Ritual in Early Bronze Age Grave Goods

1. INTRODUCTION

The exotic and impressive grave goods from burials of the ‘Wessex Culture’ in Early Bronze Age Britain are well known and have inspired influential social and economic hypotheses, invoking the former existence of chiefs, warriors and merchants (Piggott 1938; Gerloff 1975) and high-ranking pastoralists (Fleming 1971). However, more recent studies have begun to express doubts over these ideas, and alternative theories have been proposed. For example, society may have been an amalgam of family-based groups roughly equal in status but where differences in individual social standing were played out through the wearing of visible emblems or exotic equipment and the conspicuous disposal of valuable goods (e.g. Parker Pearson 1999). Moreover, the burial of rich objects within barrows could well have prevented the accumulation of wealth and power through inheritance in aristocratic families, and the deposition of so much richness in the graves may have been designed specifically as a striking display of social standing within the community. In particular it may be that such display was related to religious and ritual activity rather than to economic status, and that groups of artefacts found in certain graves may have belonged to religious specialists. The costumes and paraphernalia that characterise the Wessex Bronze Age may have been used at periodic or seasonal religious festivals or other communal meetings of a ritual nature, or in more private contexts possibly involving the practices of medicine or divination by individuals who may have practised shamanism (Woodward 2000, 109–122; Sheridan and Shortland 2003).

Interestingly, these new avenues of enquiry are reviving in part an idea originally put forward by Piggott in relation to the finds from the Upton Lovell G2a barrow (Piggott 1962). He concluded that the arrangement of the sets of perforated bone points and tusks found on the body may have ornamented a special garment worn by a religious specialist or shaman, and cited parallels from graves in Russia to complement his argument. Despite the obvious importance of the material remains in underpinning these theories, it is remarkable that the grave assemblages which provide the raw data have never been comprehensively listed nor consistently investigated or catalogued. This volume is, in part, directed at rectifying this particular shortcoming.

Most of the finds relevant to our study were recovered from antiquarian excavations undertaken in the late 18th and 19th centuries. The earliest extensive campaigns were concentrated on Salisbury Plain, and especially in the environs of Stonehenge. The exceptional partnership between a wealthy and enlightened banker – Sir Richard Colt Hoare of Stourhead House – and the more humble William Cunnington, a draper and wool merchant from Warminster, led to the carefully observed excavation of the centres of many round barrows. The disposition of grave goods was described in brief and most of the objects were beautifully illustrated, by Philip Crocker, in the two volumes of Ancient Wiltshire (Hoare 1812 and 1821). Sadly they were less interested in the remains of the people interred, and it is assumed that they redeposited the bones in the trenches before they were backfilled. The Stourhead Collection of grave goods was purchased by the museum at Devizes, and an illustrated catalogue has been published (Annable and Simpson 1964). The results of antiquarian activities in Dorset, undertaken by a series of different individuals were summarised by Warne (1866) in his The Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, although the records are far less detailed and accurate than those provided by Hoare. Much of the detail from these campaigns of excavation in Wessex, and of more modern excavations, was usefully listed and correlated by Grinsell (1957, 1959 and 1982).

Less well known are the two major campaigns of barrow excavation carried out on the chalk wolds of East Yorkshire. Here not only have the objects survived but also details of the age and sex of the people buried were often recorded. Canon William Greenwell was a cleric with a vast literary output. After serving in various curacies he was appointed a minor canon of Durham Cathedral, later becoming librarian for the large collection of charters and rolls belonging to the cathedral. The results of the excavations undertaken by Greenwell (e.g. Greenwell 1868; 1881; Greenwell and Rolleston 1877) are curated in the British Museum and have been fully published to modern standards (Kinnes and Longworth 1985). The finds recovered in the same region by John Mortimer, a corn chandler in the East Yorkshire town of Driffield, were fully illustrated by his daughter Agnes in his volume Forty Years’ Researches in the British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire (1905), along with many details, and even accurate plans, of the disposition of burials under each barrow. Both Greenwell and Mortimer saved many of the human remains from the burials that they excavated and attempted age and sex estimations within their reports. Finally, in the Peak District of Derbyshire and Staffordshire, Thomas Bateman, known as the ‘Barrow Knight’ (Marsden 2007) excavated many barrows. He published summaries of his findings (Bateman 1848; 1861) and the objects are housed in the Sheffield City Museum. Many of the grave goods were illustrated within a catalogue of the Bateman Collection (Howarth 1899) and, more recently, by Vine (1982). Useful listings and correlations of the burials and barrows have been compiled by Barnatt (1996). Like Mortimer, Bateman was very interested in the human remains, and he kept large numbers of them in his collections, especially the skulls, which are particularly informative to scholars today.

Following the initial recognition of the shared characteristics of the ‘Wessex’ graves and their initial listing by Piggott (1938), certain categories of the more exotic artefacts have been studied in detail, and exhaustive catalogues prepared. Such studies include corpora of goldwork, copper and copper alloy daggers and items of amber, and an ongoing analysis of faience beads. The corpus of goldwork provided by Taylor (1980) included summary listing of all items from the British Isles and a selective photographic record, along with discussion of the results of compositional analysis. In relation to the gold objects from Wessex graves she discussed the occurrence of similar techniques of manufacture that may indicate the former existence of a single craftsman, and that many of the objects may have been produced within a very short time period. Her more recent publications have developed this theme, using suites of new compositional analyses. This work is assessed within this volume, along with detailed descriptions and new interpretations of the major gold items from Wessex graves.

