Basal-Looped Spearheads: Typology, chronology, context and use 9781841719283, 9781407329482

Table of contents :
105-106plate.pdf
1
2
3
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Abbreviations
Acknowledgements
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Previous Research on Spearheads from The British Isles
3. Research Methods
4. Typology
5. The Basal-Looped Spearhead Corpus
6. Chronology and Origins
7. Other Spearheads with Blade Apertures
8. Contexts, Recovery, and Reasons for Deposition
9. Condition
10. Manufacture
11. Production Centres and Distribution Routes
12. The Use of the Loops
13. Use of Basal-Looped Spearheads
Appendix 1: List of Museums
Appendix 2: Radiocarbon Dates
Appendix 3: Metallurgical Analyses
Bibliography
Catalogue
List of Sites
Section 1: Britain
Section 2: Ireland
Section 3: Continent
Section 4: Moulds
Section 5: Associations
Plates

Citation preview

BAR S1497 2006  DAVIS  BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

Basal-Looped Spearheads Typology, chronology, context and use

Richard Davis

BAR International Series 1497 B A R

2006

Basal-Looped Spearheads Typology, chronology, context and use

Richard Davis

BAR International Series 1497 2006

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1497 Basal-Looped Spearheads © R Davis and the Publisher 2006 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841719283 paperback ISBN 9781407329482 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719283 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2006. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS

CONTENTS Page 5 6 7

Abbreviations Acknowledgements Abstract DISCUSSION 1. Introduction 1.1 Origins of the study 1.2 Study design

2. Previous research on spearheads from the British Isles 2.1 Sir William Wilde 2.2 Sir John Evans 2.3 George Coffey 2.4 Rev. William Greenwell and W. Parker Brewis 2.5 Estyn Evans 2.6 Christopher Hawkes 2.7 John Coles 2.8 Michael Rowlands 2.9 Margaret Ehrenberg 2.10 Greer Ramsey 2.11 Summary

3. Research methods 4. Typological method 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Objectives Definitions Basal-looped spearhead typology Rationale for basal-looped spearhead typology

5. The basal-looped spearhead corpus 5.1 Type 1: Transitional 5.2 Type 2: Leaf 5.3 Type 3: Flame 5.4 Type 4. Ogival 5.5 Type 5: Flame, projecting loops 5.6 Type 6: Triangular 5.7 Type 7: Narrow channel 5.8 Type 8: Late Irish/Scottish 5.9 Type 9: Drilled loops 5.10 Unidentified 5.11 Other attributes

6. Chronology and origins 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Chronological sequences Previous research on spearhead chronology Side-looped spearheads Basal-looped spearheads

7. Other spearheads with blade apertures 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Protected-loop spearheads Lunates and other blade apertures Pierced blade spearheads Drilled loop spearheads Chinese side-looped and basal-looped spearheads

1

8 8 8 10 10 10 11 12 14 15 15 16 18 19 20 22 24 24 24 25 26 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 41 41 43 44 48 54 54 55 54 56 57

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

8. Contexts, recovery and reasons for deposition 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9

Interpretation of hoards Hoards containg basal-looped spearheads Single finds The basal-looped spearhead corpus: accuracy of the data. Contexts Recovery Date of recovery Is the corpus a representative sample? Votive offerings

9. Condition 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

Objectives and methods Purposeful damage Spearhead use Other spearhead conditions

10. Manufacture 10.1 Moulds 10.2 Metallurgical analysis 10.3 Wooden shafts

11. Production centres and distribution routes 11.1 Production centres 11.2 Basal-looped spearhead distribution

12. The use of the loops 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4

Research background Methods of securing spearhead to the shaft Examination of the basal-looped spearhead corpus Alternative uses of the loops

13. The use of basal-looped spearheads 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6

The weapons of the Middle Bronze Age in the British Isles Advantages and disadvantages of spears and swords The development of an experimental programme Results of the experimental programme Use for display Use for hunting

59 59 61 62 63 64 66 69 69 71 75 75 76 77 79 80 80 82 83 85 85 86 89 89 89 90 90 93 93 93 95 95 97 99

Appendices 1. List of Museums 2. Radiocarbon dates 3. Metallurgical analyses

100 102 103 104

Bibliography Figures in the text 2:1 Bronze Age spearheads from Ireland 2:2 Spearhead Classification: Greenwell & Brewis 1909 2:3 Number of basal-looped spearheads. Evans 1933 vs Present Study 2:4 Spearhead classification, and numbers of spearheads from Scotland 2:5 Middle Bronze Age spearheads from Southern Britain 2:6 Class IV spearheads from Southern Britain 2:7 Basal-looped spearheads from Southern Britain 2:8 Spearheads from Berks, Bucks and Oxford 2:9 Comparison of MBA spearheads from Ireland and Southern England 2:10 Irish basal-looped spearheads by type 2:11 Analysis of spearheads by Greenwell & Brewis Classes 3:1 Database fields 3:2 Sources of illustrations in the study 4:1 Spearhead descriptive terms 2

11 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25

CONTENTS

4:2 Model of attribute hierarchy among basal-looped spearheads 4:3 Spearheads with incorporated loops: position of maximum width 4:4 Spearheads with projecting loops: position of maximum width 4:5 Length of basal-looped spearheads 4:6 Dating indications: basal-looped spearheads with associated artefacts 5:1 Basal-looped spearheads: by Type 5:2 Basal-looped spearheads: by Region 5:3 Basal-looped spearheads: by Attributes 5:4 Selected attributes by Type 5:5 Percentage split between certain defined attributes 5:6 Basal-looped spearheads with special attributes 5:7 Incised decoration elements 6:1 European chronological sequence: Later Bronze Age 6:2 Metalwork sequence for the British Isles: Middle and Late Bronze Age 6:3 Linkage beween the cultural sequence of Britain and France 6:4 Cultural sequence in Britain: Middle Bronze Age to early Iron Age 6:5 Radiocarbon chronology for Bronze Age Europe 6:6 Class III and IV spearheads from Ireland and Southern Britain 6:7 Kite-shaped and side-looped spearheads with associated metalwork 6:8 Basal-looped spearheads with associated metalwork 6:9 Side-looped spearheads: contexts with associated finds 6:10 Analysis of lead content in side-looped spearheads 6:11 Side-looped spearheads from Southern Britain 7:1 Protected-loop spearheads: length 7:2 Drilled loop spearheads from Sicily: length 7:3 Examples of looped spearheads from Eastern Europe and Asia 8:1 Hoard content in Southern Britain during the Middle Bronze Age 8:2 Hoard content: Britain 8:3 Hoards containing basal-looped spearheads: context 8:4 Hoards containing basal-looped spearheads: content 8:5 Contexts of basal-looped spearheads: number of spearheads 8:6 Contexts of basal-looped spearheads: % of total with known contexts 8:7 Basal-looped spearhead contexts: breakdown by rivers 8:8 Methods of recovery of basal-looped spearheads 8:9 Methods of recovery of basal-looped spearheads Includes projections for agriculture and dredging 8:10 Date of recovery of basal-looped spearheads: number of spearheads 8:11 Percentage of total with known date of recovery 9:1 Database for the study of spearhead condition: number of spearheads 9:2 Purposeful damage: by damage category 9:3 Any purposeful damage: by region and basal-looped spearhead type 9:4 Blade edge analysis: examples of the five point scale criteria 9:5 Blade condition evaluation 9:6 Types of spearhead damage 10:1 Basal-looped spearhead moulds 10:2 As:Ni relationship – 1 10:3 As:Ni relationship – 2 10:4 Metallurgical analysis of the Stibbard hoard spearheads 10:5 Wood used in basal-looped spearhead shafts 10:6 Wood used in spearhead shafts 13:1 Middle Bronze Age spearheads and swords from the British Isles 13:2 Length of complete dirks/rapiers 13:3 Brief for the Royal Armouries

3

26 27 27 29 30 31 31 31 32 35 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 44 45 45 45 47 47 54 56 58 60 61 61 61 65 65 65 67 67 69 69 76 77 77 78 79 79 80 82 82 83 84 84 93 94 96

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

CATALOGUE List of sites Section 1. Britain Section 2. Ireland Section 3. Continent Section 4. Moulds Section 5. Associations Tables of associations in sites with a secure context

PLATES Illustrations of the Corpus Plate 1. Plates 2-8. Plates 9-18. Plate 19. Plates 20-1. Plates 22-34. Plates 35-9. Plates 40-1. Plate 42. Plate 43. Plate 44.

Type 1: Transitional Type 2: Leaf Type 3: Flame Type 4: Ogival Type 5: Flame, projecting loops Type 6: Triangular Type 7: Narrow Channel Type 8: Late Irish/Scottish Type 9: Drilled loops Type: Unidentified Moulds

Illustrations of Associations Plates 45-67.

Associations

Distribution maps Plate 68. Plates 69-76. Plates 77-9. Plates 80-1. Plate 82.

All basal-looped spearheads Types 1-8 Attributes Metallurgy Protected-loop spearheads

Text-related illustrations, maps and charts Plate 83. Plate 84. Plate 85. Plates 86-7. Plates 88-9. Plate 90. Plate 91. Plates 92-3. Plate 94. Plate 95. Plate 96. Plate 97. Plate 98. Plate 99. Plate 100. Plate 101. Plate 102. Plate 103. Plate 104. Plate 105. Plate 106-8.

Metalwork from Clifton, Nottinghamshire Greenwell & Brewis 1909: Typology Rowlands 1976: Typology Ramsey 1989: Typology Spearhead length histograms Incised decoration on Nordic spearheads Regional traditions, c1100BC Typological evolution Spearhead chronological sequence Protected-loop and pierced blade spearheads Lunate spearheads Drilled loop spearheads: Sicily Drilled loop spearheads: Greek sanctuaries and Hungary Chinese spearheads Looped and flanged spearheads: Eurasia and China Distribution map: Eurasia and China Distribution map: River Thames Use of the loops Halberds Ethnographic examples of spearhead decoration Experimental combat

4

118 126 165 187 198 200 205

ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS

Bibliography and references Cat NMA Catalogue of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland CUP Cambridge University Press DOB Date of Bronze number (Needham et al. 1997) EMAB East Midlands Archaeological Bulletin HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationary Office Inv Arch Inventaria Archaeologica JBAA Journal of the British Archaeological Association JRSAI Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland LAASRP Lincolnshire Architectural & Archaeological Society Reports and Papers MS Manuscript ‘Mining History’ Mining History: The Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society. NMS Dept Arch Class Cat National Museum of Scotland Department of Archaeology Classified Catalogue (unpublished typescript) PBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde PSANHS Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society PSAS Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland RCHM Royal Council for Historic Monuments SMR Sites and Monuments Record TCWAAS Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Dimensions L: length; W: width; D: depth; L rem: length remaining; W rem: width remaining; est: estimated; mm: millimetres; g: grams. Archaeological Periods EBA: Early Bronze Age; MBA: Middle Bronze Age; LBA: Late Bronze Age; EIA: Early Iron Age.

5

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I had a number of useful discussions with museum curators and other experts, whose ideas were influential in the development of this thesis. They include Jon Cotton of the Museum of London, Trevor Cowie of the National Museum of Scotland, Adam Gwilt of the National Museum of Wales, Stephen Minnitt of the Somerset Museum Service, Stuart Needham of the British Museum, Colin Pendleton of the Suffolk SMR, Andrew Sherratt of the Ashmolean Museum and Richard Warner of the Ulster Museum. Barry Chandler of the Torquay Museum demonstrated how spears in the Museum’s extensive anthropological collection were used, and Greer Ramsey of the Armagh County Museum was most generous in sharing information gathered and drawings made for his thesis on Middle Bronze Age weapons from Ireland. Peter Northover of the Department of Materials at Oxford sent me a number of metallurgical analyses that I had been unable to obtain from other sources, and he provided valuable suggestions as to methods of evaluating the results.

I would like to acknowledge the important contribution made by John Waller, Director of Live Interpretation at the Royal Armouries, Leeds. I felt it was important to gain practical knowledge of how the large basal-looped spearhead would perform in combat, and for this I needed the help of an expert in the use of ancient weapons – a man with “warrior” skills and experience. I could not have found a more appropriate person. John was keen to help, because he considered it was an important aspect of the role of the Royal Armouries to tackle academic issues as well as presenting and interpreting the National Weapons Collection to the general public. He and his team inspected and combat tested a range of replica Bronze Age weapons, and they provided surprising insights that have shed a new light on how these weapons may have been used. In acknowledging the contribution of John Waller and his team, I would like to thank the Board of the Royal Armouries for agreeing to fund all aspects of the experimental programme.

The research described in this book formed part of my PhD thesis. I wish to express my gratitude to Mark Pearce at the Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham, who was my supervisor. He was always positive and supportive as the thesis progressed, and meticulous in his comments on my drafts. He challenged me to investigate a number of areas I had ignored, and to question the perceived wisdom on others. The examiners were Anthony Harding and Bill Cavanagh, and I am most grateful for their useful suggestions.

Jon Cotton of the Museum of London gave permission for me to have replicas made of two weapons in the Museum’s collection, and provided facilities within the Museum’s conservation laboratories to carry out the initial work. Thanks are also due to the replica maker, John Mainwaring, who spent long hours on this project. I have enormously enjoyed my contact with several museum curators, who without exception have been most generous with their time and resources in helping me develop the database for this study. I visited forty eight museums and made contact with a further seventy two others in four continents (APPENDIX 1). The support provided by the curators of museums in the British Isles was all that a researcher could wish for. The overseas museums, which I contacted by letter, email and phone, were most generous in sending me appropriate academic papers, copies of museum accession records, photographs and illustrations.

6

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Recovery contexts are weighted to watery locations at 80% of the total, supporting the interpretation that much of the deposition was purposeful, and represented a form of votive offering.

Basal-looped spearheads were prevalent in the British Isles during the later part of the Middle Bronze Age. Their main period of use covered the Taunton and Penard industrial phases in Britain, and the contemporary Bishopsland phase in Ireland, dating to around 13001000BC. Distribution also extended to the north western area of Continental Europe.

The condition of the spearheads is analysed, from which it can be concluded that at least two thirds had been used in some form of combat.

The diagnostic attribute of these spearheads is the loops at the base of the blade, either incorporated within the blade, or projecting below it. Ireland is likely to have been the place of origin of the category, with manufacturing taking place in Ireland, Britain and on the Continent.

An experimental programme was undertaken with replicas which were combat tested at the Royal Armouries, Leeds. The programme demonstrated the versatility of the basal-looped spearhead, and its overall superiority to the rapier, the main contemporary sidearm. The basal-looped spearhead may therefore be considered the primary weapon of its time in the British Isles, with use in warfare and on ceremonial occasions. Its supremacy began to be eclipsed during the Penard phase with the introduction of the early flange-hilted swords from the Continent.

551 basal-looped spearheads are included in the study’s catalogue. 54% of these come from Britain, 32% from Ireland and 14% from the Continent. A typology is developed for the category, sorting them into eight main types and establishing the chronological sequence of these types.

7

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1

suggest that these spearheads developed from sidelooped spearheads indigenous to the British Isles, the relative chronology of the various side-looped and basallooped types was not clear. Did the basal-looped types replace the side-looped types, or were they produced concurrently for an extended period of time, perhaps having different functions?

Origins of the study

In May 1938, the Trent Navigation Company’s dredger was extracting gravel from the river at Clifton, near Nottingham (Phillips 1941). Progress was impeded by a number of oak stakes in the river bed, which had to be removed. While this operation was being carried out, the dredging crew found the first signs of what proved to be a large assemblage of material – human skulls, dugout canoes, Neolithic stone implements, Bronze Age metalwork, and various Roman and Anglo-Saxon artefacts. Of the Bronze Age metalwork, perhaps the most impressive items were six large basal-looped spearheads of various designs (PLATE 83). A further eleven basallooped spearheads have been recovered from the middle reach of the Trent, from South Derbyshire to north of Newark, Nottinghamshire. They are among the largest Bronze Age spearheads recovered in Britain.

From the initial review of the catalogues in regional metalwork studies, it appeared that basal-looped spearheads were recovered mainly from watery contexts – rivers, bogs and fenland. A considerable literature has built up on the interpretation that deposits in watery sites were mainly votive in character (Hundt 1955; Torbrügge 1970-1; Levy 1982; Bradley 1990). A comprehensive study of all basal-looped spearheads would quantify the incidence of deposition in watery sites for this particular artefact type on a detailed regional basis, and could shed light on the mechanics of votive deposition.

When I was carrying out research on the origins of the metalwork types at Clifton, and trying to establish the reasons for their presence in the River Trent, it became apparent to me that detailed research on basal-looped spearheads is limited. The category has been mentioned in general studies of Bronze Age metalwork (Wilde 1861; Evans 1881), and more specifically Middle Bronze Age metalwork (Coles 1963-4; Rowlands 1976; Pearce 1983; Ramsey 1989). It is also described in studies that cover the full Bronze Age spearhead series in the British Isles (Greenwell & Brewis 1909; Evans 1933), and in a particular region (Ehrenberg 1977). However, no comprehensive study has concentrated on basal-looped spearheads, covering all the regions of their distribution. The lack of a comprehensive catalogue and a detailed evaluation of basal-looped spearhead development and typology provided the initial motivation for the present study.

1.2

Basal-looped spearheads were significantly larger on average than side-looped spearheads. Ramsey (1989, table 1) calculated that the mean length for side-looped spearheads in Ireland was 138mm, compared to 276mm for basal-looped spearheads. Some of the basal-looped spearheads were of exceptional size – The Cutts 22:350 at 870mm, Dromineer 22:376 at 811mm, Croydon 19:79 at 721mm and Maghera 22:352 at 683mm. If the spear was just used for thrusting in combat or as a javelin for throwing (Snodgrass 1964, 136; Ramsey 1989, 101), the additional length could be considered unnecessary. Does this suggest that the larger basal-looped spearheads had a different function? Perhaps they were used differently in combat to the earlier spearheads, or perhaps their function was mainly ceremonial. To gain an insight into these issues, I felt it was necessary to engage directly with the combat capabilities of basal-looped spearheads. I approached the Royal Armouries Museum at Leeds, who agreed to carry out combat testing of replica weapons, using their Live Interpretation Team of weapons experts. The Museum was sufficiently interested in the experimental programme to fund all costs, including the manufacture of the replicas. The Museum of London gave permission for artefacts from their collection to be used as the models from which the replicas were made.

Study design

Artefact studies have been criticised for making the gathering of data an end in itself. It is now generally recognised that “research should be designed to answer specific questions economically, not simply to generate more information which may not be relevant” (Renfrew & Bahn 1996, 37).

Loops on the shaft require a more complex casting than rivet holes in the socket which were prevalent on the Continent (Mohen 1977). This raised the question of why the presence of loops continued for such a long period of

In reviewing the literature related to basal-looped spearheads, a number of issues appeared to need clarification. Although there was strong evidence to 8

1. INTRODUCTION

time, and indeed whether they were used solely to secure the spearhead to the shaft or had other uses, a point raised in the early stages of spearhead studies by Wilde (1861, 494).

2. Contexts and votive deposition From the database, identify the contexts of the corpus, and consider the evidence for votive deposition and its purposes.

With the issues that emerged from an initial review of the main sources, the objectives for the study were defined as follows:-

3. Product use Use the database on the condition of the spearheads, and an experimental programme with replica weapons to identify the possible uses of the basal-looped spearheads in comparison to other weapons of the period.

1. Category description. Develop a detailed database of all known basal-looped spearheads, from which to identify and define typology, origins, chronology and distribution.

9

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

2.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON SPEARHEADS FROM THE BRITISH ISLES

Spearheads are the one major metalwork type from the British Bronze Age not covered by the Prähistorische Bronzefunde (PBF) series. Indeed, Greece is the only area for which PBF has a spearhead volume (Avila 1983). The main source of spearhead classification for the British Isles is still the study by Greenwell and Brewis in 1909.

store, describe and communicate information on the Museum’s collection (Wilde 1861, 495). This process of classification was the first stage in the scientific method – systematic observation and description of phen-omena – that was adopted in the burgeoning study of the Natural Sciences, contemporary with Wilde (Clarke 1978, 24).

