwork could result from a smith’s accumulation of scrap;
  • Identical or new objects can be considered to be the smith’s stock-in-trade stored prior to distribution;
  • Large accumulations of bronze may have been deliberately withdrawn from circulation to force its exchange value to rise.

Where burial finds are rare, hoards have been considered to be funeral offerings. (Bradley 1982, pp.109-110)

Water finds

He recognises three main reasons for the deposition of items in water (in bogs, peat or rivers):

  • Those that are the accidental by-product of other processes such as loss in a flood;
  • Those that are votive deposits. These are often in regions with few furnished burials. They could result, for example, from a water religion developed in response to the climatic deterioration of the first millennium BC or where the dead were consigned to the rivers with their grave goods;
  • Those involved in the Celtic veneration of water and the destruction of enemy weapons won in battle. (Bradley 1982, p.110)

Bradley (1979) examined metalwork in British rivers and notes that similar patterns have been recognised in Europe. The broad agreement is that these finds were ritually deposited but he states that the comparison between river finds and those on dry land makes no allowance for the nature of the archaeological record. Difficulty arises from the method by which river finds are recovered. Dredging can distort the true position as small items are less likely to be recognised. The majority are from dredging and not systematic survey. In the Oise Valley, France, retrieval was monitored carefully and produced bone objects and pottery as well as bronze material. Bradley considers that river deposits, as hoards or single finds, may instead reflect the position of settlements. Areas in which Bronze Age metalwork has been found in close proximity to sites involving pile structures include the Thames Valley, England, the north Italian lakes or La Tene, Switzerland. Debate on this material shows the ambiguous nature of the evidence. De Navarro stated the ritual character of La Tene while Schwab advanced evidence that it was actually a trading port which had been swamped by floods. (pp. 3-5)

Single finds

Bradley (1982) has little specific detail to add about single finds except that they are thought of as chance losses or as clues to the location of settlements. (p.110)

Further categorisation

He divides interpretation of deposits into another three categories (economic, social or religious) explaining that these categories may not be distinct. There are areas in Europe where bog hoards combine classes of personal hoards and votive finds. It is important to recognise that in some areas a different range of objects were deposited in different ways, "despite the fact that the prevailing interpretation in Britain would treat hoards, single finds and settlement finds as being parts of a utilitarian pattern, with grave goods and river finds as elements of another ritual system." (Bradley 1982, p.111) Bradley explains that material may have entered the archaeological record in a structured manner so that many separate deposits may be variants of one basic pattern which he considers the ’voluntary discarding of property’. (Bradley 1982, p.112)

Needham

Needham (1988) places Bronze Age metalwork in slightly different contexts. Single, funerary and hoard finds are included in one level of categorisation. He looks at the patterns of deposition from finds of the early British Bronze Age and notices that hoards and single finds show similar concentrations of distribution in the archaeological record. Due to this he treats these two classes of finds as one. Small tools, daggers and ornaments are predominant in graves while halberds, spearheads (Figure 1) and axes are predominant in hoards. A separate level of categories encompasses river finds, bog deposits, mound deposits and henge associations. (p.229)

Needham looks at patterning in order to examine reasons for single find depositions. He compares contemporary object distributions of one sort of context in one region, where casual loss might be expected to have resulted in similar distributions. Deposits in the river Thames show that linear distribution of weapons does not compare closely with that for axes. It is not easy to regard all finds as resulting from a single pattern of loss. Evidence might be understood in terms of the deliberate disposal of metal with different communities along the Thames Valley choosing to discard different types of objects. (p.240-241)

A single type of find might also be found to have different depositional circumstances across wider regions, suggesting that its importance and main function was determined by society and not just intrinsic properties. The tanged dagger (Figure 2) appears in different contexts in the Britain and Ireland. In Britain they belong to a familiar grave package in the Beaker series and in Ireland, where none accompany burials, almost all are retrieved from bogs. Single finds may also show temporal changes in context, observed for a given type and suggesting changing behaviour patterns behind deposition or loss. In Ireland a bias towards bog contexts exists for axes but is seen to be steadily eroded by an increase in river deposition as the Bronze Age wore on. (Needham 1988, p.240-241)