The major corpus of daggers published by Gerloff (1975) provided an exhaustive catalogue illustrated with line drawings. This included extensive discussion relating to the interpretation of the Wessex graves, much of which is still useful although some has been overtaken by more recent research and programmes of dating; a revised typo-chronology for the daggers is included within this volume. A major corpus of objects made from amber (Beck and Shennan 1991) included an extensive programme of compositional analysis which confirmed that all the amber derived from Baltic sources, and a fully illustrated catalogue. Following on from the pioneering work on the sourcing of faience carried out by Beck and Stone in the 1930’s, new techniques for the study and scientific analysis of this exotic glass-like material have been developed, and a full catalogue and discussion of all the British material is in preparation (Sheridan and Shortland 2004). Preliminary results indicate that most of the faience beads were not imported from central Europe but were made at varying locations within Britain. Furthermore, it can be postulated that there was a very strong link between faience manufacture and the tin trade, with the British and Irish beads displaying a relatively high tin content in comparison with European examples.

A major contribution to the publication of exotic artefacts of Beaker and Early Bronze Age date was the illustrated catalogue of the exhibition entitled Symbols of Power, which was held in Edinburgh in 1985 (Clarke et al. 1985). Along with coloured photographs of many key grave assemblages, it included detailed consideration of manufacturing techniques and craftsmanship. More recent research has also tended to concentrate on the more exotic items, for example on daggers and goldwork (Needham 2000); or on amber, faience and gold (Sheridan and Shortland 2003). Of particular note is the study of cups made from precious materials (Needham et al. 2006). This provided a fully illustrated catalogue of these important artefacts, and the ensuing discussion isolated a zone of activity along the south coast which was related to crosschannel relations rather than to the concentration of other rich materials which is centred in the inland Wessex region. By contrast, the more mundane items, notably many types of bead and objects of stone and bone, have received comparatively little attention.

Stone objects of Early Bronze Age date are relatively rare, but some are finely finished, and their morphology and compositional analysis form a significant part of our project. Artefacts made from animal bone, teeth and antler are far more common in rich Early Bronze Age grave groups. However such material has seldom been described or studied in detail, and this category of material figures prominently here. The bone from which such artefacts were manufactured often can be identified to both species and body part. As well as being of general interest, such information is particularly relevant to potential interpretations of objects in relation to the symbolic significance of different species of animal, both wild and domestic, and the possible cosmological referencing of right and left body parts.

Recent innovative studies of the sourcing, potential function and wear history for items of jet, shale, cannel coal and lignite have encompassed material from Wales and Scotland respectively (Sheridan and Davis 1998; 2002). Preliminary analyses of jet and jet-like artefacts from selected Early Bronze Age graves in England have also been carried out (Bussell et al. 1981). The research undertaken by Sheridan and Davis provided a major stimulus for further work on sourcing of jet and jet-like materials, and for studying traces of manufacture and wear, and such studies have formed a major part of the primary research undertaken for this volume. Further work by Sheridan has also considered the traces of manufacture and wear visible on items made from amber, for example in the study and replication of amber artefacts from the Knowes of Trotty burial in Orkney (Sheridan et al. 2003).

Although many types of beads have never been listed and studied in detail, some important recent research has been highly relevant. In a series of reports Sheridan has defined the concept of ‘composite necklaces’, and has explained their importance in terms of the variety of materials selected, the methods of manufacture employed and the inclusion of reused items defined by differential patterns of use wear, for example from Exloo (Haveman and Sheridan 2006), Thomas Hardye School (Sheridan 2007b) and Cossington (Sheridan 2008). A second aspect of such studies has been the realisation of the supreme symbolic significance of many of the materials employed. This applies particularly to gold, jet and amber, which possess some very unusual and exciting physical properties. Amber can be polished so that it shines like gold, and both may symbolise the life-giving rays of the sun. But amber is more mysterious than gold because its colours show more variety, and its texture and reflective nature can vary across a single object. Furthermore amber has a traditional medicinal function. Also it possesses electrostatic properties when rubbed with substances such as fur, and it can be burned as aromatic incense. Jet, another substance of dramatic appearance when polished, also possesses electrostatic properties and is sometimes known as ‘black amber’. These characteristics were highlighted within the Symbols of Power volume (Clarke et al. 1985, 204), and the discussion of the magical properties of materials used in Early Bronze Age jewellery and other costume elements was developed in Sheridan and Shortland’s (2003) article on Supernatural Power Dressing. It is research such as this that has inspired much of the content of this volume.

Moreover, in recent years archaeologists have come to realise that it is very important to study the degree of fragmentation within suites of objects under study. It has been recognised that certain objects were deliberately placed in graves or other deposits in an incomplete state (e.g. Woodward 2002). Sometimes this was because the items were already very old, and may have acquired status as an heirloom or relic; sometimes because a part or parts of the object had been deliberately removed and then retained either for personal veneration or for use within systems of social exchange (e.g. Chapman 2000 on ceramics, especially figurines, from the Balkans; Woodward 2002 on amber beads in Britain and Europe). Such observations are of importance in assessing the function, and of course the original date of manufacture, of individual artefacts in group deposits. However, usually the necessary observations cannot be made from published descriptions or illustrations of individual objects. By contrast it is essential in most cases to visually examine the objects themselves, in the museum collections where they are housed, in order to assess the degree of completeness, the nature of any fractured surfaces (were the breaks ancient, or possibly formed at the time of excavation?) and any overall pattern of freshness or wear. A key example of how such approaches could be applied to all the artefacts present within a single grave assemblage, from the Beaker grave at Raunds, Northamptonshire, was published by Healy and Harding (2004).

An ambitious research project designed to address gaps in the current state of research, and to further consideration of the topics of material sourcing, manufacturing processes and fragmentation/use wear histories was formulated in 2004 at the University of Birmingham. The main aim was to review burial assemblages from relevant Beaker and Early Bronze Age contexts in England.