No comprehensive analysis has been carried out on basallooped spearheads as a category, though regional metalwork studies which include basal-looped spearheads cover Southern England (Rowlands 1976), Northern England (Burgess 1968a), South West England (Pearce 1983), Central England (Vine 1987), Scotland (Coles 1959-60, 1963-4), Ireland (Ramsey 1989) and various countries or regions in Western Europe (Briard 1963; Cordier 1965; Butler 1963, 1987; Jacob-Friesen 1967; Verlaeckt 1996).

Wilde (1961, 495) defined the spearhead types as:“1. The simple leaf-shaped, either long and narrow, or broad, with holes in the socket through which to pass the rivets to fix them to the shaft. 2. The looped, with eyes on each side of the socket below and on the same plane with the blade. These are generally of the long, narrow, straight-edged kind. 3. Those with loops in the angles between the edge of the blade and the socket. 4. The loops moved upwards so as to form side apertures in the blade”. This type includes both protected-loop and lunate spearheads.

The following section describes the development of opinions on typology and relative chronology for the Bronze Age spearhead sequence in the British Isles in general, and basal-looped spearheads in particular. Opinions on a number of specific issues are traced through the various authors: * indigenous development compared to Continental influences. * the origins and relative chronology of the side-looped and basal-looped groups. * the use of the loops. * the reason for the migration of the loops up the socket into the blade. * the various methods used to determine a typology for basal-looped spearheads.

His classification is not listed in a chronological order, which would have required Type 1 to have been placed last. However, he separately traced the evolutionary process of the looped types in terms of blade migration “from the side of the socket several inches below the blade, first up to, and then into the blade itself” (ibid., 494). He considered the purpose of the loops was to secure the spearhead to the shaft, but raised the possibility that they may also have been used to attach tassels and other forms of decoration (ibid., 494). Wilde’s analysis of the complexity of spearhead design was more incisive than Franks’ description of the plates in Horae Ferales, in which spearheads were merely divided into two types – riveted and looped (Franks 1863, 151).

Some errors of fact are apparent, particularly in the early studies which used a limited database. The more recent studies normally included an artefact catalogue, and therefore the authors’ interpretations were based on more authoritative evidence.

2.2 2.1

Sir William Wilde (1861): Ireland

Sir John Evans (1881): Britain and Ireland

Evans used Wilde’s classification in his study which covered Britain and Ireland, but added a fifth type known only in Britain:“5. Those in which the base of each side of the blade projects at right angles to the socket, or is prolonged downwards so as to form barbs” (Evans 1881, 311).

In his “Descriptive Catalogue” of antiquities in the collection of the Royal Irish Academy, Wilde prepared a classification for the various product groups. The purpose of this was “for the sake of arrangement” – to display,

10

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Evans illustrated his study with examples taken mainly from his own collection and that of the British Museum. His objective was primarily descriptive, and he gave little attention to interpreting the evolutionary sequence of spearhead design. Indeed, he followed Wilde’s type order, discussing first the riveted spearheads which are now attributed mainly to the Late Bronze Age (ibid., 312-321).

were Wilde (1861) and Evans (1881). His research utilised the main collections of Irish spearheads. These were the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy; the Grainger Collection, Belfast; Belfast Museum; the Day Collection, Cork; and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. He was unable to include data from the British Museum. In all he identified 595 Irish spearheads (Coffey 1893-6, 506), which he separated in chronological order using Wilde’s classification. In Fig. 2:1, I have used modern descriptors for the groups. Where available, the numbers in Ramsey’s (1989) catalogue are shown.

He pointed out the difficulty of identifying the function of a specific spearhead because “heads of arrows, bolts, darts, javelins, lances and spears so resemble each other” (ibid., 311). His view was that loops were for the purpose of securing the spearhead to the shaft, based on the example of the looped palstaves and socketed axes (ibid., 321). The function of the midrib ridges and the blade ribs on side-looped spearheads, specifically the Irish kiteshaped type, was to strengthen as well as to decorate (ibid., 323).

Fig. 2:1 Bronze Age spearheads from Ireland Coffey Ramsey 1893-6 1989 Side-looped (Wilde 2) 310 608* Basal-looped (Wilde 3) 53 136** Protected-loop (Wilde 4) 18 34 Lunates (Wilde 4) 18 Riveted (Wilde 1) 196 Total 595 * Excludes Early Bronze Age spearheads ** The number of basal-looped spearheads has been augmented to 177 in the present study.

He noted the wide variety of designs within the basallooped group (though did not use term “basal-looped”: this first appeared in E. Evans 1933, 191). This has made the identification of sub-types a problem for all who have approached the subject. He also recognised that “some of the most elegant forms fall into this group” (Evans 1881, 327). In his view, the reasons for the loops being moved from the side of the socket up to the blade were to protect the loops against damage and to allow the spearhead to be polished more easily, because it exposed an unencumbered surface on the socket (ibid., 327). He considered that the basal-looped group was a development indigenous to the British Isles, but he was unspecific as to whether it originated in Britain or Ireland (ibid., 341). He was aware that some Italian spearheads had two circular holes at the base of the blade, but made no comment on whether they had any relationship with the British series (ibid., 334).

Coffey considered that the most important division was between looped and riveted. Within these two categories, further definition could be made based on the shape of the blade. Weight was a significant factor, and he considered that the lighter spears were used as javelins, and the heavier as hand-held spears. However, he found it impossible to suggest a specific measurement to differentiate between them, because of the similarity in form of small and large spearheads (Coffey 1893-6, 487).

In Wilde’s Class 4 – side apertures in the blade – Evans distinguished two sub-types. The first had small holes which in his view may have “served as loops for attaching the blade to the shaft”. The second had larger apertures which appeared to have been decorative or to reduce weight (ibid., 331 & 335). These types are now termed “protected-loop” and “lunate”, and are discussed in the present study in CHAPTER 7, and illustrated in PLATES 95-6.

2.3

Coffey traced the origins of Irish spears from the Early Bronze Age dagger blade. He noted the controversy over whether the blades with long tangs from Arreton Down were daggers or spears, accepting the interpretation that they were the earliest British form of bronze spearheads (Franks 1855). He described the evolutionary sequence of the early socketed spearheads as follows (Coffey 1893-6, 494):1. The dagger blade was mounted on a socket which terminated at the blade base. 2. The lines of blade and socket were integrated externally. 3. The socket aperture was then extended into the midrib. This abbreviated description is the first attempt to trace the early development of socketed spearheads. It was expanded and refined by others, notably Greenwell & Brewis (1909) and Needham (1979a).

George Coffey (1893-6): Ireland

Coffey sought to amplify the description of Irish spearheads. He traced the development and chronology of spearhead design, and established which were the main types in Irish production and which were of limited and specialised manufacture. His chief points of reference 11

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

The wide range of forms with basal loops and blade apertures, and their exceptional size, were seen as “freaks of a more or less exaggerated character”, made possible by improved methods of casting which allowed greater design flexibility (Coffey 1893-6, 502). They represented a transitional stage between the kite-shaped spearheads and the riveted spearheads, Wilde’s Type 1, which he considered represented a more settled period of production.

The majority of the early spearheads had loops at the base of the socket, and were followed by other forms of sidelooped spearheads, all categorised within Wilde’s Type 2. The loop was moved up the side of the socket from the base to the centre, and also close to the junction with the blade. Blade shape developed from kite to leaf and ogival. Together, they made up the most numerous group in the Irish series (Coffey 1893-6, 495). In the next stage, the loops were moved into the base of the blade, Wilde’s Type 3. This was termed “Transitional” by Coffey. He saw it as a fusion of the Irish side-looped spearhead with the Continental leafshaped spearhead with rivet holes, prevalent throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Age on the Continent (ibid., 498). He dismissed Evans’ rationale that the loops were moved into the blade to protect the loops from damage and to allow easier maintenance of the spearhead. On the first point he claimed that there were no examples of damaged side loops, and on the second he noted that the socket would be covered with cording, so could not be polished anyway (ibid., 499; Evans 1881, 327; but see Ramsey 1989, 56 who listed several examples of damaged side loops). He saw it merely as a development in design, retaining the native element of the loop, while incorporating the Continental influence of blade shape. The retention of the loop was a compromise until craftsmen had “mastered the difficulty of forming rivet holes in the socket” (Coffey 1893-6, 500). This argument seems decidedly weak because rivet holes do not present a moulding problem, certainly not one that would take centuries to resolve.

Chronologically, Coffey correctly placed Wilde’s Type 1, leaf-shaped blades with rivet holes, as the final phase of spearhead design in Ireland. On the basis of hoard evidence, he concluded that the riveted spearheads completely replaced the looped forms. This change in form was, in his view, one of the indicators of a major culture change in Ireland, caused either by trade contact or invasion. While stone moulds of looped spearheads were known, no stone moulds of Type 1 spearheads had been recovered. He concluded that the move from stone to clay moulds was complete by the time Type 1 was introduced, and may have been part of this culture change (ibid., 509). In reflecting on the loop feature in the earlier phases of Irish spearheads, Coffey drew attention to Evans’ point that looped spearheads were virtually confined to the British Isles (ibid., 508-9; Evans 1881, 327). He concluded that they originated in Ireland, because larger numbers and style variations of side-looped spearheads were found in Ireland than Britain (Coffey 1893-6, 509). However, his speculation that sockets with loops were first observed on axes, and the concept taken up for spearheads by “transference of idea” (ibid., 508) can be dismissed with our present knowledge of axe chronology. The earliest socketed axes with loops in the British Isles are considered to have been the Taunton/Hademarschen axes, dated to the Taunton industrial phase, while the earliest socketed spearheads with loops were dated to the Arreton phase, some two centuries earlier (Schmidt & Burgess 1981, 172-3).

Coffey (ibid., 502) considered that the loops initially had a utilitarian function as the method of securing the spearhead to the shaft. However, when the socket was lengthened, it became necessary to employ a different method of securing the spearhead, which was to hammer the socket mouth so that it gripped the shaft. As a result, in his view, the loops eventually became merely ornamental. The final stage of the loop’s progress was represented by the protected-loop and lunate spearheads, Wilde’s Type 4. Like Evans, Coffey distinguished between those with “apertures and side projections” (now termed protectedloop) and those with “large apertures” (now termed lunate). He disagreed with Evans that the protected loops were to fix the spearhead to the shaft, because of the unusual length of the socket: he considered this to be a rare, transitional form (ibid., 502). However, he was in agreement with Evans that the large apertures in the lunates were ornamental or to reduce the blade weight (ibid., 503; Evans 1881, 331 & 335).

2.4

Rev. William Greenwell and W. Parker Brewis (1909) (PLATE 84)

This study offered a critique of previous interpretations of British and Irish spearheads, traced the chronological development of the spearhead series, suggested a detailed classification, and made observations about a number of related issues, such as decoration, loops, and moulds. The Greenwell and Brewis classification is still the main point of academic reference today, even after almost a century.

12

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

from side-looped to basal-looped, they saw the progression being directly from the kite-shaped blade to the triangular form of basal-looped blade. The process was that the loops were moved up the socket to the base of the blade, with the blade ribs projecting from the blade to form the loops (ibid., 449). The triangular-shaped blades with projecting loops were considered to be the earliest form of basal-looped spearheads. Those in which the loops were fully integrated within the arc of the blade edges were seen as a later development. In their view, it was these later, leaf-shaped basal-looped spearheads which provided a transitional design to riveted spearheads, where the loop was replaced by the rivet hole as the method of attachment (ibid., 449). This sequence has since been reversed, based on hoard evidence, with projecting loops coming after incorporated loops (Rowlands 1976, 59).

Greenwell and Brewis acknowledged the contributions of Wilde (1861), Evans (1881) and Coffey (1893-6). They suggested that Wilde’s classification was too simplistic in that the division between looped and riveted was not satisfactory on chronological grounds, because some of the earliest spearheads did not have loops (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, 440). They considered that Coffey missed the crucial point in the evolution of the British series of spearhead – the addition of the ferrule to the early tanged spears, from which the socket was born. In contrast to Coffey, they strongly emphasised the independent development of a native bronze culture in the British Isles. In their view, this was clearly demonstrated by the way in which spearhead design evolved: “In no other country does there exist a sequence of forms through which the spearhead passed in any way to be compared with that which is found in the United Kingdom” (ibid., 440-1).

Greenwell and Brewis described a number of variations to the leaf-shaped, riveted form, including those with lunate apertures, with wings set on bands on either side of the midrib, or with hollow heads having a diamondshaped section (ibid., 451). They agreed with Evans (1881, 335) and Coffey (1893-6, 503) that the purpose of the lunate apertures was to lessen the weight and enhance appearance. Weight reduction was seen as being motivated by economy. This was manifest in a reduction in blade width and in the hollow headed variant. They considered the reduction in size to be a sensible move because, in their view, the primary function of a spear was its piercing power, and the wings were probably just a survival of the original dagger form, retained to maintain an impressive appearance (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, 453). In my view, both these arguments are doubtful: raw material became abundant in the Late Bronze Age making weight reduction less important (Burgess 1974, 209; Tylecote 1986, 11), and hand-held spears can be used equally as cutting and thrusting weapons.

The authors’ origin theory was that stone and bone spearheads continued into the early stages of the Bronze Age. The bronze knife-dagger was an indigenous design, and was the prototype from which spearheads and the other blade forms (dirk, rapier, sword) were developed. They suggested that the early metalworkers were faced with two possible ways of attaching a metal spearhead to a wooden shaft – the spearhead’s tang entering the shaft, or the shaft entering the spearhead’s socket (ibid., 444). Since the second represented a more difficult technology, the first bronze spearheads were in the tanged form. The spearhead was attached to the shaft by a rivet through the end of the tang and held in place with bindings. The concept of a socket was already in use with antler and bone artefacts. A method of hollow casting of bronze was subsequently developed and a bronze ferrule was used in conjunction with the tanged spearhead to improve the method of securing it to the shaft. The example of this crucial development was the spearhead from Arreton Down (ibid., 445 and fig 7) which first combined a tanged spearhead and ferrule. This design was further refined with rivets through the ferrule to secure the head to the shaft.

The authors made an unequivocal claim that the British/Irish series was an indigenous development from start to finish, unaffected by external influence: “From its inception throughout the whole progress of its evolution, the spear-head of the United Kingdom has a character of its own, one quite different from those found elsewhere” (ibid., 456). This was proved, in their view, by a close study of the successive stages of development, which demonstrated that the argument of a fusion with Continental designs had no validity (ibid., 456-7). This indigenous development claim ran counter to Coffey’s (1893-6, 498) view and has provoked a long-standing debate.

The next evolutionary stage was to join the ferrule to the blade and remove the tang, thus creating the first socketed spearhead. An example from Arreton Down had rivet holes in the socket to secure it to the shaft (ibid., 447 and fig 9). Following that, socket and midrib were combined, and side loops were added at the bottom of the socket as the method of securing the spearhead to the shaft, using thongs (ibid., fig 11). The socket was then extended into the blade through the midrib (ibid., fig 13). Greenwell and Brewis’s interpretation of spearhead development from this point followed and expanded on Coffey’s sequence, through side-looped and basal-looped, finally leading to riveted spearheads. In tracing the move

Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 458-60) proposed a classification for the British and Irish spearhead series, breaking it down into thirteen individual types. No 13

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

contemporary spearheads.

satisfactory classification has gained general acceptance to replace it. In some cases I have used current terminology for the sake of clarity – for example, types were not identified as “kite-shaped”, “basal-looped” or “protected-loop” at this stage.

developments

from

the

kite-shaped

The authors discussed issues relating to the loops. They made the assumption that loops were used for attachment of the spearhead to the shaft. However, they noted that rivets were more efficient than loops and had been used briefly in the early socketed phase. Their explanation for the prevalence of loops was that thongs had been used with flint spearheads, and their retention was traditional. Additionally, if the shaft was broken in action, the thongs would prevent the spearhead from being lost (ibid., 469). They also noted that spearheads with circular holes at the blade base had been found in Italy and Hungary, but were not connected “in any way” with the basal-looped or lunate series from the British Isles (ibid., 452 note A).

Fig. 2:2 Spearhead Classification: Greenwell & Brewis 1909 (PLATE 84) Class I Tanged. Blade similar to the knife-dagger. Tang attached to blade base. Rivet hole at tang end. Class Ia Tang and ferrule. As Class I, with ferrule added. Class II Early socketed. Ferrule attached to blade to form a socket. Socket did not extend into blade. Some had rivet holes in the socket, others had loops. Class III Side-looped, kite-shaped blade. Socket cavity continued into an expanded midrib. Ribbed wings. Loops on socket. Class IIIa Basal-looped. Loops moved up to the base of the wings, initially projecting from the blade, later fully integrated within the blade.

2.5

Estyn Evans (1933)

Evans recognised the importance of Greenwell and Brewis’s (1909) paper, but suggested that research in the two decades following its publication had shed more light on the evolution of Continental spearheads, and the level of cross-Channel contact (Evans 1933, 187). He noted that Coffey had recognised the effect of Continental influences on Irish spearheads, while Greenwell and Brewis had argued for indigenous development without any external influence throughout the full British Isles series (Coffey 1893-6, 498; Greenwell & Brewis 1909, 456).

Class IV Side-looped, plain type. Leaf-shaped, flat blade. Class IVa Side-looped, rapier-bladed. Class IVb Ribless looped. Leaf-shaped, flat blades with basal loops incorporated within the arc of the blade edges, or inside the blade wings (protectedloop). Class V Leaf-shaped. Opposed rivet holes in socket. This class included lunate and other aperture forms in the blade wings. Class Va As Class V, with wings set on “bands on either side of the midrib socket”. Class Vb Hollow heads. Diamond-shaped blade section. Midrib almost lost in the width of the wings. Class Vc As Class V, but midrib socket had an uneven taper, suddenly narrowing.

Evans accepted Greenwell and Brewis’s interpretation of the early spearhead sequence in the British Isles up to the establishment of the Class III spearheads. Following that, Evans listed a number of developments: basal-looped, protected-loop (he appears to have been the first to use these terms), side-looped with leaf- and rapier-shaped blades, and a number of “freak” forms such as single loops or blind loops (Evans 1933, 191-3). He considered that these were the result of fusion of the Continental leaf-shaped, riveted spearheads brought to South East England through cross-Channel contact (ibid., 197). The effect of the new ideas from the Continent was to trigger a period of experimentation. Variety of design and increase in length were a feature of this process, and he dismissed some of the larger and more unusual examples as “the expression of a child-like exuberance in a fresh venture” (ibid., 192). Despite the multiplicity of variants, he attempted to classify basal-looped spearheads into four main groups, giving a type site for each:-

Class VI Barbed blades.

It should be noted that basal-looped spearheads with flat blades (Class IVb) were separated from the main basallooped Class IIIa. In fact there are 72 of these according to my research for the present study. Many which appear to have flat blades can be seen under a magnifying glass to have low ribs, partly obscured by wear and corrosion. Authors after Greenwell and Brewis have tended to assign all basal-looped spearheads to Class IIIa, leaving Class IVb to represent just protected-loop spearheads. The numerical sequence progressed from the side-looped, kite-shaped blades in Class III directly to Class IIIa, basal-looped. Spearheads with side loops and leaf-shaped blades were placed later as Class IV. The implication, supported in the text (ibid., 455), was that the basallooped and the side-looped, leaf-shaped spearheads were

1. Elford. Protruding ribs formed by continuation of the blade ribs. Horizontal blade base. Triangular blade form. 2. Knockans. “A specialised form of Type 1”. Curved base, rectangular loop plates. 14

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

2.6

3. Lakenheath Fen. Slender leaf-shaped blade. Lozenge midrib, sometimes with ridge. 4. Nettleham. Leaf-shaped blade, flat. Loops perforated through the blade, with minimal loop plates (ibid., 192-3).

Hawkes considered that insufficient attention had been given to the Class IV side-looped spearheads by Greenwell and Brewis (1909), and Evans (1933). Both had placed them chronologically after Class III, and contemporary with the basal-looped spearheads. Hawkes agreed with Estyn Evans’s fusion theory for Class IV, and accepted the logic that they must also be contemporary with the Continental leaf-shaped spearheads, Class V (Hawkes 1941, 128; Evans 1933, 191). He then sought to support a Late Bronze Age date for Class IV using hoard and settlement site evidence (Hawkes 1941, 129-131). Though his conclusions were influential at the time, the chronological sequence for the British Bronze Age has been revised since Hawkes’ paper, and the same evidence can now be used to support a Middle Bronze Age date. This is discussed further in CHAPTER 6.2.

