Bronze Age metalwork hoards in the landscape of lowland Britain: a pilot study

英国低地景观中的青铜时代金属制品宝库：一项试点研究

• 批准号: AH/E008712/1
• 负责人: Richard Bradley
• 金额: $ 11.72万
• 依托单位: University of Reading
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2007
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2007 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FE008712%2F1
• 关键词: Bronze; Age; metalwork; hoards; landscape

Until the recent expansion of developer-funded fieldwork in Britain, the clearest evidence of Bronze Age activity was provided by discoveries of metalwork, and it is this material which still dominates museum displays. That is particularly true of artefacts from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (c.1500-800 BC) which date from a period in which burial mounds and cemeteries play a decreasing role. Finds of bronze and gold have attracted attention from the late 19thC, but generally are studied from two perspectives. They were initially employed to build a chronology because it seemed likely that collections of distinctive artefacts had been buried together on the same occasions. By comparing the contents of these hoards it was possible to subdivide the Bronze Age into a series of phases and even into a more complex sequence of industrial traditions whose validity has been confirmed by radiocarbon dating (Needham et al. 1998). This was an important achievement but it also created a problem, for little of this material was associated with other kinds of evidence, such as settlements burials or land divisions. Rather, finds of metalwork seemed to occur in isolation. For a while that was explained by adopting a functional approach to these finds which regarded them as the stock in trade of itinerant smiths, who had accumulated raw material for later recycling or who had stored newly made items before they were distributed to the customer. It was even argued that these people had worked in remote areas because they provided an abundant supply of fuel. Scientific analysis substantiated the connection between many, but not all, of these collections and the working of metal, but this approach all too easily encouraged the view that prehistoric metalworking was an industry that was organised on modern Western lines (Needham 2001; Barber 2003). Moreover there was no clear explanation of why so much material had been deposited but never recovered. Now it is possible to take another approach to the question. Larger numbers of Bronze Age settlements have been found and their distribution has widened, raising the possibility that metalwork hoards and single finds might have been attached to nearby settlements which had eluded discovery until recently. At the same time, it seems unlikely that many of these artefacts had been lost. Perhaps the hoards contained a specific selection of items that were intentionally committed to the ground as votive offerings, possibly by those engaged in working the metal. It seems likely that particular kinds of objects had to be deposited in particular kinds of places, weapons were normally committed to water and tools were placed in dry land. Work in Northern and Western Europe suggests that more subtle distinctions may also be discovered (Harding 2000, chapter 10; Fontijn 2003). Another reason for renewing the investigation of hoards and single finds is that new finds have recently come to light through discoveries by amateur archaeologists reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme as well as the growth of developer-funded fieldwork (Barber 2003). It is now much easier to study the manner in which both bronze and gold artefacts had been placed in the ground because fewer of these collections are chance finds, and more have been investigated by archaeologists (Department of Culture Media and Sport 2005). This makes it especially important to study the wider contexts of these discoveries. It seems possible that the deposition and transformation of the raw material were attended by social conventions of which archaeologists had not always been aware. Not only is there the possibility of contextualising metalwork deposits within the ancient pattern of settlement, it may be feasible to interpret the production of metal artefacts in terms that owe less to recent experience and are more appropriate to prehistoric society. If the pilot study provides satisfactory results I envisage a further grant application.

直到最近开发商资助的实地考察在英国扩大之前，青铜时代活动的最明显证据是金属制品的发现，而正是这种材料仍然在博物馆展览中占据主导地位。青铜时代中晚期（公元前1500 -800年）的文物尤其如此，这些文物的年代是土丘和墓地的作用逐渐减弱的时期。青铜器和黄金的发现从19世纪后期开始引起人们的注意，但通常从两个角度进行研究。他们最初被用来建立一个年表，因为它似乎有可能收集独特的文物被埋葬在一起，在同一个场合。通过比较这些宝藏的内容，可以将青铜时代细分为一系列阶段，甚至更复杂的工业传统序列，其有效性已通过放射性碳测年得到证实（Needham等人，1998）。这是一项重要的成就，但也产生了一个问题，因为这些材料很少与其他类型的证据，如定居点埋葬或土地分割有关。相反，金属制品的发现似乎是孤立发生的。有一段时间，人们对这些发现采取了一种功能性的方法，将它们视为流动铁匠的贸易库存，这些铁匠积累了原材料供以后回收利用，或者在分发给客户之前储存了新制作的物品。甚至有人认为，这些人在偏远地区工作，因为他们提供了充足的燃料供应。科学分析证实了许多，但不是所有的，这些收藏品和金属加工之间的联系，但这种方法太容易鼓励史前金属加工是一个按照现代西方路线组织的行业的观点（Needham 2001; Barber 2003）。此外，没有明确解释为什么这么多材料被存放但从未被回收。现在有可能从另一个角度来看待这个问题。更多的青铜时代定居点被发现，它们的分布范围也扩大了，这增加了金属制品囤积和单个发现可能与附近的定居点相连的可能性，这些定居点直到最近才被发现。与此同时，这些文物中的许多似乎不太可能丢失。也许这些囤积物中包含了特定的物品，这些物品可能是那些从事金属加工的人故意放在地上作为还愿的祭品。似乎有可能的是，特定种类的物体必须存放在特定种类的地方，武器通常被存放在水中，工具被放置在旱地上。在北方和西欧的研究表明，可能还发现了更微妙的区别（Harding 2000，第10章; Fontijn 2003）。重新调查窖藏和单个发现的另一个原因是，通过向便携式文物计划报告的业余考古学家的发现以及开发商资助的实地考察的增长，最近有新的发现被曝光（Barber 2003）。现在研究青铜器和黄金制品被放置在地下的方式要容易得多，因为这些收藏品中很少有偶然发现的，更多的是考古学家调查的（文化媒体和体育部，2005年）。这使得研究这些发现的更广泛背景变得尤为重要。看来，原材料的沉积和转化可能受到考古学家并不总是意识到的社会习俗的影响。不仅有可能将金属制品矿床置于古代定居模式的背景下，而且可能可以用更适合史前社会的术语来解释金属制品的生产，而不是最近的经验。如果试验性研究取得令人满意的结果，我设想进一步申请补助金。