The classes of material to be studied included beads, pendants, amulets, buttons, pins, points, belt fittings, costume fittings, wrist guards, tools, whetstones and spatulae, along with selected categories of weapons and regalia. The raw materials involved were highly varied: gold, copper alloy, jet or jet-like products, amber, faience, stone, bone, antler, teeth, fossils and minerals. There was a single key objective within the project: to produce a detailed analysis of the nature, function and significance of these grave goods and to test the hypothesis that many of the artefacts were originally designed for use as components of ritual costume or as equipment for use in religious acts and ceremonies. Within this lay a series of sub-topics including, inter alia, the exploitation of materials, the phenomenon of ‘heirloom’ deposition, and regionalisation. To achieve this required a staged process of investigation which is amplified in Chapter 2, necessitating, where possible:

•     classification of artefacts by size, shape and idiosyncratic features

•     characterisation (and possible sourcing) of the materials of objects made from stone, jet or jet-like materials, fossils and minerals

•     identification of the origin, in terms of species and body part, of objects made from bone, teeth and antler

•     recognition of manufacturing processes and methods

•     analysis and assessment of wear patterning and damage

Primary research was initially funded as a small pilot project by the Leverhulme Trust in order to test feasibility. The potential of the project soon became apparent and, as a result, the Leverhulme Trust generously agreed to fund a major three-year programme of research in 2006. The funding permitted the applicant (Professor John Hunter) to employ a lead researcher (Dr Ann Woodward) and an additional post-doctoral researcher (Dr David Bukach) to carry out the work. The main findings of the overall project, including the pilot study, are set out in this volume, but some of the findings have already been described in earlier publications. These include a general preliminary analysis of the subject (Woodward et al. 2005), a more specialised investigation of a selection of stone bracers or wrist guards (Woodward et al. 2006), and three reviews of assemblages from specific graves, relating to Bush Barrow (Wilsford G5, Wiltshire; Needham et al. 2010), the Clandon Barrow (Winterborne St Martin G31, Dorset; Needham and Woodward 2008) and Wilsford G58, Wiltshire (Woodward and Needham 2012). Although the research was directed at a range of different objects and materials one artefact type, stone bracers, was singled out for more detailed examination and analysis. This resulted in a monograph in its own right (Woodward and Hunter 2011) although summary findings are also included in this volume. The core group of researchers was fortunate in being able to draw into the project other scholars who were already working on some of the artefact types under review. These scholars, together with their areas of expertise and their contributions to the volume, are detailed in Chapter 2.

The volume is divided into 13 chapters and a series of appendices. Chapter 2 deals with the various methodologies which were used to generate the data; it explains why particular methods were used, the levels of confidence which could be achieved, and the rationale for material selection, including the criteria which resulted in identifying the various geographical areas for study. A total of 887 artefacts and 81 necklaces were examined in 13 different museums or institutions (see Chapter 2, Table 2.2 for location of objects). If individual necklace beads are included the total rises to 5665. There are six main descriptive chapters (Chapter 3 to Chapter 8) which deal specifically with artefacts. These are divided under broad headings and some clarification may be useful in explaining the rationale by which individual objects are grouped. Any rigid forensic approach would divide the artefacts into either object type (e.g. beads, buttons, daggers etc) or material type (e.g. copper alloy, bone, jet or jet-like materials etc) for investigation and discussion purposes. However, many objects are composed of more than one material (e.g. pendants which combine gold and amber), others can be made of different materials (e.g. necklaces composed of beads of jet or jet-like materials, amber or shell), and some are significant in having close associations with other objects made of different materials (e.g. copper alloy daggers and bone pommels). In general, a classification by object type has been followed. However, some artefacts conform to no particular object type and cannot be easily assigned to a particular category; there are also problems in assigning those artefacts which started life with one function and ended, after re-working, with another. As a result it became impossible to conform strictly to either object or material as a primary criterion. It was eventually decided to group the artefacts in terms of perceived associations within the burial context itself: artefacts likely to have been deposited with the body (Items of Equipment), and artefacts adorning the body itself (Personal Adornment). In view of the quantity of material under study, both categories required breaking down into smaller sections. These headings and divisions are shown below in Table 1.1.

This grouping transpired to be an effective working system, although there was some inevitable duplication and occasional ambiguity. The division of artefacts in this way may not be entirely satisfactory from the point of view of scientific rigor, but it allows the researcher to identify either object or material with little difficulty using a unique identification number within the volume (see Chapter 2), and to access the discussions which are housed at the end of each section, or sub-section. Each section contains a table at the end whereby object type and find location can be cross-referenced.

Chapter 3 (daggers, pommels and belt fittings) is divided into four sections: daggers and knives; pommels; belt hooks, and belt rings and pulley objects. It essentially considers those artefacts which were considered to be associated around the belt area, the main materials being copper alloy (for which there is additional analytical data) and bone or other similar materials (antler, whalebone etc). Daggers have been intensively researched by Gerloff (1975) and in part by Jockenhövel (1980). These remain the main sources for study, and are advanced here by a detailed analysis of 143 examples and the introduction of a new typological sequence devised by Stuart Needham. Chapter 3 also includes a revised analysis of pommels (19 examples), again by Stuart Needham, which updates the previous (1974) classification produced by Hardaker. It also includes important new identification of the (animal) bone material used to fashion the pommels. Belt hooks, however, have been more recently investigated by Alison Sheridan (2007a), although not all fall within the geographical parameters of this study. Research into the final object type in this section, belt rings and pulley objects, had traditionally relied on the work of Clarke (1970, 262–3) and is explored further here using 19 examples.

Chapter 4 comprises those objects seen as being less specific in location around the body than those in Chapter 3; all the objects investigated in this chapter have traditionally been viewed as representing working tools, or accoutrements placed with the body at burial, but not as part of the dress or regalia of the body itself. They consist of stone, bone and copper alloy objects. In the stone sections, sponge finger stones were originally listed by Smith and Simpson (1966, Appendix VI) and ten examples have been studied in detail here; the current listing of grooved stones previously relied on pre-war studies (Newall 1932) with eight examples being examined in the project, and the study of perforated stones still relies on the work of Proudfoot (1963, Appendix III) (17 examples here). The group of objects described as ‘stones without perforations’ has not been subject to any previous listing or typological appraisal as far as is known (six examples). Many of these stone objects were the subject of chemical analysis (X-ray fluorescence) for provenance purposes and the results are incorporated in the relevant sections.