He estimated the number of basal-looped spearheads as follows (ibid., 194). These are compared with the figures in the present study:Fig. 2:3 Number of basal-looped spearheads. Evans 1933 vs Present Study

England Scotland Wales Ireland Continent Total

Evans 1933 160 12 3 80 18 273

Christopher Hawkes (1941)

Present study 266 24 6 177 78 551

Hawkes later developed a new classification model for British spearheads which was used by Jacob-Friesen (1967, 210) in his description of looped spearheads from Continental sites. This had been a personal communication by Hawkes to Jacob-Friesen and was not published directly by Hawkes. Side-looped spearheads were divided into five categories, basal-looped into six. This scheme did not gain general acceptance, and authors continued to use the original Greenwell and Brewis classification.

He considered that the basal-looped spearheads were of English origin, due to their numerical predominance, but that the designs were quickly picked up by Irish craftsmen (ibid., 194). The Continental examples were mainly British exports, but he noted one mould from Northern France – Gonfreville-l’Orcher 44:555. It was Evans’ view that the various lunate spearhead designs were a British development, evolving from the basal-looped form. These were copied widely, and Evans quoted examples from north west and central Europe, the Mediterranean and Russia (ibid., 199).

2.7

He supported the view, first raised by Coffey (1893-6, 498), that the looped spearheads subsequent to Class III kite-shaped were the result of a fusion between native types and the Continental leaf form. This interpretation was adopted by some later authors (Hawkes 1941; Coles 1963-4), but opposed by others (Rowlands 1976, 56-7; Ehrenberg 1977, 80). The present study argues in favour of an indigenous development of Class IV side-looped and of basal-looped spearheads (CHAPTER 6).

John Coles (1959-60, 1963-4, 1968-9): Scotland

In his paper on Middle Bronze Age metalwork from Scotland, Coles (1963-4) proposed a new spearhead classification. It relied heavily on that of Greenwell and Fig. 2:4 Spearhead classification, and numbers of spearheads from Scotland Greenwell & Brewis (1909, 458)

Coles (1959-60; 1963-4; 1968-9) Classification

Evans (1933, 191) further suggested that the later looped spearheads had only a short currency before the Continental leaf-shaped spearheads with rivet holes (Class V) were universally adopted in Britain. In consequence, they were a transitory, experimental phase, “not in the direct line of evolution towards the leaf-shaped spear” (ibid., 197). Though not specifically stated, the logic of this is that the Continental leaf-shaped spearheads entering Britain (Class V) must be contemporary with the later looped spearheads.

Quantity

Class I

A

2

Class II

B

0

Class III

C

26

Class IV

D

59

Class IIIa

E

21*

Class IVb (protected-loop)

F

3

Class V, Va, Vb

-

113

Class VI

-

1

Total 225 * The number of basal-looped spearheads has been augmented to 24 in the present study.

15

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

2.8

Brewis (1909, 458). He created no new categories, but implied a revised chronology by placing side-looped before basal-looped spearheads. The new classification is shown in FIG. 2:4, together with reference to the Greenwell and Brewis classes, and the numbers of each type from his catalogue of Scottish spearheads. He had not proposed this classification in his earlier paper on the Late Bronze Age (Coles 1959-60), so no classification letters are included for the later spearhead types.

Michael Rowlands (1976): Southern Britain (PLATE 85)

Rowlands acknowledged the Greenwell and Brewis paper (1909) as the seminal study on Bronze Age spearheads from the British Isles. He considered that their classification was still the best available, though in need of updating in the light of research since that date. His study covered all metalwork types from Southern Britain in the Middle Bronze Age, and included a full catalogue, separated into hoards and stray finds. The numbers of spearheads are tabulated below, together with the Greenwell and Brewis classes, and the “standard terms” that Rowlands (1976, 49) used to clarify the description of each class. Although he quoted “leaf shaped” as the standard term for Group IV, he used “side looped” in the text.

With the relatively large number of Class IV spearheads from Scotland, Coles was able to identify a number of the type’s different attributes. These included leaf and ogival blade shapes; circular and lozenge midribs, some with ridges; opposed, asymmetrical and single loops; differences in overall length (Coles 1963-4, 104-6). Coles dated the group to the Ornament Horizon in the Taunton Phase, based on English hoard and settlement site evidence – the same evidence used by Hawkes (1941) before the reordering of the British Bronze Age chronology. Two Scottish hoards, Inshoch Wood and Greyfriars, supported this dating in Scotland. However, a mould from Aberdeenshire contained both a side-looped and a leaf-shaped spearhead without loops, which suggested continuity into the Late Bronze Age or an intrusive Continental type (Coles 1963-4, 106).

Fig. 2:5 Middle Bronze Age spearheads from Southern Britain (Rowlands 1976) Class III IIIa IV IVa IVb

“Standard Term” Number Kite shaped 17 Basal looped 198* Leaf shaped 242 Rapier bladed 2 Protected loop 4 Total 463 Ferrules 7 * The number of basal-looped spearheads has been augmented to 236 in the present study.

Coles identified two main forms of basal-looped spearhead from Scotland – those with leaf-shaped and those with triangular-shaped blades. This difference in blade form had been noted by Estyn Evans (1933, 292-3) in his classification of basal-looped types. Two Scottish hoards had markedly different dating indications, which suggested a long period of currency for the category. Glentrool 15:260 with a narrow leaf-shaped blade came from a hoard with artefacts associated with the Taunton phase. Pyotdykes 41:273 with a large triangular blade and a decorated gold band round the socket was associated with two Ewart Park swords, dated to the Late Bronze Age.

Rowlands separated the kite-shaped spearheads into two groups, those with broad blades and heavy rib decoration, and those with narrower blades and reduced decoration or completely plain blades. He considered that they were all of Irish origin (ibid., 51). Side-looped spearheads He distinguished two types within the side-looped (Class IV) category, on the basis of blade shape, midrib section, and the shape of the loops and their protective plates (ibid., 52; PLATE 85). Group 1 had leaf-shaped blades, some so wide as to warrant the description “ivy” in Rowlands’ terminology. The blades were flat, the midrib circular and the loops angular with lozenge plates. Group 2 had narrower leaf-shaped blades, with a constricted upper blade, termed “flame” by Rowlands. The blades were flat, midribs lozenge and loops semicircular without protective plates. The number of spearheads in the two groups are shown in FIG. 2:6.

In considering the origins of basal-looped spearheads, Coles accepted the fusion theory of Coffey and Estyn Evans. However he considered that Continental influence could not explain the substantial increase in length of some basal-looped spearheads. He associated this with a similar increase in the length of rapiers during the same period, and interpreted both as prestige, ceremonial artefacts, unsuited for warfare in the case of the spearheads (Coles 1963-4, 108-9).

16

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

blade ribs, and a lozenge-shaped midrib. The loops were within the curved arc of the blade and had lozengeshaped protective plates. Group 3 had slightly curving, triangular-shaped blades with a horizontal base and blade ribs. The midrib was circular, and the loops projected below the blade base, with rectangular plates.

Fig. 2:6 Class IV spearheads from Southern Britain (Rowlands 1976) Group 1 “Ivy/Leaf’” Group 2 “Flame” Unidentified Total

73 161 8 242

He further noted that the length of Groups 2 and 3 spanned the full range from small to large, with the largest over 400mm normally from Group 3. Group 1 was smaller and ranged between 120 and 250mm in length. Those with incised decoration came from Group 2. The presence of rivet holes was most commonly found in Group 3, but he considered that it could not be established whether the rivet holes were made at the time of manufacture, or were added later (ibid., 58).

Within this classification, Rowlands recognised considerable variations. Histograms of the lengths indicated that Group 2 were longer on average than Group 1 (ibid., fig 2). Rowlands (ibid., 50-1) addressed the issue of the origin of the side-looped type, taking into consideration both the indigenous origin hypothesis of Greenwell and Brewis (1909), and the fusion between the loops of the Class III kite-shaped spearheads and the Continental leaf-shaped blades, argued by Coffey (1893-6), Evans (1933) and Hawkes (1941). He considered that a direct progression from the kite-shaped blades was the more feasible, because there was no evidence that Continental leafshaped spearheads or any hybrid forms were present in Southern Britain at that time.

In dating the basal-looped series, Rowlands (ibid., 59) noted that Group 2 spearheads were present in six hoards attributed to the Ornament Horizon (Taunton phase), while Group 3 spearheads were found in three British hoards dated to the Penard phase. He considered that there was continuity of the series into the Late Bronze Age, as demonstrated by the Pyotdykes hoard (Coles 1963-4, 106). Based on the Nettleham hoard, he attributed Group 1 to the Late Bronze Age.

Dating evidence was dependant on nine hoards, three settlement sites and four burial sites, all but one of these containing Group 2 spearheads (Rowlands 1976, 224278). Among the hoards, Burgess Meadow, Stump Bottom, Monkswood and Tredarvah can be dated to the Ornament Horizon. Rowlands considered there was some evidence of continuity into the Late Bronze Age on the basis of the New Barn Down settlement site, and the high lead content of spearheads from Fyfield and Methwold Fen (ibid., 54-5; Brown & Blin Stoyle 1959, 202 no 85, & 204 no 235; but note Northover 1980, 235 where a high lead formulation was attributed to the Welsh raw material source in the Acton Park phase).

He noted that distribution of basal-looped spearheads was concentrated in the Thames Valley and the East Anglian fenland. Since the casting of spearheads was a difficult process, requiring a high degree of skill to achieve the hollow socket, he considered that manufacture was limited to these two areas in Southern Britain (Rowlands 1976, 139). There was a low level of distribution in other areas, particularly the South Coast where there was an active metalworking industry concentrating on axes and ornaments, which were simpler castings. Since a number of basal-looped spearheads were distributed in northern France, the Low Countries and northern Germany, he speculated that the spearhead industry concentrated on meeting local demand and export to the Continent rather than supplying the rest of Southern Britain (ibid., 151, 157). In support of Rowlands’ argument, it can be further speculated that trade with the Continent was important as a reciprocal source of raw material.

Basal-looped spearheads Rowlands (1976, 57-8) proposed a classification of basallooped spearheads into three groups (PLATE 85). Group 1 had leaf-shaped blades with a flat surface and a lozengeshaped midrib. Loops were within the curved arc of the blade, but were just perforations in the base, having no protective loops. Group 2 had leaf-shaped blades with

As to the origins of the basal-looped spearheads, he rejected the fusion hypothesis because it did not explain the substantial increase in spearhead length with the basal-looped types, nor why fusion should manifest itself in the basal-looped form. He considered it more plausible that basal-looped spearheads were an Irish development from the larger kite-shaped and rapier-bladed spearheads (ibid. 56-7).

Fig. 2:7 Basal-looped spearheads from Southern Britain (Rowlands 1976) Group 1 Leaf shaped, flat blade Group 2 Leaf shaped, with blade ribs Group 3 Triangular blade Unidentified Total

12 86 94 6 198

17

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

2.9 Margaret Ehrenberg (1977): Upper Thames Valley

loops would not have been functional for securing the head to the shaft, and that the shaft may have merely been wedged into the socket of the spearhead (ibid., 7).

Ehrenberg’s study was based on her catalogue of spearheads from Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, counties dominated geographically by the Upper Thames Valley. She criticised the Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 458) classification in that it implied a chronology and relationship between types that she considered were no longer valid. She suggested a new terminology for the different spearhead types. This is shown below, together with the Greenwell and Brewis classes which she continued to use for clarity, and the numbers of spearheads in the study area (Ehrenberg 1977, 1 and 57-8).

She considered that the origins of the side-looped type were unclear. She rejected the fusion hypothesis, pointing out that “few” Continental spearheads of the period have been recognised in the British Isles. A more plausible alternative was that the type may have been developed in Ireland or Britain, from the kite-shaped spearheads (ibid., 8). Ehrenberg followed Rowlands’ summary of evidence on the chronology of side-looped spearheads, and agreed that their main period of use started in the Ornament Horizon with manufacture continuing into the Late Bronze Age. She made the important point that production may have started earlier, because the record of Acton Park hoards was extremely small (ibid., 8-9 and fig 2).

Fig. 2:8 Spearhead description, and numbers of spearheads from Berks, Bucks and Oxford (Ehrenberg 1977) Class

Description

Basal-looped spearheads She distinguished two distinctive types of basal-looped spearhead – those with leaf-shaped blades and those with triangular blades. For the leaf-shaped type, she noted that the position of maximum width was between 25% and 50% up the blade length. She described the loops as being formed as “continuations of the edges of the blade”. This description covered both those in which the loop was incorporated within the curved arc of the blade, and those with loops that clearly projected below the curve of the blade, as can be seen from the illustrations in her catalogue (ibid., fig 14, nos 19, 106). The midrib was lozenge-shaped, and one example had a ridge. Loop plates were lozenge-shaped (ibid., 10).

Number

I

Tanged

2

II

End-looped

1

III

Kite-shaped

2

IV

Side-looped

47

IIIa

Basal-looped

24* (13 leaf-shaped,

IVa

Rapier-bladed

V

Pegged

VI

Barbed

11 triangular) 1 50 7

Total

134

Ferrules

4

* The numbers in the present study have been augmented to 32, of which 15 are leaf-shaped by Ehrenberg’s definition, 12

The triangular-bladed type had projecting loops, some with horizontal blade bases, others with rounded blade bases. Midribs were circular, and loop plates narrow (rectangular). She noted that some had rivet holes in the socket, which may have been added subsequent to the date of manufacture (ibid., 11).

are triangular and 5 are unidentified as to blade shape.

Side-looped spearheads She applied the term “leaf-shaped” to the blades in the side-looped category, but recognised a variety of blade shapes encompassed by this term. She used the useful measurement of “point of maximum width up the blade” to distinguish between two different blade shapes – those with the maximum point near the centre of the blade, and those with it low down the blade close to the socket. However she did not follow through by defining the point of differentiation numerically (ibid., 7). She also identified that some spearheads had ogival-shaped blades due either to the shape of the original mould, or as a result of subsequent sharpening. Midribs were either circular or lozenge-shaped, with two examples in her study area having ridges on the lozenge midrib. She noted that the apertures of the loops were normally very small, making it difficult to attach bindings. Indeed, two examples had apertures which were not properly formed because of faulty casting. She suggested that, in these cases, the

As with the side-looped spearheads, she considered that the origins of the basal-looped spearheads were unclear. She appeared to support Rowlands’ hypothesis that the type originated in Ireland (ibid., 10; Rowlands 1976, 57). She speculated that the basal loops may have been easier to manufacture and stronger than side loops. Based on hoard evidence, she considered that the leaf-shaped was the original basal-looped type, dating to the Taunton period, and that it was replaced by the triangular-bladed type in the Penard phase, continuing into the Late Bronze Age (Ehrenberg 1977, 10-11). Ehrenberg considered that there was considerable overlap in the production of spearhead types, based on hoard evidence (ibid., fig 2). The model she proposed was that the side-looped type had its main period of use during the 18

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Side-looped spearheads (PLATE 86) Ramsey traced the evolution among side-looped spearheads from kite-shaped blades with angled and concave bases to those with curved bases which could be described as leaf-shaped blades. He pointed out that the “leaf” analogy covered a wide range of blade shapes from oval to flame, dependant on blade width, and the position of the maximum width of the blade (Ramsey 1989, 47). The later stages of the side-looped series in Ireland saw experimentation with blade shape and loop position. This was manifest in the rapier-bladed spearheads (ibid., Type Gara, nos. 487-493), and those with leaf-shaped blades and the loops positioned asymmetrically on the socket, or tucked immediately below the blade (ibid., Type Lagore, nos. 546-8, and Type Larkfield nos. 516-545). With this proliferation of designs, the side-looped series provided sufficient evidence of potential intermediate types to demonstrate that the basal-looped spearheads were an indigenous development. Ramsey therefore dismissed the need for the fusion hypothesis of influence from Continental leafshaped blades (ibid., 57; Evans 1933, 197). On the evidence of the intermediate types, he considered that the basal-looped spearheads originated in Ireland, but that the numerical strength of distribution in Britain suggested that there were centres of manufacture in both countries (Ramsey 1989, 96-97).

later part of the Acton Park and the Taunton phases, with use continuing into the Late Bronze Age. Leaf-shaped basal-looped spearheads had their main period of use during the Taunton phase, contemporary with the sidelooped type. Production of leaf-shaped basal-looped spearheads ceased at the end of the Taunton phase, and was replaced in the Penard phase by the triangular basallooped spearheads, which continued into the Late Bronze Age. The Class V riveted, leaf-shaped spearheads first appeared during the Penard phase, and were the prevailing form during the Late Bronze Age. They were introduced from the Continent, alongside other Continental metalwork types, such as the flange-hilted swords (ibid., 13).

2.10

Greer Ramsey (1989): Ireland (PLATES 86-7)

In his thesis on Middle Bronze Age weapons in Ireland, Ramsey was the first to collect a comprehensive database of Irish spearheads for the period. This enabled him to establish the relative numerical importance of the different types, and the diversity of designs produced by the Irish industry. He distinguished the main groups within the Irish Middle Bronze Age sequence using loop type as the primary mode of definition. This was then subdivided on secondary criteria, which were the position of the loops on the socket, blade shape and decorative features (Ramsey 1989, 43). The main Middle Bronze Age groups were identified as side-looped, basal-looped and protected-loop. The numbers of spearheads in his catalogue are listed in FIG. 2:9 and compared to those for Southern Britain. This show that, in the side-looped category, kite-shaped were more numerous than leafshaped in Ireland, while the reverse was true in Southern Britain (Rowlands 1976, 51-2).

Basal-looped spearheads (PLATE 87) In developing a typology for the basal-looped series Ramsey made the initial division on the basis of the position of the loops. He defined them as “incorporated” when the loops were within the curved arc of the blade edges, and “projecting” when the loops interrupted the junction of the blade edge and the socket, projecting below it (ibid, 69). A further criterion was the position of the maximum blade width up the blade. This concept was first used by Ehrenberg (1979, 7), but Ramsey used it on a systematic basis, and included this measurement in his database. A third criterion was the presence of a lozenge-shaped midrib, and/or a midrib ridge. He considered that both of these were decorative, but also functioned as strengtheners (Ramsey 1989, 46).

Fig. 2:9 Comparison of Middle Bronze Age spearheads from Ireland and Southern Britain Ireland

Southern Britain

He used type sites as his method of type identification, and they can be summarised as follows. The types were further subdivided into variants to differentiate those with decorative midribs.

(Ramsey 1989) (Rowlands 1976)

Side-looped: kite-shaped* 363 17 leaf-shaped* 178 242 rapier-bladed 7 2 miscellaneous 51 0 Basal-looped 136 198 Protected-loop 34 4 Total 769 463 * Ramsey’s Type Derrygill A is interpreted here as Class III and Type Derrygill B as Class IV.

1. Carrowreagh. Projecting loops; triangular blade with the position of maximum blade width no more than 10% up the blade; blade base either horizontal or angled (ibid., 69). 2. Corrib. Projecting loops; leaf-shaped blade with the position of maximum blade width over 10% up the blade; blade base curved (ibid., 70). 19

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

for throwing, and the larger basal-looped and protectedloop spearheads were hand-held in combat. The largest spearheads which were unwieldy as weapons may have only had ceremonial functions – for display and ritual deposition (ibid., 100-2).

Apart from blade base type, the crucial difference between these two types was the position of maximum blade width, the average for Type Carrowreagh being 6% up the blade and for Type Corrib being 33%. 3. Tempo. Projecting loops; leaf shaped blade with curved base. This small group was differentiated from Type Corrib by its homogenous design, immaculate finish and fine workmanship (ibid., 74). 4. Kish. Incorporated loops. This type covered both oval- and flame-shaped blades, and was undifferentiated by the position of maximum blade width (ibid., 74).

