The Question:
"Bronze Age metalwork in large quantities is regularly found apparently discarded. How would you account for the way in which such a precious commodity appears to have been disposed of?"
November 1994
Traditionally the reason given for the introduction, and adoption, of metallurgy into the British Isles is the practical superiority of copper and bronze over neolithic flint and stone technology[1]. This is an unsatisfactory explanation as the early bronze age weapons and tools produced were less effective, indeed some were manufactured in an unusable format e.g. daggers without adequate tangs. It is more plausible that metal artefacts were originally acquired for reasons of status and prestige; the reflective power and display potential of metal must have been impressive to a people used to non-reflective stone and flint implements. Metal artefacts of power and prestige were deposited in large quantities during the bronze age, as grave goods, in dryland hoards and in wet places (rivers, streams, lakes and bogland).
There is a long prehistory of dryland depositions from the early neolithic, these consisted of organic offerings, plus flint, stone and pottery, found in, or near, causewayed enclosures, henges etc., occasionally finds of pottery, believed to be ritual are found in rivers. These traditions continued into the later neolithic with the addition of valuable grave goods accompanying the dead, which included fine flint and stone work (some of it 'exotic'). During the beaker transition phase, small quantities of copper, gold and early bronze items were included in burial assemblages. The early bronze age was notable for particularly rich burials of bronze, gold and other valuables and for first use of dry land metal 'hoards'. Up until C1,500 BCE this established pattern held, with the majority of bronze artefacts accompanying the dead, with occasional wetland deposits and dryland hoards. However, by C1,300 BCE the position was reversed. Interments rarely included any grave goods, other than pottery, and huge quantities of bronze were being deposited in dry land hoards and into Britains lakes, rivers and bogs.
As can be inferred from the above summary, the deposition of valuables (whether metal or not) was well established, very early on, by a people who disposed of property, in earth or water, over an extremely long period of time. The emphasis of interest changed, the type of artefacts changed, but essentially a common thread runs through the pattern. The question is why did they do it?
A number of theories have been put forward to explain this phenomenon, among them economic control, social storage, social control, personal status and 'Gift of the Gods'.
The economic control theory[3] assumes that certain groups (elites) or individuals had a vested interest in keeping the amount of bronze in circulation low in order to keep its value high. The usefulness of this theory is that it provides an explanation for merchant and founder hoards, the former containing quantities of new artefacts and the latter metal scrap belonging to smiths[4]. The problem it raises is that it is unlikely that smiths, merchants and elite groupings could have co-ordinated such a strategy. If the objective of the operation was to maintain the high value of metals why not simply cease mining British ores and trading with continental metal suppliers?
The social storage theory[5] assets that sedentary societies acquire valuable artefacts in order to create alliances with other groups with whom they wish to secure food supplies. The problem with such a system is that it is inflationary "..... because these items usually are consumed at a slower rate than food, such an imbalance is inevitable unless some mechanism exists to remove or further transform these tokens"[6], thus explaining why valuable assets are withdrawn from or destroyed. Bradley finds this useful as it "might explain why the same artefacts could be deposited under different circumstances in nearby areas, for example the changing relationship between grave goods, hoards or river finds"[7]. As mobile societies are specifically excluded from the model[8], I find it weak, as it does not explain why the more mobile neolithic communities also found a need to dispose of valuable artefacts, though in smaller (as far as we know) quantities.
In essence both the above theories are basically the same, owning a common desire on the part of bronze age 'elites' or communities to restrict supply in order to artificially maintain the value of commodities, which assumes an early appreciation of applied economics[9].
The social control theory[10] argues that if special goods become to common they will move down the prestige scale until they can be attained and utilised by anyone who wants them. In order to prevent this happening prehistoric societies regulated any over supply by removing or destroying surplus prestige artefacts, for example when a relationship ended (e.g. a marriage) the prestigious goods exchanged to inaugurate it are destroyed. This theory makes an attempt to actually understand the reasoning of prehistoric people. However, it depends on the societies themselves wishing to prevent individuals from meeting their full potential, but why should a society wish to do that?
The personal status theory takes the view that the process of disposal itself is the main operant, that is by disposing of prestige goods publicly an individuals personal status is maintained or raised. Public displays are likely to have taken place during celebrations of rites of passage - birth, initiation, parturition, death - and could have been an integral part of a 'big man' scenario, where societal status and prestige is not decided by the actual wealth of a person, but by the amount of wealth he/she is able to distribute to others. Bradley says it is "quite wrong to adopt this interpretation because it offers a ready-made analogy"[11] to the ethnographic literature. Whilst it would be inappropriate to slavishly assume that the practices of modern isolation societies are living examples of those in prehistory, it is surely just as wrong to assert that this data cannot go some way to inform us of the valuable, and unique, insights we can be given into understanding alternative ways of thinking that may be closer to those of our ancestors than are our western european economic models.