The bone sections are divided into: antler/bone spatulae; bone points; bone tweezers; bone tubes; bone plates, and bone toggles. The spatulae were first analysed in any detail by Smith and Simpson (1966), but subsequent excavations have produced numerous further examples allowing 25 to be studied here. Bone points have been considered by Longworth in relation to their associations with Collared Urns (Longworth 1984, 63–5), but not as a single artefact group, and it was possible to examine a total of 184 examples in the project. The results indicated however that many of the bone points may have formed elements of costume or adornment rather than tools or general equipment. Bone tweezers have been listed by Proudfoot (1963, Appendix IV and 412–4); no listing has previously been made for bone tubes, plates or toggles although some of these items have been considered by Thomas (1954). There is an additional section in Chapter 4 that draws in miscellaneous objects of bone and antler which do not fall satisfactorily into any of these categories. The metal sections include copper and copper alloy awls; these have been little studied and no overall corpus has ever been compiled although a useful classification has been provided by Thomas (2005, 220–222). Fifty-nine individual awls were examined in the project. Other copper alloy objects studied include small axes, most recently studied by Needham et al. (2010, 19) and which are also the subject of physical analysis here, and the unusual pronged object from Wilsford G58, Wiltshire. There is a final section containing miscellaneous objects of jet and jet-like materials.

Table 1.1. List of chapter sections and number of items examined.

The remaining four descriptive chapters are specifically concerned with personal adornment. Chapter 5 deals with those objects traditionally viewed as belonging to the dressing of the body itself and which can be more safely ascribed a function from the outset; these are grouped into ten sections. The first of these deals with tusks and teeth for which there has been no existing overall consideration apart from comments on a small number of sites (Moore and Rowlands 1972, 48). There are 47 such objects considered here, including a shark tooth. By contrast V-perforated buttons from Britain and Ireland have been fully listed and discussed by Shepherd (1973; 2009). Most examples from England are examined here (54 made from jet or jet-like materials and 11 of bone or amber). There has, however, been little previous work on button sets (predominantly jet or jet-like materials) of which four have been included, providing a total of 44 individual buttons. Nor has much attention been paid to copper alloy earrings (seven examples) or studs (ten examples of jet or jet-like materials and fired clay) both of which are allocated separate sections. Pendants have not previously been considered as a functional group either. Those examined here (44 examples) are derived from raw materials ranging from gold, bronze and jet to amber and bone, often involving a combination of these materials. Dress pins manufactured from bronze or animal bone have been listed by Gerloff (1975, Appendix C) and associated by her with the Wessex Culture. Many of these have been studied in detail, and in addition further bone examples have been identified; a total of 28 pins are studied in this volume. A number of graves contained individual beads (17 examples) or individual spacer plates (nine examples) as opposed to necklaces or parts of necklaces. These were considered to be significant depositions, denoted as ‘singletons’, and are discussed in two separate sections. The final section in Chapter 5 contains two copper alloy/bronze items, one a head ornament, and the other an armlet.

Chapter 6 deals predominantly with gold objects, or objects decorated with gold; there is inevitably slight duplication with other chapter sections. Gold objects have been well discussed previously (e.g. Needham 2000c). The first section (Chapter 6.1) examines 31 examples including those from the Little Cressingham, Upton Lovell G2e Golden Barrow and Clandon grave groups, notably with regard to gold sheet covered artefacts – discs, button covers, plaques and pendants. Chapter 6.2 is devoted to the Bush Barrow (Wilsford G5) burial which has also been the subject of more recent discussion (Needham et al. 2010) and also includes non-gold items in association. Of the 15 items discussed, key objects are the gold belt hook cover (including an explanation of its likely construction method), the studded dagger hilt, and the bone shaft mounts for which new interpretations are suggested. Stuart Needham’s discussion here in Chapter 6.3, based on the material from both sections, marks a significant milestone in the study of goldwork in the Early Bronze Age.

The final two object chapters both deal with necklaces. No large-scale study of necklaces has ever been conducted, although study of individual sets, or of bead typologies have been addressed (e.g. Beck and Stone 1935; Shepherd 2009). Recently, however, major strides in the study of necklaces have been made by Alison Sheridan, particularly with regard to their nature, significance and dating (Sheridan and Davis 2002; Sheridan 2007b; 2008), and she contributes significantly to the examination and interpretation of the material here. The project presented the opportunity to examine specific types of necklace in great detail and effectively involved the examination of almost 4800 individual beads, together with terminal and spacer plates, representing a total of 81 different necklaces. Of particular interest in the examination is the interpretation of stringing, the re-use or mobility of individual necklace elements through time, and the interpretation of use wear on bead and spacer perforations. Chapter 7 divides these necklaces into three types: disc bead necklaces of jet and jet-like materials (12 examples); necklaces of jet and jet-like materials containing spacer plates (13 examples), and necklaces of amber (4 examples). Chapter 8 considers necklaces with fewer numbers of beads. These include small sets of beads made from a single material, but with components of variable shape, and composite necklaces, which are composed of elements of more than one material. The chapter is divided into five subsections according to the number of different materials employed. As well as jet, jet-like materials and amber beads, other materials represented include stone, bone, faience and fossils. A further 52 necklaces are covered in this chapter. In order to maintain a consistent style within Chapter 8 some of the necklace descriptions have been slightly shortened. Each of the two necklace chapters includes separate detailed discussion sections.