2.11

A consensus appears to have developed on the origin of the looped spearheads with leaf-shaped blades. The fusion hypothesis of a hybridisation of the British loops and Continental leaf-shaped blades (Coffey 1893-6; Evans 1933; Hawkes 1941) has been replaced by the indigenous development hypothesis, first proposed by Greenwell and Brewis (1909), and adopted by Rowlands (1976), Ehrenberg (1977) and Ramsey (1989), who had the advantage of starting from comprehensive catalogues for their study areas. Transitional stages between kiteshaped, side-looped and basal-looped spearheads have been identified, while evidence is lacking for Continental leaf-shaped spearheads being present in the British Isles during the relevant period.

Fig. 2:10 Irish basal-looped spearheads by type (Ramsey 1989) Projecting loop: Triangular, horizontal/angled base Leaf-shaped with curved base Special leaf-shaped Total projecting loop Incorporated loop Miscellaneous

(Carrowreagh) (Corrib) (Tempo) (Kish) Total

Summary

26 31 5 62 58 16 136

Greenwell and Brewis’s (1909) indigenous development hypothesis was also used to account for the origin of the leaf-shaped, riveted series which dominated the Late Bronze Age in the British Isles. This attribution has been generally superseded. There is ample evidence that these spearheads were one of a number of Continental metalwork types, including the flange-hilted sword, that were adopted in the British Isles at this time – the result of increasing cross-Channel contact (Ehrenberg 1977, 13).

Based on Irish, British and Continental hoard associations, he considered that the basal-looped series originated in the Early Bishopsland/Taunton phase, and continued into the Late Bronze Age. In his view, this confirmed the hypothesis that the basal-looped spearheads evolved from the leaf-shaped, side-looped spearheads, which had an earlier date of origin. He did not propose a chronological sequence within the basal-looped category other than that the Tempo group came at the end of the series in the Late Bronze Age (ibid., 81-2).

The chronological sequence of the looped series has not been firmly resolved. Evans (1933) proposed that Class IV side-looped and Class IIIa basal-looped were contemporary, and were both developments of Class III kite-shaped. Through the interpretation of hoard and settlement site evidence, the origins of both Classes IV and IIIa were attributed to the Ornament Horizon in the Taunton phase. They had their currency throughout the rest of the Middle Bronze Age, and occasionally both appeared in Late Bronze Age hoards (Hawkes 1941; Coles 1963-4; Rowlands 1976). Ehrenberg (1977, 8 and fig 2) made the important point that there were very few hoards from the Acton Park phase, and it was possible that Class IV spearheads (and logically, but not stated by Ehrenberg, Class IIIa spearheads) could have originated during this phase. Variants of side-looped (including kite-shaped and leaf-shaped) spearheads were more prevalent in Ireland, and Ramsey noted intermediary types which marked the migration of the loops up the socket. These were side-looped spearheads with rapier blades, and with loops tucked under the blade (Ramsey

On the issue of the function of the loops, he made the assumption that they were used to secure the head to the shaft. As support, he quoted Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 449) who had observed that when the looped types had died out, they were replaced by spearheads with rivet holes, which suggested that some device was required to secure head to shaft (Ramsey 1989, 56). He explored the possible uses for the Middle Bronze Age spearheads, considering that they had the potential to fulfil three functions – warfare, hunting and display/ prestige. Since there was no evidence for the use of horses in warfare in Ireland during this period, spearheads would not have been for either lances used by cavalry, or pikes to defend against cavalry. They therefore would have been thrown or hand-held. He suggested that thrusting was the function of hand-held spears, ignoring the other versatile moves of which the hand-held spear was capable. Accepting the lack of evidence, he speculated that the small spearheads, mainly side-looped, were used 20

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

1989, Type Gara nos. 487-493 and Type Larkfield nos. 516-545). This suggests that Class IV preceded Class IIIa. If correct, it highlights the limitation of hoard evidence in fully establishing the relative chronology.

Numbers of Bronze Age spearheads, broken down by category, were estimated in some of the studies listed above, relating to their area of coverage (Coles 1959-60, 1963-4; 1968-9; Ehrenberg 1977). To this can be added corpus data from S.M. Pearce (1983) for South Western Britain, P.M. Vine (1987) for Central England, and the collection of the Museum of London, covering the Lower Thames area (Museum of London computer register, interrogated 3/2002).

The use of the loops as the sole method of securing the spearhead to the shaft has been questioned by a number of authors (Coffey 1893-6, 502; Evans 1933, 192; Ehrenberg 1977, 7). The basis of their argument was that the apertures of a number of loops were too small for bindings to be threaded through them. Additionally, some of the larger basal-looped and protected-loop spearheads had long sockets which separated the loops from the shaft to such an extent that it would have been difficult to secure any bindings effectively. In some of these cases, the socket mouths were observed to have been constricted through hammering, which may have been an alternative method of securing the spearhead. This is discussed further in CHAPTER 12.

The breakdown of spearhead type within this sample is listed in FIG. 2.11 below, based on the Greenwell and Brewis classification (1909). A total for the five regions of Britain that are covered is included, but it must be emphasised that this total cannot be considered representative of Britain as a whole.

Fig. 2:11 Analysis of spearheads by Greenwell & Brewis Classes (1909) Lower Upper SW Central Scotland TOTAL CLASS Thames Thames Britain England five regions I Tanged 1 2 4 2 2 11 1% II Early socketed 1 1 2 2 0 6 1% III Kite-shaped 1 2 5 7 26 41 5% IIIa Basal-looped 35 24 20 38 21 138 16% IV Side-looped 18 47 24 85 59 233 27% IVa Rapier-bladed 0 1 0 0 0 1 0% IVb Protected-loop 0 0 0 0 3 3 0% V, a, b, c. Riveted 88 50 33 114 113 398 45% VI Barbed 6 7 5 25 1 44 5% Total 150 134 93 273 225 875 100% Sources: Museum of London computer register 3/2002; Ehrenberg 1977; Pearce 1983; Vine 1987; Coles 1959-60, 1963-4, 1968-9.

21

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

3.

RESEARCH METHODS Ehrenberg for the Upper Thames Valley (1977). A detailed search of books and journals was then carried out.

The basic research in this study involved the creation of a catalogue of all basal-looped spearheads. The first stage was to search the main literature to develop a comprehensive listing of the spearheads by find site and their present whereabouts. These sources were Rowlands for Southern Britain and the Continent (1976), Vine for the Midlands (1987), Burgess for Northern England (1968a), Coles for Scotland (1963-4), Savory for Wales (1980), Briard (1963) and Jacob-Friesen (1967) for the Continent. This was amplified by other regional studies that had a catalogue, including Pendleton for East Anglia (1999), Pearce for South Western Britain (1983) and

The museums which were recorded as having basallooped spearheads in their collection were approached and asked to supply a copy of accession records, photos or drawings, and any other relevant information. This enquiry was followed up to ensure a 100% response. Other museums with collections of Bronze Age metalwork, but no listing of basal-looped spearheads, were also approached (APPENDIX 1).

Fig. 3:1 Database fields 1. Item number. 2. Geographical region: Ireland, Britain, Continent. 3. Type: initially left vacant to insert the proposed typological classification. Dimensions 4. Length (mm). 5. Width (mm). 6. Position of maximum width as a percentage up the blade. For spearheads with incorporated loops, this was measured from the blade/socket junction (FIG. 4:1). For spearheads with projecting loops, it was measured from the blade/loop junction, since in this case the loops are not an integral part of the line of the blade edge (rationale in CHAPTER 4.4). 7. Weight (g). Attributes 8. Blade surface: narrow channel, wide channel, flat. 9. Type of blade base: horizontal, angled, curved (only present where there are projecting loops). 10. Shape of midrib section: lozenge, circular/oval. 11. Position of loops: incorporated within blade, projecting below blade. 12. Shape of loop plates: lozenge, rectangular, none. 13. Decoration: present, not present. 14. Midrib ridge: present, not present. 15. Rivet holes: present, not present. Find details 16. Context: river, wet, dry special, dry unspecified, not available. 17. Method of recovery: dredging, agriculture, construction, quarrying, excavation, metal detector, chance find, not available. 18. Date of recovery: 18th century, 19th century, first half 20th century, second half 20th century and to the present, not available. Condition (CHAPTER 9) 19. Blade break: present, not present. 20. Socket break: present, not present. 21. Bent blade: present, not present. 22. Any break or bend: present, not present. 23. Condition of blade edges on a 5 point scale. 1 pristine to 5 severe damage. 24. Cracked channel: present, not present. 25. Damaged socket: present, not present. 26. Casting flaw: present, not present. 27. Damaged loop plate: present, not present. Source of illustrations 28. From actual spearhead, from illustrations, not available.

22

3. RESEARCH METHODS

Where the actual spearhead could not be studied, the proforma was completed from the information provided by the museum or from the literature. An illustration was made from available photographs, drawings, sketches or a photocopy of the artefact placed on the photocopier glass. Even if an existing illustration was of the highest quality, it was normally reillustrated it so that a common format was maintained throughout the corpus. Some illustrations were from references of a very poor quality, and for these, a degree of interpretation was required in preparing the illustration. In a few cases, a spearhead was recorded in the literature, but no details of its design or visual representation were in existence. These spearheads were included in the corpus, but normally not attributed to a particular typological classification, and not illustrated.

The next stage was to arrange visits to the museums in the British Isles with basal-looped spearheads. In all, forty eight museums were visited. It was not economically feasible to visit museums on the Continent. All the basal-looped spearheads in the museums were studied, with items taken off display where necessary. The procedure was to make a 1:1 scale drawing of each artefact, marking in all the design attributes. Photographs were taken for reference purposes only. A proforma was completed for each spearhead, listing all the information to be collected. This included accession and find details, dimensions, weight, description of attributes, condition and colour. Each spearhead was examined with a x10 magnification lens to evaluate various aspects of its condition. The information for each spearhead was entered into the catalogue, following a common format and terminology. The information was also entered into an Apple Works v6.2.2 database. The data recorded included artefact number, geographic region, various measurements and attributes, context information, damage and condition. A field was left blank to enter the typological classification, and filled in once the data was analysed. In all there are 28 fields for each artefact. For the illustrations, detailed ink copies were made of the scale drawings prepared at the museum, resulting in publication quality images to a common format. The illustrations included one face of the spearhead, the midrib/blade cross section, and the loop plate. These were then scanned and reduced to one third scale.

Fig. 3:2 Sources of illustrations in the study Drawn from the actual spearhead Redrawn from museum or published source No illustration available Total

23

Number 371 154 26 551

% 67 28 5 100

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

4.

4.1

TYPOLOGY

Objectives

4.2

Definitions

From the earliest classifications of Bronze Age spearheads in the British Isles, spearheads with basalloops have been considered one of the main classes (Wilde 1861, 495; Evans 1881, 311; Coffey 1893-6, 487). The objectives in determining a typology for the basallooped class are to identify:-

The first stage in the typological process is the definition of the terms used to describe the parts of a basal-looped spearhead. All the terms have been used in spearhead studies, but may have had different shades of meaning. Some parts are of necessity defined in relation to other parts. The various parts are identified in FIG. 4:1.

1. The design origins of the basal-looped series. 2. The origins of the different basal-looped types and their distinctive attributes (typologically and geographically). 3. A chronology for the basal-looped types. 4. The diffusion/contact routes demonstrated by the spatial distribution of the types/attributes. 5. Differences in use of the spearheads.

Blade. A term encompassing all the spearhead above the socket, including blade wings, midrib, and loop plates. Blade wings. The areas projecting from the midrib from tip to socket, or from above the loops in spearheads with projecting loops. Tip. The point at the apex of the blade. Blade edge. The outer edge of the blade wing from the tip to the point where it joins the loop plate or socket. Blade/socket junction. The point at which the blade edge meets the socket on spearheads with incorporated loops. Blade/loop junction. The point at which the blade edge meets the top of the loop plate on spearheads with projecting loops. Blade base. The section of the blade edge which extends outwards from the blade/loop junction, before it turns upwards towards the tip. This only applies to spearheads with projecting loops. Blade rib. A raised rib on the blade wing, normally running from tip to loop. Bevel. A narrow facet on the blade wing sloping down to the blade edge. Channel. The area of the blade wing between blade rib and midrib. Midrib. The continuation of the socket into the blade, into which the shaft is inserted. Midrib section. The profile of the midrib, as if it were cut straight across. Midrib ridge. A raised ridge running along the centre of the midrib on both sides. Socket. The cylinder below the blade, hollow to hold the shaft. Socket mouth. The base of the socket. Loops. The apertures at the base of the blade. Loop plates. The metal on the outside of the loop apertures. Rivet holes. Holes in the socket, designed to take rivets to secure the spearhead to the shaft. These are also referred to as holes to take pegs or pins (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, 468), but the term rivet is used throughout this study for consistency and clarity. The shaft is the wooden pole inserted into the socket and midrib. The spearhead is the metal artefact that fits onto the shaft. Together they form the spear.

As noted in CHAPTER 2.11, previous authors have variously attributed the origin to kite-shaped spearheads (Class III), side-looped spearheads (Class IV), and a fusion between leaf-shaped blades from the Continent and loops from the British Isles (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, 449; Evans 1933, 197). The period of use for the various types of basal-looped spearheads is also unclear, particularly the extent to which the series continued into the Late Bronze Age (Ehrenberg 1979, fig 2). Two further objectives are established in relation to the typological process employed:6. The typology should be simple, workable and appropriate to the size of the group. It is recognised that the definition of the basal-looped spearhead group already represents two levels of subdivision within the Bronze Age spearheads from the British Isles – firstly between riveted and looped (Franks 1863, 151), and secondly on the position of the loops (Wilde 1861, 495). 7. Clear verbal definitions of attributes should be used, with mathematical criteria where appropriate. The common theme of typological theory since the advent of the New Archaeology has been the need to apply scientific methods where possible throughout the process. One measure of the success of the process will be that the results in the proposed typology can be replicated by other people using the definitions and the database, and that they would draw the same conclusions on the type attribution for the existing artefacts and any new artefacts that may be discovered (Clarke 1978; Orton 1980; Adams 1988; Dark 1995).

24

4. TYPOLOGY

1983), and the German noun Lanze, a spear (eg. Jacob-Friesen 1967).

Fig 4:1 Spearhead descriptive terms

In this study, spear is used as a generic term, since the function is not apparent from the archaeological record. When function needs to be specified, the terms hand-held spear and javelin (thrown spear) are used. The term attribute in relation to an artefact is defined by Clarke (1978, 154) as a physical trait or characteristic of an artefact, and in more complex terminology as “a logically irreducible character of two or more states, acting as an independent variable within a specific artefact system” (ibid., 489). Each aspect of an artefact potentially has a number of attributes that can be described verbally or numerically, eg. the attribute of the midrib section may be defined as either circular or lozenge shaped; the attribute of decoration may be either present or absent; the attribute of the length may be 450-499mm, 500mm-549mm, etc.

Other definitions Various terms are used in place of spear to describe its function and characteristics. However the usage is often confusing and contradictory. Evans (1881, 311) considered that a spear was hand-held, and a lance was thrown. Drews (1993, 191) distinguished between spear and lance in a different way. He defined a spear as being held in one hand with a shield held in the other, while a lance was a larger weapon, normally wielded with both hands. The Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition, 1989) has a different and more specific definition of a lance as “a weapon, consisting of a long wooden shaft and an iron or steel head, held by a horseman in charging at full speed, and sustained formally by a rest, now by a strap, through which the arm is passed”. In contrast, the long shafted spear used by the infantry to face a cavalry charge is termed a pike. However, lance is regularly used in academic literature as a synonym for a spear or more particularly for a throwing spear (Harding 2000, 281). This may be related to the French verb lancer, to throw, and the noun, un lance, a spear (eg Briard & Mohen

The term typology is defined as the ordering of artefacts within a specified group into mutually exclusive categories for the purpose of identifying a chronological sequence and spatial differences between the categories.

4.3

Basal-looped spearhead typology

The proposed basal-looped spearhead typology is described below. The diagnostic attributes for each type are listed, and the methods by which these attributes can be verified. The detailed rationale for this typological model follows in CHAPTER 4.4. Type 1: Transitional (PLATE 1) Attributes relating to side-looped spearhead types:- kiteshaped blade, concave blade base, projecting loops in flange form, loop plates intruding into the blade. Criteria identified by observation. 25

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

Type 2: Leaf (PLATES 2-8) Loops incorporated into the blade. Position of maximum width at 33% or more up the blade, measured from the blade/socket junction. Criteria identified from the database.

and curved with incorporated loops. Midrib section normally lozenge-shaped. Short socket. Overall length in the top quartile. A crucial criterion is the subjective description of “immaculate finish” and high level of workmanship (Ramsey 1989, 74). Criteria identified by observation and the database.

Type 3: Flame (PLATES 9-18) Loops incorporated into the blade. Position of maximum blade at 32% or less up the blade, measured from the blade/socket junction. Criteria identified from the database.

Type 9: Drilled loops (PLATE 42) Circular loops drilled in the base of the blade, with no provision in the mould for loops, and no loop plates. Criteria identified by observation.

Type 4: Ogival (PLATE 19) Identical criteria to Type 3, but the blade becomes concave in the upper section. Overall length is in the top quartile – over 370mm. The diagnostic attribute of concave blade is identified by observation, the remaining attributes from the database.

Unidentified (PLATE 43) Reworked spearheads and fragments, whose original complete form can no longer be identified. These have attributes that are diagnostic of basal-looped spearheads, namely traces of the loops or the distinctive cross section of blade, blade ribs and midrib. This category also includes spearheads that have been recorded as basallooped, but are no longer available for study and are not illustrated in the records.

Type 5: Flame, projecting loops (PLATES 20-21) Projecting loops. Position of maximum blade width at 15% or more up the blade, measured from the blade/loop junction. Criteria identified from the database.

A chart modelling the attribute hierarchy is shown in FIG. 4:2. It demonstrates the alternative choices at two levels by which the artefacts may be allocated to their correct type.

Type 6: Triangular (PLATES 22-34) Projecting loops, blade base normally horizontal or angled. Position of maximum width at 14% or less up the blade, measured from the blade/loop junction. Blade ribs aligned to blade edges. Criteria identified from the database.

4.4 Rationale for basal-looped spearhead typology

Type 7: Narrow channel (PLATES 35-39) Identical criteria to Type 6, except blade ribs aligned to midrib, creating narrow channels. Criteria identified from the database.

The two main criteria for type definition employed by previous authors have been used as the starting point for creating this typology for basal-looped spearheads. These are the position of the loops (Ramsey 1989, 69) and the shape of the blade (Coles 1963-4, 106; Rowlands 1976, 57-8). Based on a study of the illustrations in the corpus, it can be argued that these features contribute most to the apparent differences in form of the spearheads.

Type 8: Late Irish/Scottish (PLATES 40-41) Narrow channels, large rectangular loops and loop plates, rivet holes. Three different blade base attributes – curved with projecting loops, horizontal with projecting loops,

Fig. 4:2. Model of attribute hierarchy among basal-looped spearheads BASAL LOOPS

TRANSITIONAL TYPE 1

LEAF PWP 33+ TYPE 2

INCORPORATED LOOPS

PROJECTING LOOPS

FLAME PWP 32-

OGIVAL

FLAME PWP 15+

TYPE 3

TYPE 4

TYPE 5

PWP = position of widest point (%)

26

LATE IRISH/ SCOTTISH TYPE 8

TRIANGULAR PWP 14TYPE 6

NARROW CHANNEL TYPE 7

DRILLED LOOPS TYPE 9

4. TYPOLOGY

Ramsey (1989, 69) used the position of the loops as his primary parameter for type definition. When the loops were within the curved arc of the blade edges, he described them as “incorporated”. When they interrupted the junction of the blade edge and the socket, and projected below it, he described them as “projecting”. There is a problem of intergrading with these definitions. In some cases, the curved arc of the blade is only slightly interrupted at the blade/loop junction. This may have been planned in the mould, or it may well have been caused by the finishing process in which the loop plates were expanded by hammering, and pressed inwards. In this study, if the indentation is a smooth, concave arc between the convex curves of the blade edge and loop plate, it is considered to be “incorporated”. If the indentation is marked by a distinct break in the line of the blade edge, it is defined as “projecting”. This is one of the borderline cases described by Adams as being difficult to determine (Adams 1988, 45).