The final theory 'Gift of the Gods'[12], argues that gift giving (see above) enhances the status of the giver, but places an obligation on the receiver to make a reciprocal offering, which then returns the first giver to the original status quo. This pattern of 'alternating disequilibrium'[13] can be avoided if the gift, instead of being made to a person, is offered to the 'gods'. The giver achieves the goal of enhanced social prestige, but the 'god' is not necessarily under any obligation to reciprocate. In this scenario the giver can improve status indefinitely, whilst also removing wealth from the community permanently.
The reason people deposited valuable artefacts in prehistory is probably not as simple as the individual theories outlined above imply. A combination of a number of the hypothesis advanced would better explain how/why change was attempted by societies bound by tradition, but faced by changing economic circumstances. I will attempt to offer an explanation that will satisfy the archaeological record and be capable of application to the whole sequence of ritual depositions from the neolithic to the end of the bronze age.
In the earlier neolithic a system of gift giving and obligation may have worked reasonably well. It is probable that obligations were not transferable, so when a person died any obligations outstanding would be void[14], the gifts that under-wrote the obligation would be mostly organic that could be disposed of as part of the funeral ritual (by burning or during feasting) or rendered unusable (by destruction of pots, stone and flint artefacts), any residue being deposited in the earth or water as an offering to the ancestors/gods.
As the neolithic progressed mobility was reducing, permitting a corresponding increase in the accumulation of bulky, non-organic artefacts, which were less edible or amenable destruction. These were sometimes dealt with as before (into earth or water), but a new strategy was also adopted, the goods began accompanying the deceased. Eventually items that would have been 'consumed' during funeral rituals were also added to the grave good assemblages. A practice that continued into the bronze age.
However, an increasing availability of bronze may have eventually caused stress in the system for the living as well. It is not unreasonable to propose that obligations incurred by accepting gifts bore some relationship to the durability of the artefact, a gift pot would have less value than a bronze dagger, and thus carry a lesser reciprocation. Pots have a relatively short life and a broken pot will have no useful residual value, however a broken bronze ornament, tool or weapon would have a recycling value. A recent 'Disappearing World' programme on the 'Discovery Channel' about the Tobriand Islanders highlighted for me the problems that may block us from understanding the present, never mind the past which is as much a 'foreign country'. The economic system of the islanders is unusual, for starters there are two of them - one for men (the accumulation and storage of yams which the men harvest but the women own both the trees and the land they grow on) and two for women (banana leaves and grass skirts). I couldn't quite get my head around how the triple system worked, however the basis of economic activity, for both sexes was, by its very nature, short-term, which was matched by the nature of the obligation building and reciprocal activity - an obligation could be established merely by shaving the head or blackening the face during a mourning ritual, the female relatives of the deceased would have to reciprocate by plying the mourner with mounds of banana leaves and/or grass skirts. It occurred to be that an amazingly large amount of ritual mourning would be required to 'pay' for a bronze dagger. The acceptance of bronze must have incurred heavy obligations that were difficult to reciprocate and a strategy was needed to negate the obligation. The long held tradition of occasionally depositing artefacts in pits or rivers presented an opportunity for the living to transfer an onerous social obligation to the gods/ancestors, whilst enhancing the prestige of the donor and of the original gift-giver. Eventually this strategy developed to include the gift/debt of the dead, who were no longer accompanied by grave goods.
The archaeological records shows that there are major geographical differences between areas where the emphasis is on 'wet' deposits and those in which 'dryland' hoards are more common (though both types are found in each of the areas), and that the artefacts themselves have a propensity to be different, weaponry in the former and ornaments in the latter (it should be noted that hoards in 'wet' areas generally contain ornaments and river deposits in 'dry' areas weaponry).
The areas in which dryland deposits were more common are the more traditional backwaters, where agriculture was the focus of subsistence. In contrast a major area where water deposits are most frequent is in the Thames Valley, which is increasingly proving to have strong contacts with the continental mainland, and to have important trading interests (e.g.the Egham)[15]. See Illustration 1.These different emphasis probably have a religious meaning (sympathetic magic perhaps), with dryland hoards being an offering to the earth (mother), to encourage the harvest (in the field, mining activity and human)[16], See Illustration 2, and the consignment of weapons to rivers (and other wet places) to appease a raingod (father) responsible for ensuring the safety of people and merchandise during the treacherous sea crossing between Britain and the continental mainland.