Chapter 9 Chronology presents a discussion of the dating of the periods which are covered within the study as a whole. The material described in the volume covers a time period of about 1000 years, lasting from the inception of copper artefacts c. 2500 cal BC until the end of the Early Bronze Age c. 1500 cal BC. This millennium encompasses three major archaeological periods. The Copper Age, which in recent times has come to be termed the Chalcolithic, using continental usage (Allen et al. 2012) can be dated to c. 2450/2400 to 2200/2150 cal BC. Bronze daggers come into use at around 2200 cal BC and Needham’s ‘fission horizon’, relating to the wider distribution and variety of Beaker pottery, occurs at a similar time (Needham 2005). Thus the Bronze Age, defined by the development of new metal types begins c. 2200 cal BC. The mature Early Bronze Age, characterised by more complex bronze daggers and the Wessex series graves, starts at the turn of the millennium c. 2000 cal BC. This roughly correlates with the inception of new dagger types from c. 1950 cal BC. The period covered in this volume therefore includes three major periods: the Chalcolithic c. 2500–2200 cal BC, the initial Early Bronze Age c. 2200–2000 cal BC and the mature Early Bronze Age c. 2000–1500 cal BC. However where ceramic associations exist within the initial Early Bronze Age they are predominately of Beaker style. As one of the main aims of the project was to compare the results obtained from rich grave assemblages associated with Beakers with those from Early Bronze Age contexts, for the purpose of this volume, the 1000 years covered has been divided simply into two periods, each lasting roughly 500 years. The first, which encompasses the Chalcolithic and initial Early Bronze Age, covers the main currency of Beaker graves and the second relates to the assemblages of the mature Early Bronze Age, including those from the Wessex series graves.

For most object categories the chronological summary provided in the main descriptive chapters is brief and succinct. However, within the necklace chapter discussions (Chapter 7.3, Chapter 7.5 and Chapter 8.6) a more detailed consideration of dating has been included. This detail usefully explains the complexity of the development of the different forms of necklace through time, and establishes the substantial longevity of the necklace traditions. Where radiocarbon determinations relating to objects studied are referred to within the main descriptive texts only the calibrated date range is provided. Full citation of dates, including laboratory reference numbers, may be found in Chapter 9.

Discussion in a wider context occurs in subsequent chapters. Object Life Stories (Chapter 10) discusses the occurrence of specially valued objects and the incidence of the recycling of heirloom items. This synthesis brings together and analyses the evidence for ancient fragmentation and wear. It highlights contrasts within the two chronological periods defined for the project and between the different patterns perceived within different geographical regions. Object Function (Chapter 11) summarises the evidence gathered relating to object design and use and, once again, analyses the data in relation to the two major periods defined and by geographical region. Distribution maps for selected artefact types are provided in the next chapter Regional Variation (Chapter 12). The distributions of further categories are summarised in histograms and the patterns of artefact distribution through space and time are discussed. The extent to which finds of certain categories are concentrated in the Wessex region, or elsewhere, forms a major theme. Finally, some key Conclusions are presented in Chapter 13.

In addition there are a series of appendices (housed on CD) which contain more detailed material and methodological information likely to be of use to the specialist researcher rather than the general reader. These contain further detail on the typo-chronology of copper/copper alloy daggers (Appendix I), the results of analytical work on a broader range of copper/copper alloy material (Appendix II), and archival data relating to animal bone identifications and discussion concerning the analysis of cetacean bone objects (Appendix III and Appendix IV respectively). Technical data relating to the analytical methods used for jet and jet-like objects and stone objects, together with the full results and discussion of provenance follow (Appendix V and Appendix VI respectively). A final appendix contains more detailed information and discussion on the necklaces, notably those of jet and jet-like materials (Appendix VII).

The degree of detail presented within the descriptive chapters (Chapters 3 to 8) is intentionally uneven. This variation relates to the perceived overall significance of groups of objects and of individual items. In particular, two categories of material have been given specially detailed treatment. These are the objects made from gold (Chapter 6) and the major necklaces made from jet or jetlike materials and amber (Chapter 7). The reason for this decision is that these highly important artefacts have seldom been described since the original reports of their discovery by antiquarian excavators, and because they have never previously been the subject of intensive microscopic study.

The items studied within the volume were selected in relation to the research questions that were being addressed by the project. Thus, the book was never intended to form a complete catalogue of all the relevant artefacts from England, nor of all the data collected during our period of research. As far as the latter is concerned, many of the observed details relating to each object, and other elements such as object weights, museum registration numbers and full referencing to existing literature, occur only within the databases and on the primary record forms. However, although not intended as a catalogue raisonné for items from Beaker and Early Bronze Age graves, the volume does provide an extensive, and intensively illustrated, overview of a large proportion of the grave goods from English burial sites, albeit excluding items of pottery and of flint.

The digital databases are deposited with the Archaeological Data Service, University of York while the full paper record is housed at the Society of Antiquaries of London, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London. In addition copies of the relevant primary record forms and photographs have been supplied to each museum visited during the project.

The main aim of the project – to investigate Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age grave goods in relation to their possible use as special dress accessories or as equipment employed within ritual activities and ceremonies – has been fulfilled in a most positive and dramatic manner. Many items of adornment can be shown to have formed elements of elaborate costumes, probably worn by individuals, both male and female, who held important ritual roles within society. Furthermore, our analysis shows that various categories of object long interpreted as mundane types of tool were in fact items of bodily adornment or implements used in ritual contexts, or in the special embellishment of the human body.

2. METHODOLOGY

THE RESOURCE AND INVESTIGATIVE PROGRAMME

One of the original aims of the Leverhulme project was to define ‘rich’ graves belonging to the Wessex Culture. To test how such definitions might be achieved it was decided to prepare a site database which lists and records all graves of Beaker and Early Bronze Age date from England which are ‘well furnished’, this being a less loaded term than ‘rich’. The main questions to be addressed were: do the so-called Wessex graves really stand out? And if so, by which criteria? And how do the patterns in the Early Bronze Age relate to the nature and distribution of well-furnished graves of the preceding Beaker tradition?