The “frontier” in Orton’s terminology (Orton 1980, 35 figs 2: 9-11) is defined as being at 33%. Those with the attribute of the widest point at 33% or more are termed “Leaf” – equating to Rowlands’ (1976, 52) “Ivy” subdivision. Those at 32% or less are termed “Flame”, the same term as that used by Rowlands. The difference in form of these two attributes is apparent through observation of the artefacts as well as through the numerical definition, though it is accepted that there is a degree of intergrading in the 31% to 34% range.

A number of terms have been used by various authors to describe the shape of the blade. The main distinction has been made between leaf-shaped and triangular-shaped (Coles 1963-4, 106; Rowlands 1976, 58; Ehrenberg 1979, 10-11). The descriptive term “leaf-shaped” for sidelooped and basal-looped spearheads has been amplified by additional descriptive terms, identifying further variations. For Rowlands (1976, 52), those blades with an oval appearance were described as “ivy” shaped, while those tapering to the tip were “flame” shaped. Ehrenberg (1979, 7) used the term “ogival” for those with a concave section in the upper blade. Ehrenberg noted that an important aspect of the shape was the position of maximum width up the blade (ibid., 7), and Ramsey (1989, 71) quantified this using the ratio measurement of blade length divided by the position of the maximum width.

Two methods of defining the difference were tested. The first was to use the form of the blade base, with the hypothesis that the horizontal or angled base equated with the triangular blade, and a curved base equated to the expanded blade. This correlation did not apply in a number of cases and so was rejected. A more successful criterion was to use the position of maximum width, this time measuring the blade from blade/loop junction to the tip. When the figures were charted (FIG. 4:4), a bimodal pattern could be discerned, with the “frontier” at 15% up the blade. Those with the widest point at 15% or more had the expanded blade form and were termed “Flame, projecting loops”. Those at 14% or less were termed “Triangular” – the addition of “projecting loops” was unnecessary in this case because there is no type described as triangular with incorporated loops.

When the group with projecting loops was studied, it became clear that not all had blades that were triangular in form. There was a relatively small but distinct subdivision of those whose blades expanded to a marked degree from the end of the blade base, before turning inwards towards the tip. Their blade form was similar to the “flame” shape of those spearheads with incorporated loops.

Again there was a degree of intergrading of attributes in that the blade edges in many of the triangular type expanded briefly from the blade base, but only for a very short distance along the blade edge, as measured by the widest point analysis.

In the present study, the spearheads with incorporated loops are divided further, based on blade shape. The difference is defined by the position of maximum width, which is measured as a percentage up the blade from the blade/socket junction. When the information for all the spearheads in the “incorporated loops” category was calculated and charted, a bimodal pattern was evident (FIG 4:3).

Fig. 4:4 Spearheads with protected loops: position of maximum width from blade/loop junction

Fig. 4:3 Spearheads with incorporated loops: position of maximum width from blade/socket junction

Number 16

Number 30

SPEARS

25 20 15 10 5 0 8 10 12 14 16 18

“Frontier” I I I I I I I I I l 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44

SPEARS

14 12

“Frontier” I I I I I I l l

10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1

46%

27

2

3 4

5

6 7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 %

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

looped spearheads (Coles 1963-4, 106; Ehrenberg 1979, 7). Seven such spearheads are present in the basal-looped corpus. All are large, have lozenge midribs, wide channels and bevelled edges. As with the Late Irish/ Scottish type, they are all impressively crafted artefacts. They have been defined as a separate type and termed “Ogival”.

Combining the criteria of loop position and blade shape, an initial typological breakdown emerged:Incorporated loop* * Projecting loop * *

Leaf Flame Triangular Flame, projecting loops.

One of the objectives in establishing the typology was to shed light on the design origins of the basal-looped group. Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 449-450) saw the evolution to be directly from kite-shaped (Class III) to basal-looped. They illustrated an interesting transitional type from Bush Mills (ibid., pl 63, fig 20; PLATE 92) which had a kite-shaped blade with bands or flanges extending from the base of the blade to incorporate the loops. This band or flange was also present on Class IVa rapier-bladed spearheads (ibid., pl 77, fig 65). Ramsey (1989, 96-7) saw rapier-bladed spearheads – his Type Gara – and those with side loops tucked under the blades – Type Larkfield – as “the best typological indicators in the evolutionary sequence of development” towards basal-looped spearheads (PLATE 69). The artefacts within the corpus were scrutinised to identify any basallooped spearheads with attributes that may be diagnostic of an early transitional stage. The attributes sought were:-

The next stage in the typological process was to search for attributes or clusters of attributes that were sufficiently distinctive to warrant separation into additional types. Firstly, types proposed by previous authors were considered. Evans (1881, 331) drew special attention to the spearhead from Knockans, Co. Antrim 40:298. He considered it to be “remarkably fine, ... exhibits the peculiarity of having loops formed by the prolongation of small ribs on each side of the midrib”. Coffey (1893-6, 504) also considered it was “remarkable” and had distinctive features, and he noted two other spearheads of the same design from Ireland. Evans (1933, 192-3) elevated it to the status of a separate type – one of his four basal-looped types. Ramsey (1989, 74) also considered it to be a separate type, which he termed “Tempo” after one of the find sites. Ramsey described the diagnostic features as projecting loops, leaf-shaped blade with position of maximum width close to the blade/loop junction, lozenge-shaped midrib, narrow channels, bevelled blade edges and rivet holes. He also noted its “immaculate finish" which displayed the highest level of workmanship for metalwork of the period. Ramsey recorded five examples of this type in Ireland. The present study has identified one more example from Ireland and one from Scotland.

1. Kite-shaped blades. 2. Concave blade bases, characteristic of some kiteshaped spearheads. 3. Projecting loops in flange form, but sufficiently integrated with the blade to warrant inclusion as basal loops. 4. Loop plates which intruded into the blade, forming the complete half circle of the loops on side-looped spearheads. This could be seen as the next evolutionary stage from the “tucked under” side loops of Ramsey’s Type Larkfield.

Seven more spearheads display a number of the same characteristics, while differing in others. The characteristics that they all have in common are the “immaculate finish” and high level of craftsmanship noted by Ramsey, narrow channels, rectangular loops and loop plates, short sockets and rivet holes. All are large, and are heavy in relation to their length. The differences lie in the position of the loops and the form of the blade base.

Thirty spearheads and one mould were identified as having one or more of these attributes. They have been defined as a separate type, and termed “Transitional”. In processing the data on other attributes, a difference in blade surface suggested the creation of a further type. The three defined attributes of blade surface were wide channel, narrow channel and flat. Virtually all those with the narrow channel were found in spearheads with triangular blades and projecting loops, and also the Late Irish/Scottish type, for which it has been defined as a key diagnostic attribute. The geographical distribution of the narrow channel (excluding the Late Irish/Scottish type) was concentrated in the Thames Valley which accounted for 52% of spearheads with this attribute. On the basis of these factors, it was judged that the key attributes of narrow channel in conjunction with projecting loops were sufficient to define a separate type (but excluding the Late Irish/Scottish type). This type was termed “Narrow channel”.

The whole group is provenanced from Ireland or Scotland, apart from one from Northern England, but that has Scottish associations (CHAPTER 5.8). Seven out of the fourteen spearheads came from hoards with associated artefacts from the Late Bronze Age. This group fits the polythetic model defined by Clarke (1978, 36): “each entity possesses a large number of the attributes of the group, each attribute is shared by large numbers of entities, and no single attribute is both sufficient and necessary to group membership”. The group has therefore been added to the list of basal-looped types and has been termed “Late Irish/Scottish”. Another distinctive characteristic noted by earlier authors is the ogival blade shape among side-looped and basal28

4. TYPOLOGY

morphological differentiation can be made. Spearheads have therefore not been separated into types on the basis of length alone.

A small number of spearheads within the corpus have drilled holes in the base of flat blade wings, rather than loops formed or positioned through the moulding process. The reason that this attribute is considered distinctive is that it is normally found only in spearheads from Sicily, Italy, the Greek sanctuaries and Hungary, and is mainly dated to the 8th century BC (CHAPTER 7.4, and PLATES 97-8). The implication is that the spearheads from the British Isles with this attribute may be of exotic origin or influence. It is quite probable that a number of them were not brought into the British Isles in antiquity, but were imported by modern collectors. There are nine spearheads with drilled loops from the British Isles, five of which are unprovenanced. They have been defined as a separate type and termed “Drilled loops”.

A number of attributes were shown to be present across several of the defined types. These included the presence of incised decoration, midrib ridges and rivet holes. Decoration and midrib ridges were often present on the same artefact. These attributes are of particular importance in that they have distinctive distribution patterns, and may be helpful in tracing origins and diffusion. While it may be feasible to create a number of type-variants to accommodate these attributes, it would lead to substantial proliferation within the typology. This would conflict with the objective of keeping the typology simple, so these attributes are subsumed within the existing types, and the data relating to them is analysed and discussed separately.

This completes the list of types identified to make up the basal-looped spearhead series. Thirty nine in the corpus are termed “Unidentified”. These are either fragments or have been corroded or reworked so that their attributes can no longer be discerned. They also include spearheads that have been recorded as basal-looped, but are no longer available for study and are not illustrated in the records.

The final stage in the typological process is to place the types in chronological sequence (FIG. 4.6). The process followed by Montelius is adopted here, using the context evidence of hoard and burial sites in relation to the types identified on the basis of spearhead attributes (Gräslund 1986, 11). Basal-looped spearheads have been found in 29 secure contexts with associated artefacts which are considered indicative of the basal-looped spearhead’s date. These are listed in FIG. 4:6, together with the type description of the basal-looped spearhead. The sites with associated metalwork are described in the CATALOGUE, and are illustrated on PLATES 45-67. The industrial phase sequence and dating is tabulated in FIG. 6:2.

Fig. 4.5 Length of basal-looped spearheads ALL BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS 120 100 80 60

SPEARS

40 20

50 10 99 014 15 9 01 20 99 02 25 49 02 30 99 03 35 49 03 40 99 04 45 49 04 50 99 05 55 49 059 9 60 0+

0

By definition, the Transitional type should be at the beginning of the sequence. This is supported by a single context, which indeed is attributed to the late Acton Park/ early Taunton phases. Examples of Leaf and Flame types are at the beginning of the basal-looped sequence in the Taunton phase, and appear to have been in contemporary use. The Triangular type follows the Leaf and Flame types, and is concentrated into the Penard phase. The Narrow channel type is present in just a single context and has Penard affiliations. This may be considered a contemporary variant of the Triangular type. There are no examples of a Flame, projecting loop type from a secure hoard. However the form of this type can be seen as a transition between Flame and Triangular types, suggesting a late Taunton/early Penard date. The Late Irish/Scottish type is clearly positioned at the end of the sequence in the Late Bronze Age.

mm

The wide range in the length of basal-looped spearheads is immediately apparent from the database. Both Evans (1881, 311) and Coffey (1893-6, 487) wished to find a way to distinguish between spears designed to be handheld, and those designed as projectiles. They speculated that it may be possible to distinguish by size, but were unable to identify any appropriate measurement frontier. There are several very small spearheads which may indeed have been used for projectiles – nine are under 100mm, and twenty one in total are under 120m. However, even with a comprehensive database that was unavailable to Evans and Coffey, potential frontiers can still not be identified in histograms depicting spearhead length (FIG. 4:5 and PLATES 88-9).

The chronology of the basal-looped types will be discussed in detail in CHAPTER 6. This will take into consideration all context associations whether clear or equivocal, radiocarbon detirminations, and metallurgical analyses.

A possible bimodal pattern may be discerned, divided at 300mm, but this is more likely to relate to size patterns for different types rather than an overall difference. In studying the illustrations in the PLATES of the corpus, it is clear that the forms of the spearheads below 120mm in length are replicated by spearheads of all sizes, so no

29

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

Fig. 4:6 Dating indications: basal-looped spearheads with associated artefacts in secure contexts Site number & name Industrial phase(British equivalent) 552 Toorglass Acton Park/Taunton 539 Liesbüttel Acton Park/Taunton 210-1 Horrington Hill Acton Park/Taunton 216 Taunton Workhouse Taunton 212 Horrington Hill Acton Park/Taunton 67 Blandford Taunton 148 Brading Marsh Taunton 159-60 Boughton Fen Taunton 215 Sherford Taunton 260 Glentrool Taunton 500 Grammond Taunton 166-75 Stibbard Late Taunton/early Penard 140-2 Appleby Penard 146-7 Burringham Penard 180 Farnley Penard 181 Wallington Penard 249 Shelf Penard 281 Maentwrog Penard 494 Kergoustance Penard 523 Tirancourt Penard 550 Dainton Wilburton 57 Ambleside Penard 183 Harrogate Ewart Park 262 St Andrews Ewart Park 273 Pyotdykes Ewart Park 274 Carinish Ewart Park 321 Tempo Ewart Park 373 Knockanbaun Ewart Park 378 Gortagowan Ewart Park

30

Spear type 1: Transitional 2: Leaf 2: Leaf 2: Leaf 3: Flame 3: Flame 3: Flame 3: Flame 3: Flame 3: Flame 3: Flame 3: Flame 6: Triangular 6: Triangular 6: Triangular 6: Triangular 6: Triangular 6: Triangular 6: Triangular 6: Triangular 6: Triangular 7: Narrow channel 8: Late Irish/Scottish 8: Late Irish/Scottish 8: Late Irish/Scottish 8: Late Irish/Scottish 8: Late Irish/Scottish 8: Late Irish/Scottish 8: Late Irish/Scottish

5. THE CORPUS

5. THE BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEAD CORPUS

This section describes the basal-looped corpus in detail. Initially, figures for the total corpus are broken down by types, geographical regions and various attributes. The types are then discussed individually. Finally, three attributes which are present across a number of types are considered – incised decoration, midrib ridges and rivet holes. The issues of chronology and origins are covered separately in CHAPTER 6.

Fig. 5:1 Basal-looped spearheads: by Type 1: Transitional 2: Leaf 3: Flame 4: Ogival 5: Flame, projecting loops 6: Triangular 7: Narrow channel 8: Late Irish/Scottish 9: Drilled loops Unidentified Total

Numbering in the CATALOGUE follows the regional sequence of Britain, Ireland and the Continent. The breakdown of the countries into counties, départements, provinces or districts presented problems of definition with the various changes of local government administrative boundaries, a regular occurrence in Britain. An arbitrary decision has been taken to use the counties in England, Scotland and Wales defined by the 1973 Local Government reorganisation, which will allow direct comparison to the county definitions used by Rowlands (1976), Ehrenberg (1979) and Vine (1989). For Ireland and Northern Ireland, the traditional counties prior to the reorganisation in Northern Ireland are retained, to match the definitions used by Ramsey (1989) and Waddell (1998). The Continental divisions follow those used by Jacob-Friesen (1967).

Number 30 100 146 7 30 133 44 14 8 39 551

% 5 18 27 1 5 24 8 3 2 7 100%

Fig. 5:2 Basal-looped spearheads: by Region Britain Ireland Continent Total

Number 296 177 78 551

% 54 32 14 100%

Fig. 5:3 Basal-looped spearheads: by Attributes Note: information on the attributes of some spearheads is not available or identifiable, so totals do not necessarily match the figures above. The numbers are expressed as a percentage of those for which information is available.

While the CATALOGUE follows a regional and alphabetical sequence, the PLATES illustrating the corpus are in typological order, in descending order of length within each type or variant. This broadly matches the approach of Rowlands (1976) and Ehrenberg (1979). For ease of reference in the text, artefacts are referred to by their site name, followed by plate number and catalogue number: eg Tempo 40:321 (Plate 40, catalogue number 321). The list of sites at the beginning of the catalogue (PAGE 118) provides a cross reference for both catalogue and plate numbers.

Number Blade surface Blade rib Narrow channel Flat Total

384 62 72 518

74 12 14 100%

Total

226 304 530

43 57 100%

Total

300 218 518

58 42 100%

Total

271 210 23 504

54 41 5 100%

Midrib section Lozenge Circular Position of loops Incorporated Projecting

There are 551 basal-looped spearheads in the corpus. The breakdown by type, geographical area and attribute is tabulated in FIGS. 5:1-4. The significance of these figures will be discussed in the description of each individual type.

Loop plates Lozenge Rectangular None

There are also seven moulds for basal-looped spearheads. These are not included in the following analysis, but are discussed individually in CHAPTER 10:1.

%

Incised decoration 34 6%* Midrib ridges 94 17%• Rivet holes 76 14%* * % of total basal-looped spearheads

31

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

Fig. 5:4 Selected attributes by Type Type Midrib section: lozenge circular Loop plates: lozenge rectangular none Median length

No.

1 %

No.

%

3 No.

%

No.

14 16

47 53

62 37

63 37

82 64

56 44

7 0

14 47 6 20 10 33 121mm

Type Midrib section: lozenge circular Loop plates: lozenge rectangular none Median length

2

5

84 89 10 10 1 1 217mm

4

114 80 24 17 4 3 244mm

100 0

5 71 2 29 0 0 530mm

No.

%

6 No.

%

No.

%

8 No. %

No

14 16

47 53

17 116

13 87

5 39

11 89

12 2

226 304

17 59 12 41 0 0 219mm

7

%

27 22 97 78 0 0 344mm

2 4 41 96 0 0 383mm

86 57

0 0 14 100 0 0 397mm

Total* % 43 57

271 54 210 41 23 5 250mm

* Total figure represents the complete corpus for which information is available rather than just Types 1-8.

5.1

Type 1: Transitional (PLATE 1)

This group represents a progression in form from the side-looped spearheads with loops tucked below the blade (Ramsey 1989, Type Larkfield; PLATE 86).

The key diagnostic attribute of this type is a kite-shaped blade, characteristic of Class III spearheads. The type can be divided into three variants:-

Variant B: Kite-shaped blade with incorporated loops. 17 spearheads. The base in eight cases is angled from the socket, and forms another angle as it turns to run straight to the tip, forming a rhomboid or kite shape, as in Unprovenanced Ireland 1:431, 1:438, 1:442. The remainder of this variant have a similar rhomboidal blade shape, but the lines are smoothed with curved edges. These spearheads are among the shortest in the basal-looped series. They have the appearance of being the precursors of a number of longer Type 3 spearheads which have a wide curved base from which the blade edges run in a straight line to the tip (Langburnshiels 18:256, Kish 15:392, Unprovenanced Northern Ireland 15:395).

Variant A: Kite-shaped blade with projecting loops. 8 spearheads. Two of these, River Thames 1:114, and Unprovenanced Ireland 1:448, have concave bases, one of the characteristics of Ramsey’s (1989) Type Knockanearla (PLATE 86). Three have loops which extend from the blade base in a form similar to the flanges of some kite-shaped and rapier-bladed spearheads (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, fig 20; Ramsey 1989, Type Gara and Type Derrygill A; PLATE 86). These are Unprovenanced Ireland 1:445, Unprovenanced Wex-ford 1:390 and Castlereban North 1:335. The spearhead from Castlereban North is of further interest in that one of the flanges and loops is missing, probably as the result of miscasting, and a replacement aperture has been pierced within the blade. Unpro-venanced Ireland 1:450 has a large, angled base, with loops bulging from it. The mould from Toorglass 44:552 has similar attributes.

Variant C. Loop plates intrude into blade. 5 spearheads. These are small spearheads in which the loop plates continue from the loop/socket junction into the blade in a semicircle, and terminate at the midrib. 32

5. THE CORPUS

The incorporated loop attribute appears to be closely connected to lozenge loop plates, which are present on 84 of Type 2 spearheads (89% of those identifiable). The median length is 217mm, 13% below that for all basallooped spearheads (PLATE 88).

This attribute replicates the form of the loops on side-looped spearheads, before they migrated up the socket and into the blade. The variant is similar in form to Ramsey’s Type Knockbride side-looped spearhead (1989, nos 494-504; PLATE 86).

Distribution (PLATE 70). In Britain, Type 2 spearheads were concentrated in the Thames Valley (11), the Eastern Counties including East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the Trent Valley (10), and the Severn Estuary (8). Three spearheads have been recovered from counties facing Ireland – Crawford, Strathclyde 6:270, Ulverston, Cumbria 4:61, and New Gale Beach, Dyfed 6:279. In Ireland, distribution was concentrated in the central section of the country, though 13 of the 34 spearheads from Ireland were unprovenanced.