It is possible that rain was seen as 'masculine' because 'he' inseminated streams and rivers and brought crops to life.Late neolithic and early bronze age henges and other circular monuments of stone, wood and earth, frequently had watery connections e.g. Durrington Walls, Stonehenge (particularly after construction of the Avenue), Marden (one side of which is bounded by a river), Silbury Hill (surrounded by water), the Kennet Valley palisaded enclosure (with the Kennet running through it), Stanton Drew (build a stones throw from the Chew). Rivers and streams are born from the earth (rising out of springs) and wax according to the amount of rain that falls, which mingles with the river and stream water impregnating the earth and bringing the world to life. Prior to the climatic changes (c1,200 BCE) water would have been mostly beneficent, but subsequently became more malevolent (floods and destruction), particularly in the areas of the fens and Thames Valley. The right quantity of semen creates, too much destroys!
The developments outlined above have the advantage of allowing the essential integrity of a traditional system to be retained, with the flexibility to adapt to changing social, climactic and economic circumstances. Geographical differences in the sequence being explained as the result of emphasis being based on the differing importance placed in the economic activities adopted.
TUTOR REMARKS:
You have clearly grasped the thrust of the various arguments and interpretations put forward by those who study Bronze Age metalwork. I think the weak point is in the examination of the regional patterns. These could have brought out more forcefully - especially studies such as Ellison's, which brings settlement, ceramics and metalwork evidence together. You might also find an article by R Bradley and K Gordon (1988) interesting. He notes the incidence of human skulls with finds of weaponry - especially from the Thames. It is in the Journal 'Antiquity'. Mark Coney
NOTES:
1. Comparable to saying that aluminium was a superior metal for cooking than it replaced, when its real advantage was cheapness and its shiny appearance.
2. Michael Parker Pearson 'Bronze Age Britain' P108
3. Kristiansen (1978) as summarised in Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P102
4. Richard Bradley 'The Passage of Arms' P12
5. Flannery (1968), Ford (1972) and O'Shea (1981) as summarised in Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P102/3
6. O'Shea (1981) quoted by Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P103
7. Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P103
8. Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P102
9. A thousand or so years later Rome was legislating to stop such practices as merchants hoarding corn in order to keep prices high, it is possible that such practices were operating in British prehistory. However, the corn merchants of Imperial Rome worked in guilds and could more easily have worked together effectively than widely scattered bronze age Britons.
10. Maillasoux (1980) & Rowlands (1980) as summarised in Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P103
11. Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P105
12. Gregory (1980) as summarised in Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P105
13. Strathern (1971) as summarised in Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P105
14. According to Lewis Binford the death of a 'Big Man' resulted in the cancellation of alliances built by the giving of gifts, however he says nothing about the position of obligations incurred by the dead 'In Pursuit of the Past' P220
15. Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P125
16. e.g. copper was mined from the Great Orme (9 radio carbon datings ranging from 1,800 BCE to 600 BCE) and Alderley Edge (site has produced over 100 stone tools) and possibly tin from Cornwall. Paul Craddock 'Current Archaeology 99 P106-9 (1986); John Pickin 'Current Archaeology 103 (1987); Tony Hammond 'Current Archaeology' 130 P404-9 (1992) and Michael Parker Pearson 'Bronze Age Britain' P83/4
ILLUSTRATION:
1. The distribution of Middle Bronze Age ornamental hoards in relation to main areas with finds of contemporary weaponry from rivers (data from Rowlands 1976). Taken from Richard Bradley 'The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain' P111. Unfortunately, it does not show the distribution of ornament hoards in mining areas.
2. The distribution of ore sources in the British Isles adapted from Richard Bradley 'The Passage of Arms' P134
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
ADKINS, Lesley & Roy The Handbook of British Archaeology Papermac 1993
BINFORD, Lewis R In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record Thames & Hudson 1988
BRADLEY, Richard The Passage of Arms: An archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits Cambridge University Press 1990
The Social foundation of prehistoric Britain Longman 1992
CRADDOCK, Paul Bronze Age Metallurgy in Britain Current Archaeology Vol.99 1986
HAMMOND, Tony The Great Orme Mine Current Archaeology Vol.130 1992
PARKER PEARSON, Michael Bronze Age Britain English Heritage 1993
PICKIN, John Bronze Age Mining Current Archaeology letter Vol 103 1987