The definition of well-furnished graves was initially formulated to include grave assemblages which possessed two or more objects made from gold, copper or copper alloy, amber, faience, jet or jet-like materials, bone/antler or stone. Thus, grave groups which contained only pottery vessels, only items of flint, or both pottery and flint were excluded. As the compilation of lists of objects for study commenced, it soon became apparent that it would be more useful to include all grave assemblages that included one item made from the materials listed above. Thus we could include graves with a single dagger only, those with one jet V-perforated button only and those with one perforated bone point etc. Where pottery and flints occur in well-furnished graves, they are recorded in the database, but ‘pot only’ or ‘flint only’ graves are not recorded. Within the grave groups selected for study, the pottery vessels were not studied in detail. Most ceramic types are covered in the existing literature and published typologies were utilised (e.g. Clarke 1970 and Needham 2005 for Beakers; Longworth 1984 for Collared Urns). Neither were the listed flint objects studied in detail, firstly as there are just too many of them, and secondly because they need a higher level of magnification than was employed in this project to study any use wear. Specific types such as barbed-and-tanged arrowheads have been categorised by Green (1980) and flint daggers are the subject of current study and research by several specialists.

In the time available it was not possible to study the objects of gold, copper or copper alloy, amber, faience, jet and jet-like materials, bone/antler or stone from all the grave assemblages defined as well furnished. Consequently it was decided to concentrate on the items recovered during the main campaigns of antiquarian activity in England, and to take in the objects from more modern excavations that were housed in the relevant museums. The main study sessions were therefore concentrated in six museums. These included the finds from the activities of Mortimer (Hull and East Riding Museum) and Greenwell (The British Museum) on the Yorkshire Wolds, Bateman (Weston Park Museum, Sheffield) in the Peak District, Cunnington and Colt Hoare in Wessex (Wiltshire Heritage Museum, Devizes) and of Warne and his associates in Dorset (Dorset County Museum, Dorchester). We also included extensive study visits at the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, which holds a fine and substantial collection of more recently excavated Beaker and Early Bronze Age grave goods, and shorter visits to other collections that hold key items. The latter included the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge (key grave groups from East Anglia), Norwich City Museum (for the Little Cressingham group), Bristol City Museum (for major finds from barrows on Mendip), the English Heritage store at Fort Cumberland (for finds from Raunds barrow 1) and single items of stone or bone at Lewes Castle Museum and the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. These last two items were studied whilst collecting data for our previous detailed research on Beaker-age bracers (Woodward and Hunter 2011). The stone items at the Ashmolean had been specially put aside for us prior to the closure of the museum for major refurbishment, but it was not possible to study other items relevant to our project, deriving from the Upper Thames Valley, due to the museum closure coinciding with the currency of our research project. The abbreviations used within this volume for the museums visited are shown in Table 2.1, and the quantities of objects studied in the various museums are summarised in Table 2.2. Overall, a total of 5665 items was studied in detail; these derived from 780 individual grave groups (211 from the Beaker-age and 569 from the Early Bronze Age; for regional breakdown see Table 2.3). Of the 5665 items, 4778 were individual beads or pendants within necklaces (see also Chapter 1, Table 1.1 for a breakdown of numbers of object types).

Table 2.1. Museums visited, and abbreviations employed in this volume.

Table 2.2. Number of objects studied (necklace elements are not included in the main raw material columns).

Table 2.3. Total numbers of grave groups containing objects studied within the project.

Many of the assemblages and objects discussed in this volume were on museum display, while many were in storage. All required complex accession procedures. Examinations were conducted on a museum-to-museum basis with the full body of material kindly made available from display and store by the relevant curators in order that the researchers could view the material in toto, sometimes over a period of several days, and often during multiple visits.

SITE DATABASE

The site database was compiled using existing corpora, the antiquarian accounts, Heritage Environment Records (HERs) and county journals for recent finds from c.1970 onwards. The site database recorded basic contextual data, covering details of the context of discovery for each well-furnished grave assemblage, the published reference to any grave plan, a copy of the grave plan where available, the details of any associated burial, a listing of the associated grave goods within the assemblage and information relating to the placement of objects in relation to the body. The data was recorded manually using the project Assemblage Form (Figure 2.1). As mentioned in Chapter 1, the volume chapters dealing with gold objects and necklaces (Chapters 6 to 8) contain more detailed descriptions than the chapters dealing with individual items (Chapters 3 to 5). The more detailed chapters contain the published references and full discussion of burial contexts. For all other objects, such detailed data is included within the project archive and is summarised at the beginning of the section dealing with each object type.

Table 2.4. Concordance with Piggott Wessex Interment numbers (Piggott 1938, 102–6). Graves where items lost not included; graves where no objects studied in Leverhulme project not included; H denotes Hoare; G denotes Grinsell.

It was intended at the outset that detailed site data would be compiled for all well furnished grave assemblages in England, and this was achieved for all such grave assemblages of Beaker age. However, for the Early Bronze Age period, it became apparent that the time required to undertake such a task was too great to be encompassed within the project programme, and a selective approach needed to be devised. It was therefore decided to concentrate on the collection of detailed Early Bronze Age site data for three regions of the country that had produced the largest numbers of well furnished graves, and which were widely distributed within England.