Distribution (PLATE 69) Type 1 is strongly weighted to Ireland, accounting for 24 spearheads, 80% of the total. These spearheads are generally short in overall length, with a median length at 121mm, as compared to 250mm for the complete basal-looped corpus (PLATE 88).

5.2

Type 2: Leaf (PLATES 2-8)

The 27 spearheads of this type with distribution on the Continent accounted for an unusually high percentage of Type 2 spearheads at 27%. This compares with the Continent's percentage of all basal-looped spearheads at 14%. Distribution was concentrated in Northeast France and the Low Countries. Eleven came from the Seine and its tributaries, one near the Somme and five from river and watery sites in Belgium and the Netherlands. Four came from burials in Germany and Switzerland.

This type comprises 100 spearheads and has a relatively homogeneous appearance. Its defining criteria are loops incorporated within the blade, and the point of maximum width at 33% or more up the blade, measured from the blade/socket junction. 62 spearheads from this type have lozenge-shaped midrib sections, the remainder being circular. Ramsey (1989, 45) considered that lozenge-shaped midribs were used because they were stronger and easier to cast in that the added thickness meant that there was less chance of casting flaws in this vulnerable area. This view is endorsed by the replica maker for the experimental programme in this Study (J. Mainwaring pers. comm., 10/12/03). As casting technology improved, there was a move to the circular midrib section shape, either to save raw material or for aesthetic reasons. In the Class III kite-shaped spearheads, lozenge-shaped midribs predominated (Ramsey 1989, catalogue and plates), while later types in the basal-looped series (Types 6 & 7) normally have circular midribs. Type 2 spearheads were therefore still at the early stages of development for the midrib form. There is no discernible bias on midrib shape by geographical area or by spear length. Midrib ridges are present on 24 spearheads from this type, 14 of which have an Irish provenance.

Of particular note is that six of the eight longest Type 2 spearheads came from the Continent, with lengths between 366mm and 490mm. This distribution pattern suggests that the large Type 2 spearheads were produced on the Continent. The evidence for local production is supported by the bronze mould recovered from Gonfreville-l’Orcher 44:555 near the mouth of the Seine. The mould aperture was 260mm in length, which is smaller than the very large Continental examples, but it is still in the top one third in length for Type 2.

5.3

Type 3: Flame (PLATES 9-18) This type has the largest number in the basal-looped series at 146 spearheads. Its defining attributes are loops incorporated within the blade, and the position of maximum width at 32% or less up the blade, measured from the blade/socket junction. The forms of the spearheads within this types are by no means homogeneous, in contrast to Type 2. A number of different variations in design can be discerned. I have tested a number of potential definitions to establish variants for Type 3, but this has proved unsuccessful, because no meaningful

82 of Type 2 have blade ribs (83% of those identifiable), and only 16 are flat (17%). Prominent blade ribs are characteristic of Class III kite-shaped spearheads, while flat blades are prevalent among Class IV side-looped spearheads. This may suggest that Type 2 was more strongly influenced by the Class III kite-shaped spearheads in this design aspect.

33

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

“projecting” if there is a distinct break in the line of the outward curve at the loop/blade junction. However, in a number of cases, different observers may draw different conclusions, so close is the borderline. Example of such borderline cases are Datchet 9:28, Twickenham 15:130 and Chesterton 17:38.

boundaries could be identified between the attributes involved. The attribute characteristics are :A. Wide, low base. Blade edges taper to the tip as the base curves inwards. These spearheads are clearly related in form to Type 1, Variant B, with kite-shaped blades and incorporated loops. The position of maximum width is normally at the top of the loops, but in a number of cases, there is a degree of blade expansion after that point. Some of the very large spearheads in Type 3 have a low position of maximum width caused by total blade length rather than by a wide base. The position of maximum blade width is therefore no help in isolating the wide base attribute, which can only be identified through observation. Additionally, the attribute intergrades with less wide bases, and blades with wider expansion. The wide base is present on spearheads of various lengths, eg Stow/Cammeringham 13:157 at 354mm, Kish 15:392 at 245mm and Unprovenanced Armagh 17:306 at 198mm. Distribution of spearheads with this tendency is weighted to Ireland.

For Type 3, median spearhead length is 244mm, only 3% below the median figure for the basal-loop corpus. The histogram (PLATE 88) shows that there is a marked concentration between 150mm and 250mm, and also that there are a number of extremely long spearheads – twelve of 450mm and above, with the largest being Unprovenanced Ireland 9:429 at 583mm. There is a weighting among Type 3 spearheads of 82 lozenge to 64 circular midrib section. Midrib ridges are present on 45 (31%) of the Type 3 spearheads, the largest number for any individual type. As with Type 2, loop plates in Type 3 are normally lozenge-shaped, accounting for 80% of the type (114 spearheads). Flat blades are present on 31 Type 3 spearheads, the highest percentage for any type at 21%. Almost half the incidence of incised decoration occurs in Type 3 (16 spearheads).

B. Narrow blade, with narrow base and minimal expansion up the blade. Examples of this design are the Stibbard hoard 17:166-175, Gourock 16:271 and Nettleham 17:155. This was defined as a separate type by Estyn Evans (1933, 193) who quoted the Nettleham spearhead as his example. One possible way of developing a measurement to define these attributes is to calculate the blade width as a percentage of blade length, on the hypothesis that a low figure would be diagnostic. However, similar low figures also occur for spearheads that are longer than the examples listed above, but have a degree of expansion up the blade, altering the overall form. A subjective description is not considered a satisfactory method of identification, because spearhead widths tended to intergrade, and a non-mathematical definition would mean that identification would not necessarily be replicated by others.

Distribution (PLATE 71). The pattern of distribution in Britain is similar to that for Type 2, with concentrations in the Thames Valley, the Eastern Counties covering East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the Trent Valley, and around the Severn Estuary. Eleven spearheads were distributed in Southern Scotland and Cumbria, which may relate to contact with Northern Ireland. Ireland with 53 spearheads accounted for 36% of distribution for Type 3, with a weighting to Central and Northern areas. 16 spearheads have been recovered from the Continent (11%). Eight came from Northeast France in the Seine and the Somme basins. Four were provenanced to rivers oriented to the Atlantic – two from the Gironde, one from the Loire, and one from the Rio Sil in Northern Spain.

5.4

C. Loop plates squeezed inwards, causing an indentation in the arc of the blade edge from socket to tip. One of the defining attributes of Type 3 is incorporated loops. However, there are borderline problems between incorporated and projecting loops where the loop plates have been squeezed inwards, apparently as a result of the finishing process in hammering the loop plates flat. The definition made in this study is that the loops are

Type 4: Ogival (PLATE 19)

There are 7 spearheads with ogival shaped blades, an attribute noted by Ehrenberg (1979, 7). The definition of ogival is that the upper section of the blade edge is concave in shape. The other diagnostic attribute of this type is that the loops are incorporated in the blade.

34

5. THE CORPUS

similar to Types 2 and 3, and in contrast to the triangular blade shape of Type 6.

Spearheads of this type have other characteristics in common. All are the product of specially fine craftsmanship (a subjective criterion). Length is in the top quartile of the basal-looped range (PLATE 88). All have lozengeshaped midribs. All are damaged, which may reflect their unsuitability for combat due to their size and narrow blade form, or perhaps purposeful destruction for votive reasons. The largest spearhead of this type is Croydon 19:79, with an original length of 721mm, but broken into five pieces. Needham (1990a, 249) considered that its length defined it as being designed for ceremonial use. He noted that it had rounded rather than sharp blade edges which would have made it unsuitable for combat, and that its location close to the source of the River Wandle suggested deposition in a special context.

There appears to be a change in midrib section and loop plate attributes between the incorporated loop Types 2 and 3, and the projecting loop Types 6 and 7. The incorporated loop spearheads are weighted to lozenge midribs and lozenge loop plates, while the projecting loop Types 6 and 7 are weighted to circular midribs and rectangular plates. The figures for Type 5 fall in the midway position on both these attributes, suggesting that it was a transitional type.:-

Fig 5:5 Percentage split between certain defined attributes: by basal-looped spearhead types Attribute Types 2-3 Midrib section: lozenge 59% circular 41% Loop plates lozenge 85% rectangular 15%

Three of this type have midrib ridges with incised decoration. In all three cases, the decoration included dots on the midrib on each side of the ridge, and on the blade alongside the midrib. In addition, two had rings round the socket mouth, and Clifton 19:189 also had chevron patterns on the socket above the rings and on the loop plates. FIG. 5:7 shows in detail the incised decoration designs on Clifton 19:189.

Types 6-7

47% 53%

13% 87%

59% 41%

17% 83%

Lengths of Type 5 spearheads are concentrated between 137mm and 285mm, and the median is 219mm (PLATE 89). There are 8 spearheads with rivet holes, representing a relatively high percentage of the type’s total at 27%. Distribution (PLATE 73). Broadly spread. The only concentrations that can be discerned are the Thames Valley with nine, and East Anglia with four.

Distribution (PLATE 72). It is difficult to draw conclusions from the distribution pattern, because the type is small in number and widely spread. Two came from the Thames and its tributaries, one each from Suffolk and the River Trent, one from Tayside, and two were Unprovenanced Ireland.

5.5

Type 5

5.6

Type 6: Triangular (PLATES 22-34)

There are 133 spearheads in this type. The diagnostic attributes are projecting loops, and the position of maximum width at 14% or less up the blade, measured from the blade/loop junction. This type has a homogeneous appearance, with blades that are triangular in form. The blades taper to the tip from or slightly above the blade base, which is normally horizontal or angled, but occasionally curved. The form of the blade base may have been affected by reworking, in some cases causing a rounding or angling from the horizontal.

Type 5: Flame, projecting loops (PLATES 20-21)

This type consists of 30 spearheads. It is defined by having projecting loops, and the position of maximum width at 15% or more up the blade, measured from the blade/loop junction. In most cases the blade base is curved, but occasionally angled. The blade base makes a distinct break in the line of the blade edge at the blade/loop junction, expanding to form a wide blade 35

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

5.7

Type 6 marks a significant change from the two main incorporated loop types. Circular midribs and rectangular loop plates are attributes strongly associated with this type, accounting for 116 (87%) and 97 (78%) respectively of the type’s total. Incised decoration is only present in two case – Tirancourt 25:523 has a ring round the socket near the mouth, and Gortaheran 29:296 has a chevron on the loop plates. There is only one spearhead in Type 6 with midrib ridges – Hillquarter 30:388 – and in this case the ridges only protrude very slightly.

Type 7: Narrow channel (PLATES 3539)

This type consists of 44 spearheads, and is closely related to Type 6, having a similar triangular shaped blade. Its diagnostic attributes are projecting loops and narrow channels. The narrow channels are formed by ribs that run straight from the loop plates to the tip. These ribs are aligned to the midrib rather than to the blade edges as in Type 6. Other attributes are similar to Type 6, with 39 spearheads having circular midrib sections (89% of the type), 41 having rectangular loop plates (96% of the type), and a median length 53% above that for the total basal-looped category at 383mm (PLATE 89).

The median length of this type is 344mm, 38% above the median for the total basal-looped category. It has the widest length range, extending from 104mm to 870mm (PLATE 89). There are two exceptionally large spearheads in the type. Although broken above the loops, The Cutts 22:350 is estimated at an original length of 870mm. The profile of the blade and midrib strongly suggest that it is should be attributed to Type 6, a view endorsed by Richard Warner, the curator of Ulster Museum (pers. comm. 12/1/2003). It is very similar in form and size to a replica discovered by chance on my visit to the National Museum of Ireland, Dublin. This artefact (Dromineer 22:376) is not listed in the Museum records, but was found in the storeroom in habitat B4:7 with a note indicating that the original came from Lough Derg, near Dromineer, Co. Tipperary. The note also recorded that the replica was made by Stephen Kennedy, blacksmith of Puckaun, Co. Tipperary in 1843. It was purchased in 15/2/1944 by Dr A.E.J. Went, the curator of the Folklife/Art and Industry Coins and Medals Collection, and he donated it to the Museum.

Only one spearhead in Type 7 has incised decoration – Ambleside 36:57. The decoration takes an unusual form with vertical lines up the socket from socket mouth to base of the loop plates. One spearhead has midrib ridges – Unprovenanced Britain 39:291. This ridge is unusual in that it extends the full length of the spearhead from the tip to the socket mouth. A number of the spearheads in this type have long sockets, in particular Bottesford Moor 35:143, where the socket to the base of the loop plates is 39% of the spearhead length (estimated because the tip is damaged). The socket for Teddington 35:129 is 34% of the spearhead length, and for Wilcot 38:253 it is 33%. Distribution (PLATE 75). The type is mainly distributed in Britain, with only one from Ireland and five from the Continent. Within Britain, there are twenty three from the Thames Valley (52% of the type). The concentration can be further narrowed down to the stretch of the river from Molesey to Waterloo with seventeen (39%) spearheads (PLATE 102). Other British concentrations are five in East Anglia and three in the Trent Basin and Lincolnshire, a total of eight for the Eastern Counties, representing 18% of the type. This distribution profile suggests that the point of origin, and possibly manufacture, was the London section of the Thames Valley. Distribution on the Continent is in the north east of the region.

Distribution (PLATE 74). There is a concentration of thirty five Type 6 spearheads in the Thames Valley (26% of the type). Ten are from East Anglia, and seventeen from the Trent basin and Lincolnshire/Humberside, making a total of 20% from the Eastern Counties. Distribution extended into Northern England with nine spearheads (7%). The type was also well distributed in Ireland with eight (6%) from Antrim and Londonderry, twenty (15%) from Central/Southern Ireland and eleven (8%) Unprovenanced Ireland. On the Continent, distribution was scattered, the only concentration being six (5%) from Northeast France.

36

5. THE CORPUS

5.8

Type 8: Late Irish/Scottish (PLATES 40-41)

5.9

Type 9: Drilled loops (PLATE 42)

There are eight spearheads in this group. The defining attribute is loops drilled in the base of the blade with no provision in the mould for loops, and no loop plates. It is probable that most are of exotic origin, or at least exotic influence. Drilled loops are characteristic of spearheads from Sicily, Italy, the Greek sanctuaries and Hungary, dating mainly to the 8th century BC (Albanese Procelli 1993; Avila 1983; Gallus & Horvath 1939). They will be discussed in more detail in CHAPTER 7.4.

The type is small in number with 14 spearheads. Its key diagnostic attribute is a qualitative one – a fine finish and a high level of workmanship. Although this requires a subjective evaluation, it has been noted by several authors (Evans 1881, 331; Coffey 1893-6, 504; Evans 1933, 1923; Ramsey 1989, 74). Other diagnostic attributes include narrow channels, large rectangular loops and loop plates, short sockets, and rivet holes. Overall length is in the top quartile (PLATE 89). There are three variants, which are defined by the attributes of blade base and loop position. A distribution map is on PLATE 76.

42:278 is described as Unprovenanced Scotland, and was accessioned to the National Museum of Scotland in the nineteenth century. It has an octagonal midrib and socket, and a single loop. The form of the midrib and socket is similar to examples from Central Italy (Müller-Karpe 1959, pl 20:B5 Cumae, pl 36:3 Veii, pl 39:B1 and pl 40:C4 Terni). Icklingham 42:225 has a low oval midrib and drilled loops that cut into the line of the blade edge. The oval midrib is similar in form to several spearheads from the Mendolito hoard in Sicily (Albanese Procelli 1993, 119 nos M107, 121, M115; and 139 no M308 which also has loops that cut into the blade edges; PLATE 97).

Irish variant : Curved base, projecting loops Seven spearheads, six from Ireland, one from Scotland. All are similar in form with lozenge midrib section and a marked bevel to the blade. Minor differences noted are that Unprovenanced Ireland 40:465 has a notch at the base of the blade at the blade/loop junction, and Unprovenanced Scotland 40:276 has blade ribs that do not run parallel to the midrib, but bulge slightly in the central section of the blade’s length.

Three spearheads at the British Museum, 42:292-4, have no accession numbers or provenance, but are stored with the British Bronze Age metalwork. They also have oval midribs. The incised decoration of concentric circles on 42:292 is similar to that on artefacts from the Mendolito hoard in Sicily (Müller-Karpe 1959, pl 8:20 and 11:10). Unprovenanced Ireland 42:466 has a similar oval midrib and incised decoration of concentric circles.

Scottish variant: Curved base, incorporated loops Four spearheads from Scotland. Three have a lozenge midrib, the fourth a circular midrib. Carinish 41:274 has two sets of rivet holes in the socket.

The Continental affiliations suggest the hypothesis that all these spearheads were acquired by antiquarian collectors, perhaps on the Grand Tour in Europe during the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, and that the original provenance was not recorded at the time the spearheads entered museum collections.

Scottish variant: Horizontal base, projecting loops Two spearheads from Scotland, and one from Northern England. Pyotdykes 41:273 has a wide gold band round the socket, decorated with lines and chevrons. These are similar design motifs to the incised decoration prevalent in Types 2 and 3. A decorative gold band on a spearhead socket is a rare feature, the only other examples from the British Isles being on Class V spearheads from the Harrogate hoard and Lough Gur, Ireland (Coles et al. 1964). This connection is significant, because the only spearhead of English provenance in Type 8 is also from the Harrogate hoard 55:183, giving it a direct Scottish/Irish link.

Rhigos, Mid Glamorgan 42:282 is similar in form to Type 3, except that the loops are drilled and there appears to have been no provision in the mould for loops. With Isleworth 42:88, the entire socket is missing, and loops were drilled in the base of the blade. The presence of the drilled loops suggests that the damage occurred in antiquity, and that the life of the spearhead was extended by hafting it directly into the midrib, and securing it through the newly created loops.

37

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

5.10

Unidentified (PLATE 43)

holes. A breakdown of their distribution by type and geographical area is shown in FIG. 5:6.

Thirty nine spearheads are defined as “Unidentified”. Thirteen of these are fragments that can be identified as basal-looped spearheads either by the presence of loops, or a blade and midrib section that is characteristic of basal-looped spearheads. The fragmentary remains are insufficient to define the specific type.

There are 34 spearheads with incised decoration. From figures it is clear that the presence of this attribute is weighted to Type 3, and to Ireland. The range of decorative designs used on basal-looped spearheads are listed below, together with the number of spearheads on which the particular design occurs. FIG. 5:7 illustrates the main decorative elements:1. Dots on the midrib along each side of the ridge, and on the blade wings along the sides of the midrib (20 spearheads). 2. Multiple or single rings round the socket, immediately above the socket mouth (19 spearheads). 3. Chevron pattern on the socket above the rings (8 spearheads). In one case, Pyotdykes 41:273, this is on a gold band round the socket. 4. Chevron or lozenge pattern on the loop plates (5 spearheads). 5. Vertical lines down the socket (one case only: Ambleside 36:57). 6. Indentation round the socket close to the socket mouth (3 spearheads). This may originally have held a gold band. 7. Designs on spearheads that may be of exotic origin – concentric circles on the socket (2 spearheads), and lines radiating from the rivet holes (1 case only: Icklingham 42:225).

Six have been reworked in antiquity. Four no longer have their blades and, in some cases, their loops (Unprovenanced Ireland 43:467-470). They may well have been reused as tools or weapons. Unprovenanced Londonderry 43:354 has a blade with parallel sides, worn down through reworking, so that its original form is not recognisable. Bourges 43:483 has blades that have been reworked and damaged, and loop plates that are broken. Based on the drawings supplied by the Musées de Bourges (letter, Pierre Bailly 4/3/2003), the loops appear to bulge out at the base of the blade, similar to those on Unprovenanced Ireland 1:450 which is attributed to Type 1. However, the condition of the Bourges spearhead is such that no type definition can be made with confidence. Twenty further spearheads are recorded in the literature, but they have been lost or are not available for study. No illustrations of these remain, and there is insufficient description from which their type can be identified.

5.11

The main design elements – dots, rings, and chevrons on socket and loop plates – occur together on three spearheads: Clifton 19:189, Brigmerston Down 14:251 and Lanesborough 13:358. In a number of other cases, dots, rings and socket chevrons occur together. Other design element groupings include dots and rings, and rings and socket chevrons.