These patterns suggest that single finds, along with hoards, belonged generally to a system of regular, deliberate deposition and this system had different controls than applied to contemporary funeral deposits. (Needham 1988, p.241)

Sherratt and Harding

Sherratt (2001) gives the motive for deposition as being a way to remove local accumulation of bronze from circulation by ritual deposition as votive offerings. Such offerings were the principal means by which local leaders competed for prestige. The control of supply in the hands of a few powerful lineages enhanced the status of these groups. In certain parts of Denmark the deposition of metal in hoards rather than graves seems to be an alternative means of dedicating wealth. He notes that large hoards of bronze objects in an area seem to redress the absence of rich grave goods in that area. He argues for a diversity of motives, within a system in which alternative uses of wealth objects were limited. He feels that the idea of wealth hidden in times of insecurity is often inappropriate, as is the idea that these finds represent the stock in trade of itinerant merchants/craftsmen. (pp.259-260)

Sherratt describes a votive deposit found from Hajdusamson, North East Hungary (Figure 3). A solid hilted sword was placed with its blade pointing north, across which had been placed twelve shaft-hole battleaxes with their blades to the west. This was clearly a votive offering rather than a casual loss. (p.265)

Harding (2001) would disagree with Sherratt on some points. As many of the hoards were very heavy (too heavy to have been carried around) he feels it is a reasonable assumption that smiths buried their stock in hiding places known only to them, intending to return on another visit to recover it. The fact that they didn’t may hint at troubled times or a high mortality rate among smiths. "It is hard to believe that so called founder’s hoards were intentionally lost to the ground." (p.314)

Conclusion

A variety of reasons are put forward to explain the deposition of metalwork in Bronze Age Europe. Authors discuss the same forms of material (funerary goods, water finds, hoards and single finds) but categorise them in different ways. Single finds are not always examined in the literature in any depth but when they are they tend to be discussed in the same category as that of hoards.

Bradley prefers to recognise an underlying similarity among deposits with all being the ’voluntary discarding of property’. Within this theme Bradley also discusses categories but the most important factor is to recognise that in some areas a different range of objects were deposited in different ways and that each find must be interpreted according to its own characteristics. (Bradley 1982, p.112)

References

BRADLEY, R., 1979. The interpretation of later Bronze Age metalwork from British rivers. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, 8 (1), 3-6.

BRADLEY, R., 1982. The destruction of wealth in later prehistory. Man, New Series, 17 (1), 108-122.

CHICHESTER DISTRICT MUSEUM, 2005. The Bronze Age [Online] Available from: http://www.chichester.gov.uk/museum/tl2250.htm [accessed 8/2/06]

HARDING, A., 2001. Reformation in Barbarian Europe 1300-600BC. In: Cunliffe,B. (ed) The Oxford illustrated history of Prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 304-335.

HELLENIC MINISTRY OF CULTURE , 2001. Gods and Heroes of Bronze Age Europe. The roots of Odysseus [Online] Available from: http://www.culture.gr/2/21/215/21505/215051/e5128.html [accessed 2/2/06]

LIMERICK CITY MUSEUM, 2003. Tools and equipment. [Online] Available from:

http://www.limerickcity.ie/applications/General/Museum_ShowResults.aspx?SearchType=Townland&Value=Tuogh%20/%20Curraghbridge <nowiki>[</nowiki>accessed 8/2/06]

NEEDHAM, S.P., 1988. Selective deposition in the British early Bronze Age. World Archaeology, 20 (2), 229-248.

SHERRATT, A., 2001. The emergence of elites: early Bronze Age 2500-1300BC. In: Cunliffe,B. (ed) The Oxford illustrated history of Prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.244-276.