The three regions chosen were Wessex, the Peak District and the East Yorkshire Wolds, and all site data for relevant burials in these regions were entered in an Access database. Using this database, and the full database prepared for the Beaker-age burials, interrogations were undertaken to inform the various analyses discussed in Chapter 10 (Object Life Stories) and Chapter 11 (Object Function). The Wessex region was defined as including sites within the counties of Dorset and Wiltshire only. Theoretically it would have been useful to include relevant grave groups from Hampshire and from the Upper Thames Valley. However, for logistic reasons, the few grave assemblages from Hampshire, housed in various small museums, were not studied in detail, and the Thames Valley grave groups housed in the Ashmolean Museum were not available for study. Our detailed studies have included the items from many of the burials listed as Wessex Interments by Piggott (1938). The identifications of these burials in terms of Grinsell barrow numbering, and a listing of where the items concerned are considered in this volume, are shown in Table 2.4.

The Peak District region was defined as the counties of Derbyshire and Staffordshire, with most of the relevant finds being housed at the Weston Park Museum, Sheffield. For Yorkshire, we wished to include only the graves that were located on the chalklands of the Yorkshire Wolds. These occur within the parishes which before 1974 occupied the East Riding of Yorkshire. The relevant parishes are listed in Table 2.5. This shows the county designations of the selected parishes, which often had changed twice in recent times. In this project, the parishes on the Wolds have been described as occupying E. Yorks., as opposed to the few relevant sites from other parts of the three-part region which are designated as being located in N. Yorks. or W. Yorks. For the rest of the country the compilation of data relating to burial types, human remains and associations of objects was gathered more rapidly, but using all the same sources, and entered within a simple Excel database. The data were used, in combination with the more detailed data from the three selected regions, for the analysis presented in Chapter 12 (Regional Variation).

OBJECT IDENTIFICATION

The methodology for recording all objects is addressed below. In summary all were recorded on specially devised proformas in an Object Database. This was undertaken by measurement using plastic callipers and by microscopic examination for evidence of manufacture, fracture and use wear. The majority of objects studied were made from animal bone, copper and copper alloy, or jet and jet-like materials (see Table 2.2). Another common material was amber, while items made from gold, stone and fired clay existed in smaller numbers. All analysis involved the three primary team members. A number of other scholars were already heavily involved in researching certain of the object types or materials and generously agreed to contribute to the project by applying their own expertise and knowledge. Notable here were the contributions of Dr Alison Sheridan (jet and jet-like materials) and Dr Stuart Needham (gold and bronze/copper alloy objects).

Alison Sheridan was a key member of the team involved in the identification and recording of artefacts of jet and jet-like materials at the British Museum and at the museums in Sheffield, Hull, Devizes, Salisbury and Cambridge, following a protocol developed by her and Mary Davis for a broader study of prehistoric jet and jet-like jewellery (Sheridan and Davis 2002). The methods of observation and analysis are described in detail in Appendix V. Dr Sheridan also continued analysis of several large necklaces at Weston Park Museum, Sheffield, subsequent to the main phase of project recording. At the British Museum Mary Davis joined the recording team, and she also undertook a programme of XRF analysis of selected objects there, in conjunction with Duncan Hook of the British Museum laboratory.

A number of jet/shale items were also analysed in the NMS laboratories in Edinburgh and by the late Dr J. M. Jones, formerly of the University of Newcastle (for details of all these scientific analyses see below, and Appendix V). All the basic records of the jet and jet-like objects and necklaces were the result of cooperative teamwork, but the synthetic text descriptions of the necklaces presented in Chapter 7, and a few of those in Chapter 8, were prepared by Alison Sheridan. The methods used to record objects made from jet and jet-like materials were also applied to the study of items made from amber, with this work being undertaken by members of the primary team (AW and DB).

Stuart Needham’s involvement also provided an invaluable asset in the examination and interpretation of both gold and copper/copper alloy objects. He worked with the team at Devizes, Norwich and Hull, especially in relation to the exotic assemblages from Bush Barrow, The Golden Barrow (Upton Lovell G2e) and Little Cressingham. He has provided detailed descriptions of the gold objects, of all the items recovered from Bush Barrow and a general discussion relating to the gold objects (Chapter 6). In addition, he worked with the team on several groups of copper alloy objects and has contributed a new classification for copper and copper alloy daggers (see Chapter 3.1 and Appendix I), and a revised classification for pommels of all materials (see Chapter 3.2). A digest of existing metal analyses relating to the objects of copper and copper alloy studied within the project has been provided by Dr Peter Bray (see below, Chapter 3.1 and Appendix II).

Table 2.5. Yorkshire parishes: concordance between old and new county designations, and attributions used in this volume (prepared in conjunction with Terry Manby).

The main specialist team member involved in the study of items made from animal bone and antler was Mark Maltby. The material was identified and recorded by Mark Maltby and the project team at the British Museum stores and at the museums in Sheffield, Hull, Devizes, Salisbury and Cambridge; his findings are incorporated into the relevant chapters and presented in full in Appendix III. Details of the methodology employed are also provided in Appendix III. Sheila Hamilton-Dyer provided second opinions on the identifications of some of the objects at the British Museum and at Salisbury, and microscopic examination of selected objects was subsequently carried out by Dr Sonia O’Connor (Chapter 3.2 and Appendix IV).

Examination of the stone objects was undertaken by the main project team members in association with geochemists Peter Webb and John Watson and petrographer Dr Rob Ixer. Fiona Roe was also a member of this sevenfold team, and contributed her extensive knowledge of lithic artefacts of different kinds. All were involved in visits to the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum, and to the museums in Bristol, Hove, Devizes and Salisbury. Stone objects were subjected to petrographic examination, X-ray fluorescence analysis and measurement of magnetic susceptibility (see below and Appendix VI). The use of portable analytical equipment throughout enabled analysis to be carried out in the museums themselves and thus enabled the whole examination programme to be undertaken as a single team exercise. Additionally, all objects were photographed to provide both general and detailed images. Key conclusions are incorporated within the relevant sections of Chapter 4, while the full results are presented in Appendix VI.