Other attributes

Three attributes, which apply to a number of types, are the presence of incised decoration, midrib ridges and rivet Fig. 5:6 Basal-looped spearheads with special attributes: numbers and percentage of Type/Region total Incised decoration No. % Type 1 2 7 Type 2 2 2 Type 3 16 11 Type 4 3 43 Type 5 0 0 Type 6 2 2 Type 7 1 2 Type 8 3 21 Type 9 3 38 Unidentified 2 5

Midrib ridges No. % 11 37 24 24 45 31 4 57 5 17 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 8

Rivet holes No. % 3 10 11 11 7 5 0 0 8 27 13 10 15 34 14 100 5 63 0 0

Britain Ireland Continent

11 4 18 10 5 6

32 11 60 34 2 3

42 17 17

34

94 17%

76 14%

Total

6%

Another attribute that may be decorative is a step or band between the midrib and blade wing (Askill 16:316, Unprovenanced Ireland 1:452, Unprovenanced Aude 6:481) This attribute is noted by Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 460 and pl 68: 35 and 36) in their Class Va spearheads from the Late Bronze Age. While incised decoration is rare among basal-looped spearheads at 6% of total, it is much a more common characteristic among spearheads from the Continent, in particular the Nordic and North Alpine Zones (JacobFriesen 1967). The Continental designs often cover a much larger area on the spearhead surface, including the whole socket and part of the midrib, and occasionally onto the blade wings as well. These spearheads have a wider range of design elements including swirls and curved shapes that are not seen on basal-looped spearheads, and generally have a much bolder and inventive use of incised decoration (PLATE 90: 1 & 2).

14 10 22

38

5. THE CORPUS

Fig. 5:7 Incised decoration elements

Early Bronze Age pottery styles, and it is likely that these were interpretated on different metal work types, in particular gold lunulae (Taylor 1980, 36). The lunulae and the majority of the decorated basal-looped spearheads came from Ireland. It is therefore likely that this region was the main source and design influence for the decorated basallooped spearheads. Midrib ridges (PLATE 78) There are 94 spearheads with midrib ridges, concentrated mainly within the early spearhead types, Types 1 to 5, and weighted to Ireland. The figures are affected by the ten spearheads in the Stibbard hoard 17:166-175. If the data were processed on the number of find sites rather than of spearheads, then the percentage of the total would be similar for Types 2 and 3, and Irish distribution would be even more dominant. Midrib ridges were an important attribute of the Class III kite-shaped spearheads, whose distribution was strongly weighted to Ireland (FIG. 2:9). The attribute appears to have maintained its Irish distribution bias into the basal-looped series. Rivet holes (PLATE 79) Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 468) noted that some basallooped spearheads had rivet holes. Their interpretation was that rivet holes were drilled at a date after original manufacture “when pins were the common mode of attachment”, and replaced the loops as the method of securing the spearhead to the shaft. It is surprising, therefore, that there are a number of spearheads with rivet holes from Types 1, 2 and 3, which were early in the basal-looped series (CHAPTER 6). If Greenwell and Brewis’s speculation is correct, it suggests that these types, or at least individual spearheads within them, had an extended period of currency.

Design elements on Continental spearheads that also appear on basal-looped spearheads are:1. Dots on blade wings along the side of the midrib (PLATE 90: 3). These are quite rare. Midrib ridges are occasionally found on Continental spearheads, but do not have dots alongside them (PLATE 90: 4). 2. Multiple and single rings around the socket. 3. Chevron pattern on the socket above the rings. The Continental spearheads tend to use this motif in a more exuberant manner with several layers of chevrons, interspersed with lines and geometric patterns (PLATE 90: 5 & 6). 4. Indentations round the socket. Again this is much more common on Continental spearheads, and they may use several indented rings rather than a single one (PLATE 90: 7).

Rivet holes are present on 76 basal-looped spearheads. They are weighted to the later types with projecting loops, in particular Type 7 where the fifteen spearheads with rivet holes represent 34% of the type’s total. This suggests that Type 7 may have been a later variant of

There is not necessarily a direct Continental influence on the decorated basal-looped spearheads. The designs originally appeared in the British Isles on Neolithic and 39

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

Type 6, where rivet holes only represent 11% of the type’s total.

spearheads had the rivet holes added at some date after their manufacture (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, 468).

All of Type 8 have rivet holes, supporting the hoard evidence that this type should be dated at the end of the series in the Late Bronze Age. The five spearheads with rivet holes from Type 9 are probably of exotic origin.

51 had opposed rivet holes, of which 47 were on the sides of the socket and four were on the front and rear of the socket: the description of these socket positions is based on a spearhead laid flat with the blades pointing outwards. Eleven spearheads had a single rivet hole, of which seven were on the side and four on the front of the socket. The different positioning on the socket and different size and quality of finish of the rivet holes suggest that these were the result of individual decisions to make this alteration, not following any consistent pattern.

The percentage of basal-looped spearheads in Britain with rivet holes is 14% of the British total (42 spearheads). The percentage on the Continent is higher at 22% of the Continental total (17 spearheads). This is not surprising, since spearheads with rivet holes were the dominant form on the Continent.

Three spearheads had the traces of a rivet still in place. In one case, it was made of wood (Whitehall 37:136), and in the other two they were made of bronze (Brighouse 28:248, Unprovenanced Ireland 1:449).

The rivet holes in Type 8 appear to have been incorporated into the mould, based on the precision of their accurate positioning and finish. One of this type has a second set of rivet holes, roughly finished (Carinish 41:274). It can be speculated that the remaining 62

40

6. CHRONOLOGY

6.

6.1

CHRONOLOGY AND ORIGINS

Chronological sequences

A relative chronological sequence for the Bronze Age was most easily developed from the metalwork, since typological sequences could be identified from assemblages in hoards and graves. Burgess (1974; 1980; 1988) developed and elaborated a scheme for the British Isles based on the metalwork, dividing it into twelve stages with different characteristics. Regional industries were identified and named by type sites, and eventually the main industrial phases formed a framework for Britain and Ireland, reflecting the progress in production technology and design.

In interpreting the relative chronology of the basal-looped spearhead series, it is helpful first to consider the chronological sequences that have been developed for those regions in which the spearheads were distributed. This is a complex subject which has been evolving constantly since the development of the “Three Age System” in the early nineteenth century described by Thomsen in Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed in 1836 (Daniel 1943, 1 & 11), and important developments have been made recently as a result of radiocarbon dating. In Continental Europe, chronological schemes were pioneered by Reinecke for Central Europe and Montelius for Northern Europe, based on grave and hoard assemblages. Their work has been built on by others, the most influential being Müller-Karpe (1959) for Central Europe, and a sequence for France was linked with those for Northern and Central Europe (O’Connor 1980, 26-7).

Fig. 6:2. Metalwork sequence for the British Isles: Middle and Late Bronze Age

Fig. 6:1 European chronological sequence: Later Bronze Age

Source: Burgess 1974; 1980; 1984; Nedham 1996, 122; Needham et al. 1997, 57; Waddell 1998, 180. Northern Europe: Montelius Central Europe: Reinecke; Müller Karpe. Source: Harding 2000, 12

The close cultural connections between France and Britain were recognised, particularly in relation to metalwork and field monuments, and the chronological sequence in the two areas was connected, mainly using the metalwork evidence (Briard 1965; Burgess 1968b and 1988; O’Connor 1980). From the result, a further linkage could be made to the Central and Northern European sequences. However, the value of the extended linkage was limited by transitional overlap between periods, and regional differences within the larger cultural zones.

In Britain, a tripartite division of the Bronze Age into Early, Middle and Late phases was further subdivided on the basis of cultural stages identified by Hawkes in his unpublished paper A scheme for the British Bronze Age (1960). He proposed two subdivisions of the Early Bronze Age and three each for the Middle and Late Bronze Age, and he incorporated metalwork, pottery, funerary and settlement evidence, and regional variations into his proposal. 41

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

For the present study on basal-looped spearheads, the Penard phase is in my view more suitably placed in the Middle Bronze Age. The main metalwork types prevalent during the Penard phase all originated in the previously defined Middle Bronze Age or earlier – rapiers/dirks, looped spearheads and palstaves. The main Late Bronze Age types that replaced them – swords, spearheads with rivet holes and socketed axes – all appeared during the Penard phase, but represented only a small percentage of the total. It is clear that the Penard was an important transitional phase in terms of metalwork, hence the different interpretations as to whether it is better assigned to the Middle or Late Bronze Age.

Fig. 6:3 Linkage between the cultural sequence of Britain and France: Middle and Late Bronze Age

Needham (1996, 121) recognised the need for “an independent regional chronology for successive prevailing cultural characteristics”. He developed a new system taking into account metalwork and pottery sequences, and the radiocarbon measurements that had become available. From this he was able to identify eight periods with distinctive cultural elements from the “metal using Neolithic” (ibid., 122) to the Early Iron Age.

Source: Harding 2000, 15

The chronological framework adopted for the British Isles was driven primarily by metalwork studies, and in practice it had “few clear links with other forms of evidence from the period” (Barber 2003, 19). In the 1970s, the emphasis of British Bronze Age studies switched away from metalwork to the landscape. From this work it became evident that a fundamental change took place: in the Late Neolithic and early part of the Bronze Age, there was an emphasis in society on the construction of field monuments that reflected ritual, ceremonial and funerary activity, while in the later period the emphasis changed to a concentration on changing the landscape to improve farming productivity in the form of field systems, boundaries, enclosures and settlements (Barrett & Bradley 1980, 9).

Fig. 6.4 Cultural sequence in Britain: Middle Bronze Age to Early Iron Age

Barrett & Bradley (ibid.) proposed new terminology to recognise this – the “Early” and the “Later” Bronze Age. When related to the metalwork chronology, this placed the Taunton phase in the “Early” period and the Penard phase in the “Later” period. This change was adopted in some metalwork studies including Taylor (1980, 51) because it reflected changes in ornament styles, and O’Connor (1980) because of the close relationship between the Penard phase and the Bronze Final 1 in Northern France. However, the tripartite division of the British Bronze Age has remained remarkably resilient, and has been retained in most metalwork studies, with the Penard phase still attributed to the Middle Bronze Age (Burgess 1988; Ramsey 1989; Needham 1996; Waddell 1998; Harding 2000, 204; Barber 2003). The reasons for retaining the tripartite metalwork chronological framework are variously given as clarity, convenience, simplicity and familiarity (Needham 1996, 123; Barber 2003, 27), while in Barber’s view (2003, 42) “the twofold division appears to be declining in use.”

Source: Needham 1996, 122

This was taken a stage further in Britain by the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Programme which made radiocarbon determinations directly related to metalwork artefacts (Needham et al. 1997). The material used was mainly the wood in spearhead sockets, and measurements were also possible from weapon handles made from organic material, human bones in which weapon tips were still lodged, and funerary contexts. These data were used to develop an absolute chronology for British metalwork, to which radiocarbon determinations from other archaeological sources may be related. Similar information from other parts of Europe 42

6. CHRONOLOGY

was presented at a conference held in Verona in 1995 (Randsborg 1996). As a result, absolute chronologies can now be correlated between different regions.

6.2 Previous research on spearhead chronology The evolutionary sequence of the earliest spearheads from the British Isles was traced by Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 444-8 and 458), who classified them as Class I Tanged, Class Ia Tang and Ferrule, and Class II Early Socketed. In the light of recent finds, the early series has been further clarified by Needham (1979a), so that this phase is now well understood. The progression from the early spearheads to Class III Kite-shaped is also straightforward, and is seen as being of Irish origin (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, 448-9).

There are large period overlaps and some gaps in the data. However, the overlaps allow a more realistic interpretation of possible relationships between cultural zones in comparison to the apparent rigidity of earlier chronological tables. Information from future radiocarbon determinations will no doubt be incorporated to refine the framework more closely. Fig. 6:5 Radiocarbon chronology for Bronze Age Europe

From this point, the process of change and evolution is less well understood, and no consensus of opinion has been reached. Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 449) suggested that Class III led directly to the triangular-shaped basallooped spearheads, the process being the migration of the loops up the socket, but still projecting below the blade base. After that, they considered that a number of different developments took place, contemporary with each other. They (ibid., 450) identified the first of these developments as the incorporation of the basal loops within the blade. Some of these had flat blades, and were given a separate classification as part of Class IVb, and termed “Ribless Looped”, while the majority with blade ribs were Class IIIa (ibid., 460). The Class III kite-shaped spearheads also evolved with flat blades and were classified as Class IV “The Plain Type”, which is now generally described as “sidelooped”. They saw this as an “aberrant form” and were uncertain as to its dating, because the position of the loops suggested that it was earlier than Class IIIa, but the flat blade attribute suggested that it was later (ibid., 455, 459). Although not stated, it is likely that they favoured the later date, because of their choice of numbering sequence. They also saw the rapier-bladed spearheads as another aberrant form that evolved from Class III, and they termed it Class IVa “The Rapier Type” (ibid., 455, 459).

Source: based on Harding 2000, 18. The British figures are taken from Needham et al. 1997, and the remainder come largely from the proceedings of a conference held in Verona in 1995 (Randsborg 1996).

This sequence no longer has general acceptance. Sidelooped spearheads (Class IV) are seen as a direct progression from the Irish kite-shaped (Class III) spearheads. The transitional phase is well demonstrated in Ramsey’s corpus (1989: PLATE 86). Type Derrygill 43

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

are in some cases on flanges or bands that stretched up the socket to the blade. Type Lagore has loops that are asymmetrically positioned on the socket, and Type Larkfield has loops tucked below the blade (Ramsey 1989, 65-8; PLATE 86). In Ireland, a convincing case can be made on typological grounds that Classes IV sidelooped and IVa rapier-bladed spearheads were an evolutionary development from Class III kite-shaped, though Ramsey (1989, 8) noted that there were no Irish or British associations to confirm this.

A has the angled blade base of the kite-shaped spearheads, but without the blade ribs. The blade length is extended to form a pronounced taper to the tip. The next stage (Type Derrygill B) is for the blade base to be rounded to form the distinctive flame-shaped blade. On a typological basis, therefore, it can be argued that Rowlands’ Group 2 “Flame” (1976, 52; PLATE 85) is the direct descendant of the kite-shaped spearheads, and is likely to have predated Group 1 “Ivy/Leaf”. The main period of use of side-looped and basal-looped spearheads has been interpreted by several authors as contemporary, spanning the later part of the Middle Bronze Age (Taunton and Penard phases) with occasional usage for both into the Late Bronze Age. This is based on context associations and metallurgical analyses (Hawkes 1941; Smith 1959; Coles 1963-4, 104-8; Rowlands 1976, 51 & 56-7; Ehrenberg 1979, fig 2). It will be shown below that a closer scrutiny of the evidence does not support this dating for side-looped spearheads.

In Southern Britain, Class IV spearheads are far more numerous than Class III, while in Ireland Class III are more numerous:Fig. 6:6 Class III and IV spearheads from Ireland and Southern Britain Ireland Ramsey 1989 Class III 363 Class IV 229

Smith (1959, 180) suggested that the two spearhead types – side-looped and basal-looped – may have had different uses because of their difference in size. Although not stated, the implication was that the side-looped spearheads were for throwing, and the basal-looped spearheads were hand-held.

Rowlands (1976, 51) concluded that Class III spearheads in Britain were “of almost certain Irish origin”. Since there were also several side-looped spearheads in Ireland with leaf-shaped blades, he speculated that this form was “transmitted to Britain where it was more firmly adopted and where more numerous variant forms were produced which are not to be found in Ireland. This would presumably have coincided with the development of an indigenous spearhead tradition in Britain that had finally acquired the necessary skill in hollow-casting” (ibid.).

Rapier-bladed spearheads were seen as an Irish development from the kite-shaped series, and probably contemporary with the early basal-looped spearheads. Within the basal-looped series, the spearheads with incorporated loops were generally dated earlier than the triangular-shaped spearheads with projecting loops. This was based on hoard evidence, and reversed Greenwell and Brewis’s conclusions which had been based on their interpretation of design evolution (Rowlands 1976, 59; Ehrenberg 1979, 10-12 and fig 2).

6.3

Southern Britain Rowlands 1976 17 242

Side-looped spearheads were associated with other metalwork artefacts in three different context types. The first of these, hoards, are defined as “a collection of two or more artefacts, the circumstances of discovery of which leads to the conclusion that all were deposited together at the same time” (Eogan 1983, 1; CHAPTER 8.1). They are differentiated from two other forms of context – settlement sites and burials.

Side-looped spearheads

Looking first at typology, the comprehensive study of Middle Bronze Age spearheads in Ireland carried out by Ramsey (1989, 61-8) demonstrated the variety of different side-looped spearhead types (PLATE 86). He identified three main kite-shaped spearhead types, with the key attributes relating to blade ribs, midrib ridges, blade bases and blade form. Types Derrygill A and B marked the transition from a kite-shaped blade to a leaf-shaped blade.

The interpretation of context evidence needs to be treated with a degree of caution. The recording of hoards was poor or inaccurate in a number of cases. A large proportion of hoards were recovered prior to the twentieth century when recording techniques may not have been as meticulous as at present. Taylor (1993, 50) calculated that 48% of hoards from his study covering Southern Britain were recovered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. For Irish Late Bronze Age hoards, 56% were recovered before the twentieth century (Eogan 1983, 5).

Ramsey noted various innovative designs including the rapier-bladed type and five further leaf-shaped types, which he considered had evolved from the kite-shaped form (ibid., 80). The leaf-shaped types are characterised by wide, flat, leaf-shaped blades with curved bases, and a new positioning of the side loops, which demonstrate a tendency to “loop migration” up the blade (Evans 1933, 191). In Ramsey’s Type Gara (rapier-bladed), the loops

The process of dating the associated finds is of necessity a relative one. If some artefacts in the context have a previously identified date, then it is concluded that the 44

6. CHRONOLOGY

a case of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. Metalwork from burials was also concentrated into certain periods and geographical areas depending on the prevailing burial rites. As an example, only seven basal-looped spearheads have come from burial sites, and five of these were from Germany and Switzerland (Obergrünhagen 11:535; Wiesloch 5:536; Aasbüttel 7:538; Liesbüttel 7:539; Heimiswil 3:548).

other artefacts in the context are likely to be of the same date. The artefact of the latest known date provides the terminus post quem, but this does not mean that deposition took place at that date or that all artefacts within the same context were necessarily produced during the same period. Treasured artefacts may have been passed down from generation to generation as heirlooms before deposition. Fragments of very old artefacts may have been retained as scrap. The Yattendon Hoard 45:235 contained fifty eight damaged artefacts and fragments, the majority of which are dated to the Late Bronze Age. However, the hoard also included an Early Bronze Age flat axe, and palstaves and spearheads attributed to the Middle Bronze Age, so it can be concluded that the hoard contained material produced over a period of around 1300 years (Coghlan 1970, 1).

