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.

直到最近在英国获得开发商资助的实地调查的扩展之前，金属制品的发现提供了最清晰的青铜时代活动的证据，而这种材料仍然主导着博物馆的展示。尤其如此，尤其如此，这是从中间和晚期的青铜年龄（公元前1500 - 800年）的人工制品，该时期距离埋葬堆和墓地起着下降的作用的时期。青铜和黄金的发现引起了19日后期的关注，但通常是从两个角度研究的。他们最初被雇用来建立年表，因为似乎在同一场合将独特的人工制品的集合一起埋葬在一起。通过比较这些ho积的内容物，可以将青铜时代细分为一系列相位，甚至可以分为更复杂的工业传统序列，这些传统已通过放射性碳年代确认，其有效性得到了证实（Needham etal。1998）。这是一项重要的成就，但它也引起了一个问题，因为这些材料很少与其他类型的证据有关，例如定居点埋葬或土地分裂。相反，金属制品的发现似乎是孤立的。一段时间以来，通过对这些发现的功能方法采用功能性方法来解释，该方法将它们视为巡回史密斯的贸易股票，后者积累了原材料以进行后来回收或在分发给客户之前存储了新制作的物品。甚至有人认为这些人在偏远地区工作，因为他们提供了大量的燃料供应。科学分析证实了许多这些收藏中的许多但不是全部之间的联系，但是这种方法很容易鼓励这样一种观点，即史前金属加工是在现代西方线上组织的行业（Needham 2001； Barber 2003）。此外，没有明确的解释说明为什么要存放如此多的材料但从未恢复过。现在可以采取另一种方法来解决这个问题。已经发现了更多的青铜时代定居点，并且它们的分布已经扩大，从而增加了金属制品和单一发现可能已连接到附近的定居点，直到最近才发现发现。同时，似乎许多这些文物已经丢失了。也许ho积包含特定的物品，这些物品是故意将其作为奉献产品的奉献，可能是由从事金属工作的人。似乎必须在特定种类的地方存放特定种类的物体，通常将武器投入水，并将工具放置在干燥的土地上。北部和西欧的工作表明，也可能会发现更多微妙的区别（Harding 2000，第10章； Fontijn 2003）。重新调查ho积和单一发现的另一个原因是，最近通过向便携式古物计划报告的业余考古学家的发现以及开发人员资助的实地调查的增长来揭示了新发现（Barber 2003）。现在，研究铜和金伪像的方式更容易，因为这些收藏中的少量是机会发现，而考古学家已经调查了更多的收藏品（培养基和体育部，2005年）进行了调查。这使得研究这些发现的更广泛背景至关重要。似乎原材料的沉积和转变可能是由考古学家并不总是意识到的社会惯例。不仅有可能在古老的定居方式中进行情境化金属矿床，而且可以以较少的经验来解释金属人工制品的生产可能是可行的，并且更适合史前社会。如果试点研究提供令人满意的结果，我设想进一步的赠款申请。