A project of this nature offered significant logistical challenges in addition to those of having the material collected for study and study space made available. Partly for this reason it was agreed that each item should be examined as comprehensively as possible on the one occasion only: this pre-empted the need for a further examination and, moreover, meant that the items were only unwrapped and handled on the single occasion. In a few cases it was however necessary to revisit particular items, either to check certain details, or to discuss material identifications with further specialists. A strict set of Handling Guidelines was formulated, and these were followed by all team members in each museum.

As part of the pre-visit programme each individual item was given a project identification (ID) number for the purpose of the research; this could be cross-referenced with the respective museum accession number concerned and with any other existing classification system that had already been applied (e.g. Gerloff 1975; Shepherd 2009). Each ID number was unique and is used to identify that item throughout the volume. The objects were numbered and examined; sequential sets of numbers were used for each material type, but with gaps in the overall sequence between the sets of individual material numbers to allow for any later additions. A small number of problems were encountered when implementing this, for example with respect to necklaces containing large numbers of individual beads. For working purposes, rather than attach ID numbers to each individual bead, the whole necklace was allocated a single number, but suffixed by ‘N’ (N = necklace), for example ID 247(N); this enabled the more ubiquitous beads (typically fusiform and disc beads) to be described generically. However, all beads were recorded individually using a numerical sub-classification. In the few cases where it was necessary to comment on a particular bead within the volume the sub-classification could be used, for example ID 247.12 indicating Necklace ID 247, bead 12, identified on a suitably numbered illustration. Another problem arose with a small number of objects constructed of more than one material. These tended to be classified according to the dominant material, for example a shale cone covered in gold foil would be numbered under gold; but there were other instances, for example where a bronze dagger and its detached bone pommel would require two separate numbered classifications, but with cross-referencing.

EXAMINATION PROCESS

Each object available for study was examined in detail and recorded on a generic proforma; this is illustrated in Figure 2.2. There were some exceptions to this: notably multiple beads in necklaces (Figure 2.3), V-perforated buttons and sets of bone pins or points (Figure 2.4). There was also a bespoke recording form for stone bracers which were the subject of separate study and publication (Woodward and Hunter 2011). The findings from the bracer study are cross-referenced here, but not reported in full. Objects of animal bone were also recorded on a separate form as the nature of the object interrogation differed somewhat from non-organic materials. Once the proformas had been completed, the information was subsequently transferred into a relational database (Access). Direct transfer from examination to database was rejected as the researchers found that not only did interim transfer of data to paper form allow for easier review and checking, but also that it facilitated annotations of drawings and sketches; in several instances it was found that it was more efficient to sort and analyse paper records than to employ a computer directly.

BASIC RECORD

Part of the examination was to create a basic record; this consisted of the various defined contextual, material and typological fields listed in the published catalogue, plus additional fields which would allow any future researcher to obtain more refined details of each object, together with its condition and, where available, its life history. There were some additions or variants to this, notably with regards to objects of bone which required basic data on the nature of the material (whether bone, antler or tooth), species identification (e.g. sheep/goat), size category (e.g. large mammal, sheep-sized mammal) and the bone element in question (e.g. metacarpal or mandible). The examination of beads and necklaces of jet and jet-like materials also required a more elaborate examination in order to satisfy basic record requirements, notably on complex dimensional and shape characteristics, the nature of different raw materials, and the nature and type of use wear. The use wear information was used to provide clues as to the probable original arrangement of the components, as well as to the way in which the jewellery and dress accessories had been worn. The overall purpose was to create a record which was as consistent and as comprehensive as possible in coverage, which would present data in the most objective manner possible, and which would also allow the researchers to include ‘free text’ on observations, interpretations and hypotheses which seemed appropriate at the time.

Part of the basic record involved the weight of many of the items. This was more to create a marker than provide a typological criterion, but it would enable future researchers to identify any minor loss not evident visually, or to provide an additional future check on object veracity. Weighing was normally carried out to one decimal place.

The project dealt with a wide spectrum of different materials and object types with a range of shapes and sizes. Each material or object type possessed its own idiosyncratic attributes, problems and recording nuances. The largest objects included daggers and bone objects, and the smallest awls, buttons and beads; some involved particular measurement difficulties in terms of reference points, notably belt rings and earrings; others exhibited severe surface degradation and/or oxidation such as amber, while others (notably stone) were highly durable. Decorative qualities were particularly evident on gold objects and on some of the necklace plates, while use wear was often highly pronounced on beads of jet and jet-like materials. All these various attributes and differences required consideration in the recording process. There were also a number of limitations: a few items (notably necklaces) were mounted for display and were not able to be detached to allow a consistent level of examination, and some objects had suffered from early conservation and display techniques. This was mostly by the use of thick consolidants, heavy glue mends and display fixing marks all of which inhibited examination of the original surfaces.

Some of the objects had already been studied or described individually, in varying degrees of detail, in previous publications. Data from these were recorded on the proformas but were reviewed rather than accepted. Any differences that occurred were noted; many of these differences had implications for post-depositional damage or wear. Where possible, each record form contained a line drawing of the individual object, either from a previous publication or one sketched during the examination. This was roughly to scale and showed both surfaces as well as the profile for working purposes. It allowed the researchers to annotate particular attributes or decorative features and to record observable wear, fractures, and any other observations that were thought to be important during the examination.

PHOTOGRAPHY

Digital photographs were taken of each object, and a total of 5860 archive images were recorded during the project. These consisted of basic views (front, back and any necessary side view) together with close-up images of any specific feature identified during examination at higher magnification, often with aid of macro extension tubes. Typically these might include striation patterns, details of use wear or fracture and specific evidence of manufacture, flaw or aspect of profile. Photography was undertaken using a Nikon D50 DSLR camera and macro lens, and an illuminating copy stand. Lighting was normally placed at oblique angles for specific close-up work in order to best illustrate manufacturing striations and aspect of use wear. Images were captured in RAW image format and imported into image editing software where basic retouching was completed. Colour correction was minimized using daylight light sources,