The number of artefacts with context associations may be a small sample of the total artefact group. They therefore Fig. 6:7 Kite-shaped and side-looped spearheads with associated metalwork Area Southern Britain Ireland

Hoards were not deposited at a regular rate throughout the Bronze Age, but had noticeable peaks and troughs (CHAPTER 8.1). Taylor’s (1993, 54) analysis for Southern Britain revealed that hoards were concentrated into just two out of eight phases – MBA2 (Taunton phase) and LBA3 (Ewart Park phase) – which accounted for 70% of all Bronze Age hoards from the region. Artefacts may have had main periods of use when hoarding was not carried out, and so this would not show up in the record –

Spear- Assoc- % Source heads iations 259 23 95% Rowlands 1976 541 3 0.6% Ramsey 1989

Fig. 6:8 Basal-looped spearheads with associated metalwork Area Southern Britain Ireland All basal-looped

Spear- Assoc- % Source heads iations 198 21 11% Rowlands 1976 136 3 2% Ramsey 1989 551 59 11% This Study

Fig. 6:9 Side-looped spearheads: contexts with associated finds Site Type Dating Reference Comments Burgess Meadow, Oxford Hoard Taunton Inv Arch GB6 Bryanston, Dorset Hoard Taunton Rowlands 1976, 231 Caen, Calvados Hoard Tréboul (Acton Park/Taunton) Briard 1965, 104 Greyfriars Ch., Dumfries Hoard Taunton Coles 1963-4, 151 Grunty Fen, Cambridge Hoard Taunton Rowlands 1976, 226 Inshoch Wood, Highlands Hoard Taunton Coles 1963-4, 106 Monkswood, Somerset Hoard Taunton Inv Arch GB42 Stump Bottom, Sussex Hoard Taunton Rowlands 1976, 269 Tredarvah, Cornwall Settlement Taunton Rowlands 1976, 276 Thorney Down, Wiltshire Settlement Taunton Rowlands 1976, 278 Shelf, West Yorks Hoard Penard Burgess 1968a, 62 Side-looped spear fragment Ballinliss, Armagh Hoard Dowris Eogan 1983, 57 Class III spear/soc axe in earthwork Corsbie Moss, Borders Hoard Ewart Park Coles 1963-4, 150 Side-looped spear & sword Fell Lane, Penrith Hoard Ewart Park Burgess 1968a, fig 16.3 Side-looped spear & soc axe Ardcath, Meath Hoard Uncertain Eogan 1983, 188 Class III spear & soc axe Callander, Tayside Hoard Uncertain Burgess 1968a, pl ll Record unreliable. Scrap hoard Colden Common, Twyford Hoard Uncertain Rowlands 1976, 54 No accurate record of hoard Down Ampney, Glos Hoard Uncertain Rowlands 1976, 236 2 side-looped spearheads only Grave E11, Salisbury Plain Burial Uncertain Rowlands 1976, 224 Record unreliable Hagbourne Hill, Berks Hoard Uncertain Rowlands 1976, 54 Conflicting records of find Launceston Down, Dorset Burial Uncertain Rowlands 1976, 233 Context/records insecure Mathon, Hereford Burial Uncertain Rowlands 1976, 274 2 side-looped spearheads only New Barn Down, Sussex Settlement Uncertain Rowlands 1976, 277 LBA knife in different hut to spear Scowarcz, Poland Burial Uncertain Butler 1963, 103-4 Record unreliable South Lodge Camp, Wilts Settlement Uncertain Rowlands 1976, 54 Insecure context Tattenamona, Fermanagh Hoard Uncertain Eogan 1983, 24 3 Class III spearheads only Yattendon, Berks Hoard Uncertain Coghlan 1970 Scrap hoard, EBA to LBA

45

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

A number of the stone moulds in Ireland are attributed to the early part of the Middle Bronze Age, in particular the Killymaddy phase, contemporary with Acton Park. Indeed the Killymaddy phase was named after a hoard of stone moulds for kite-shaped spearheads, dirks, scythes and tanged blades (Coghlan & Raftery 1961, nos 17, 18, 19, 33, 37, 39). Twelve moulds from the National Museum of Ireland collection, published by Coghlan and Raftery (1961), were made for casting side-looped spearheads, predominantly with kite-shaped blades. Seven of the moulds had additional cavities to cast other artefacts recognised as early Middle Bronze Age types – five for knives or daggers, one for a pin and one for a second spearhead. The Toorglass hoard 67:552 contained one mould for a side-looped spearhead and a knife, and a second mould for a basal-looped spearhead, Type 1: Transitional, the only example of an overlap between the side- and basal-looped spearheads among the Irish stone moulds (ibid., 235, no 25). There is only one other mould for a basal-looped spearhead in the collection, Unprovenanced Northern Ireland 44:553, but this does not have additional cavities to mould other artefacts (ibid., 238, no 31).

may be neither representative nor significant, and can only provide directional information. This is the case with side-looped and basal-looped spearheads. The data in FIGS. 6:7-8 include all contexts where side-looped and basal-looped spearheads were associated with other artefacts, even if they provide insufficient evidence to give a dating indication. Contexts in which there are finds associated with side-looped spearheads are listed in FIG. 6.9. There are twenty seven sites in which side-looped spearheads have associated finds. Fourteen provide a dating indication, of which ten are from the Taunton phase, one from the Penard, and three from the Late Bronze Age. Reliable dating evidence is not available from thirteen sites due either to poor recording, uncertainty as to whether the context is secure, or the site only containing side-looped spearheads. The evidence suggests that the Taunton phase was the main period of use. The side-looped spearhead in the Shelf hoard (PLATE 58), dated to the Penard phase, was described as a fragment, and is no longer available for study. It is possible that its period of use had been a long time prior to deposition, and it had only been retained for recycling. There are four hoards in which side-looped spearheads were associated with typical Late Bronze Age artefacts – socketed axes and a sword. Eogan (1983, 189) considered that the association was not secure in one of these, Ardcath, because in his view the spearhead was typologically from the middle of the second millennium BC, while the socketed axe was from the eighth century BC. His reasoning is worth repeating in full: “If this is an associated group, the spearhead should have been centuries old at the time of deposition. On that account, and despite the claim that both objects were found together, the genuineness of this group as an association must be questioned”. The same reasoning could well be applied to the Ballinliss hoard which had a similar artefact combination, but he offered no such reservations in this case (ibid., 57). It could also apply to the Corsbie Moor and Fell Lane hoards. The question remains open, therefore, as to whether these four cases of side-looped spearheads in apparent Late Bronze Age contexts mean that the type was in general use up to this period. The alternatives may be that the contexts are not secure, or that they are valid but represent exceptional cases.

The mould evidence clearly places the Irish side-looped spearheads in the early part of the Middle Bronze Age in Ireland. Taken together with the hoard evidence, it suggests that the main period of use for side-looped spearheads spanned both the Acton Park and Taunton phases (Killymaddy/early Bishopsland). Radiocarbon dating has been carried out for three sidelooped spearheads. The date range at 2 sigma for all three falls into the Acton Park/Killymaddy phase:Site Mortlake Tormarton Lisburn, Antrim

BP 3225±65 3158±37 3180±60

cal. range (2 sigma) Lab. no. 1680-1320BC 1517-1320BC 1600-1310BC

OxA 5948 OxA 9930 GrN 20250

Note: in this and all other radiocarbon determinations quoted in the text, the references and method of calibration are described in APPENDIX 2.

In the case of the Mortlake and Lisburn spearheads, the organic material dated was the wooden shafts. There is a potential for misinterpretation with this method in that a spearhead may have had several replacement shafts in its lifetime. If this took place, the radiocarbon date would represent the last shaft used, which may be considerably later than the date of the spearhead’s production. The Tormarton spearhead was recovered from the spinal cord of a skeleton, the victim of the spear thrust. A sample taken from the skeleton’s leg bone was radiocarbon dated. The result shown above was the second radiocarbon determination made on the Tormarton skeleton. This took place following a second investigation and excavation of the site in 1999-2000 (Osgood undated). The original determination had allowed a Wilburton phase date (Knight et al. 1972, 15) which had been

The hoard evidence does not necessarily provide an answer as to whether only the Taunton phase was the main period of use for side-looped spearheads. The previous industrial phase, Action Park, has been described as a “hoard free period” (Burgess & Coombs 1979, v), and Taylor’s (1993, 54) analysis of hoards from Southern Britain shows none during this phase. On hoard evidence alone it remains an open question as to whether sidelooped spearheads were in general use during the Acton Park phase, as the typological evidence would suggest.

46

6. CHRONOLOGY

Maghera, Conor, Larkfield and Lagore (PLATE 86). It is likely that production of the kite-shaped form continued alongside these new developments into the early Bishopsland phase, because the kite-shaped form is present in some early basal-looped spearheads. The lack of Irish hoards makes it difficult to interpret whether and for how long these types continued in general use beyond the early Bishopsland phase.

influential in the view of an extended use of side-looped spearheads (Rowlands 1976, 55; Ehrenberg 1979, 9). Metallurgical analysis has been used to try to identify the date of Bronze Age metalwork from the British Isles. Brown and Blin-Stoyle’s research showed that a low lead formulation at 1.0% lead was used in the Late Bronze Age. In their view, this allowed a “precise division to be made between Middle and Late Bronze types” (Brown & Blin-Stoyle 1959, 200). Six side-looped spearheads were in their sample, with the following results. The serial numbers are those used in the research, and Group I is the low lead formulation, Group II the high lead formulation:-

There are no context associations for Class IVa rapierbladed spearheads. However, radiocarbon dating has been carried out on one from Britain:Site Taplow

Site Burgess Meadow, Oxford Sherwood Forest, Notts Minster Ditch, Oxford Monkswood, Somerset Fyfield, Berks Methwold Fen, Cambs

Lead content 0.036% 0.17% 0.14% 0.32% 1.5% 4.1%

cal. range (2 sigma) 1390-1000BC

Lab. no. OxA 4502

The date range spans the period of currency of the basallooped spearheads. However the range of 390 years at 2 sigma lacks precision, and is little help in positioning this type in the spearhead sequence.

Fig 6:10 Analysis of lead content in side-looped spearheads (Brown & Blin-Stoyle 1959) Serial no 14 51 56 338 85 235

BP 2965±65

Group I I I I II II

In Britain, the presence of only a small numbers of kiteshaped spearheads suggests that they were imported from Ireland (Rowlands 1976, 51). Indigenous production of side-looped spearheads in Britain is likely to have started with the leaf/flame shaped blade which became the dominant form:-

On the basis of Brown and Blin-Stoyle’s hypothesis, this would provide evidence that production of side-looped spearheads continued into the Late Bronze Age. However, Northover has since shown that a high lead formulation was present in bronze of Welsh source during the Acton Park phase. It is his view that the two side-looped spearheads in Brown and Blin-Stoyle’s sample should be dated to the Acton Park phase (Northover 1980, 235, and pers. comm., 20/11/2003; Savory 1980, 50; Tylecote 1986, 30).

Fig 6:11 Side-looped spearheads from Southern Britain (Rowlands 1976, catalogue) Class III Class IV Class IVa

Kite-shaped Leaf/flame-shaped Rapier-bladed

17 242 2

In summary, the range of evidence suggests that the main period of use for side-looped spearheads was the Acton Park and Taunton phases (Killymaddy/early Bishopsland). This includes context associations, moulds, radiocarbon dates and lead content analysis. The only evidence for continuation beyond that is four hoards whose contexts are considered secure. However, the point has been made that artefacts may have been retained as heirlooms for centuries before final deposition. The presence of four side-looped spearheads in Penard and Late Bronze Age contexts does not therefore necessarily require the continued use of the category as a whole.

The reason for the choice of leaf/flame-shaped blades in Britain has been a matter of debate. Evans (1933, 197) and Hawkes (1941) proposed that there was a fusion of the loops from the British Isles with the leaf-shaped blades from the Continent. In contrast, Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 456-7) and Rowlands (1976, 51) considered it to have been the result of an Irish development from the kite-shaped blades which spread to Britain. Since no examples of Continental leaf-shaped spearheads with rivet holes dated to the early part of the Middle Bronze Age have been recognised in Britain (Rowlands 1976, 51), the examples of Irish spearheads available to British craftsmen seem a more plausible point of origin, leading to indigenous manufacture and development of type variants.

The dating evidence, typology and distribution of sidelooped spearheads suggests that they originated in Ireland as a development of the kite-shaped spearheads (Class III) in the Killymaddy phase. From these, a number of further side-looped developments were made in Ireland with flame, leaf and rapier-shaped blades, described by Ramsey (1989) as Types Derrygill B, Gara, Knockbride,

Hoard evidence indicates that the Taunton phase was one of the main periods of use. It can be speculated that indigenous production originated in the Acton Park phase, and this is supported by a limited number of radiocarbon determinations. A flow chart depicting the proposed typological evolution of the side-looped spearheads is shown in PLATE 92. 47

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

6.4

Type 2: Leaf The attributes of this type can be traced to the Group 1 British side-looped spearheads (Rowlands 1976, 52; PLATE 85), and the Irish side-looped spearheads with leaf-shaped blades. As has been noted in CHAPTER 5.2 above, the largest spearheads in this type had a Continental provenance, and a mould for this type was recovered close to the mouth of the Seine at Gonfrevillel’Orcher 44:555. It is possible that these large spearheads were produced on the Continent and were further influenced by the prevailing Continental leaf-shaped blade form.

Basal-looped spearheads

Typology, contexts with associated artefacts, and radiocarbon dates provide the evidence to interpret the dating and origins of the basal-looped types. Metallurgical analysis has shown that all but two of the basal-looped spearheads tested had low lead formulations. The exceptions are St Andrews 41:262 from Type 8: Late Irish/Scottish, which had a high lead content, and San Esteban 10:547 which was made of copper rather than a bronze alloy, for which a zero lead content is recorded APPENDIX 3). A flow chart depicting the typological evolution and dating of the basal-looped types is shown in PLATE 93.

There are eight contexts in which Type 2 basal-looped spearheads were associated with other artefacts. Liesbüttel 65:539 was a burial site in North Germany in which the associated artefacts were a flint dagger from the Neolithic period, and a dirk attributed to Kersten’s Period IIa in Schleswig-Holstein, contemporary with Montelius II, and the late Acton Park/early Taunton phase in Britain (Butler 1963, 98-9). The Taunton hoard 57:216 is the type site for the industrial phase, and is typical of the Ornament Horizon (Smith 1979, 179). Methwold 51:165 was a metal detectorist find from 1996 containing rapiers, ornaments and a palstave from the Taunton phase. The site was excavated by Colin Pendleton in 2005, and there is some doubt as to whether the metalwork assemblage from Methwold represents a hoard rather than an accumulation of material caused by a flood event (Pendleton, email 24/10/05).

A listing of basal-looped spearheads with associated artefacts in secure contexts is shown in FIG. 4:6. The chronological relationship of Continental artefacts to the British industrial phases is most clearly shown in FIG. 6:5. Type 1: Transitional This type was defined to include those spearheads that show a direct relationship with side-looped spearheads. Variants A and B have a similar blade form to Class III, kite-shaped, but the loops have been moved from the side of the socket into the base of the blade. Unprovenanced Ireland 1:450 has bulging loops at the base of the blade which represent only a slight upward movement of the loops in Type Larkfield (Ramsey 1989). It also has a long, angled base forming a kite-shaped blade. This is very similar in form to a Type l mould, Toorglass 67-552, which was found in the same context as a Class III kiteshaped spearhead mould with similar bulging loops but positioned half way up the socket rather than projecting from the blade (Coghlan & Raftery 1961, 235 no 25). Irish stone moulds for the kite-shaped spearheads can be dated to the Killymaddy phase, suggesting that this basallooped mould may be of a similar date. Variant C, with loop plates intruding onto the blade, are very similar in size and form to the Type Knockbride side-looped spearheads, with the loops moved upwards into the blade (Ramsey 1989; PLATE 86).

There are two hoards with a terminus post quem substantially later than the Taunton phase. Wiesloch 65:536 is a burial site in Germany containing a basallooped spearhead fragment which is probably Type 2, but could possibly be Type 3. The associated artefacts are a Rixheim sword, attributed to Br D or early Ha A1 (Schauer 1971, 72; Reim 1974, 43-5) and two urns which Butler (1963, 102) attributed to Ha A1. The spearhead many have been retained as an exotic status object for several generations. The Speen hoard 45:16 contained a basal-looped spearhead, classified as Type 2, but borderline with Type 5. It is damaged and has a rivet hole cut roughly in the socket, perhaps denoting an extended period of use. It was associated with a Class VI barbed spearhead of the Broadwood complex, and firmly dated to the Ewart Park phase. There is no other evidence for continued production or use of Type 2 spearheads into the Late Bronze Age, and this may also be an example of an heirloom handed down over generations.

All but six of Type l basal-looped spearheads are of Irish provenance. It is likely that they were one of the developments of the Class III spearheads that occurred at the same time as the leaf-shaped, side-looped series in Ireland. Both the leaf-shaped, side-looped types and the early basal-looped spearheads may have been part of the process of bronzesmiths “vigourously experimenting to produce more efficient weapons” (Evans 1933, 192). A similar dating of Killymaddy or possibly early Bishopsland is appropriate for both.

There is doubt as to whether Langwood Fen 46:47 can be considered a secure context. A Type 2 spearhead and a Type Yetholm shield were recovered in the same field in 1870. If they were indeed associated, it would indicate possible deposition in the Penard phase. Needham (1979b, 128) has noted that dating evidence for sheet bronze shields from Northern Europe is “notoriously problematical”, but he suggested that the perforation in 48

6. CHRONOLOGY

There are twelve contexts in which Type 3 basal-looped spearheads have associated metalwork. Five of these have strong Taunton phase affiliations. In the Blandford hoard 48:67, a Type 3 spearhead was associated with an early South Western palstave, attributed to the Taunton phase (Schmidt & Burgess 1981, 142). The Brading Marsh hoard 48:148 contained eleven arm rings attributable to the Ornament Horizon of the Taunton phase (Smith 1959, 179). The Boughton Fen hoard 51:159-160 contained two Type 3 basal-looped spearheads and a quoit-headed pin similar to one in the Taunton hoard (ibid.). A similar dating is appropriate for the Sherford hoard 56:215, which contained Taunton phase palstaves. The Glentrool hoard 58:260 can be attributed to the Taunton phase based on a rapier, short flanged axe, torc fragment and pins (Coles 1963-4, 108). The Grammond hoard 65:500 from Central France was dated to the Bronze Moyen by Millotte (1976, 146), based on the early British palstave, rapiers and bracelet characteristic of the Ornament Horizon. This equates to the late Acton Park/early Taunton phase in Britain. The Stibbard hoard 52:166-175 contained palstave types that are attributed to the late Taunton/early Penard phases.

the Long Wittenham shield was characteristic of a Middle Bronze Age spearhead with a lozenge shaped midrib section. Prior to Needham’s research, Coles (1962, 171) had attributed sheet bronze shields to the eighth century BC (Ewart Park phase), though he later modified his view to accept a possible Penard dating in his discussion of the South Cadbury shield (Coles et al. 1999, 44). In view of the uncertain context, and the possibility of a circular argument in dating the association, the evidence from Langwood Fen is discounted here. Horrington Hill 56: 210-2 was a hoard of four looped spearheads, and is of limited use for dating purposes. There were two Type 2, and one Type 3 basal-looped spearheads, together with one side-looped spearhead, supporting the view that their period of use may have been contemporary. The Yattendon hoard 45:23-5 was a scrap hoard with metalwork from the Early to Late Bronze Age, and so is no help in dating (Coghlan 1970, 1). The wooden shaft of only one Type 2 spearhead has been radiocarbon dated. The dating range spans the Acton Park industrial phase:Site BP cal. range (2 sigma) Schellebelle 2:477 3150±55 1520-1260BC

The Nettleham hoard, 50:155 is likely to have been deposited in the Wilburton phase. Three palstaves and two socketed axes are attributed to the Wilburton phase, and the Class Vb spearhead and ferrule are similar to artefacts in the Wilburton hoard (Schmidt & Burgess 1981, 157, 179). Six of these items were analysed by Brown & Blin-Stoyle (1959, 204 nos 200-5) and found to be of high lead content. However, the basal-looped spearhead is the only item from the hoard found to be of low lead formulation (ibid., 204, no 206) suggesting that it was produced before the other items, during the Middle Bronze Age.

Lab. no. UtC 3741

In summary, the dating evidence for Type 2 is rather limited and contains anomalies. It can be interpreted to suggest that the type originated in the Acton Park phase, and had its main period of use during the Taunton phase. The two secure contexts indicating a later deposition date, Wiesloch and Speen, may reflect retention as prized artefacts rather than continued usage. Interpretation of the typology suggests that Type 2 evolved from the sidelooped series of the British and Irish types. The predominance of the Continent as the provenance of the largest Type 2 spearheads opens the way for a possible influence of the leaf-shaped spearheads prevailing on the Continent – support for Coffey’s fusion hypothesis (Coffey 1893-6, 498). The dating profile suggests that Type 2 overlapped part of the main period of use of the side-looped spearheads.

Deposition of the San Esteban hoard 66:547 from Northern Spain is dated to the Wilburton phase based on the presence of the Type Wilburton variant C sword. The basal-looped spearhead is of Irish design, based on the style of its incised decoration. It is unique in that its formulation is unalloyed copper, which is softer and less effective in combat than bronze. It is also the only basallooped spearhead recovered from Spain. These factors suggest that it was specially produced as a symbol of status, and as such may have been retained for a number of generations prior to deposition (Almagro 1960).

Type 3: Flame This type is the most numerous within the basal-looped series with a total of 146 spearheads. One of the origins of the type can be clearly traced to the British side-looped series, Group 2 (Rowlands 1976, 52; PLATE 85) whose blade shapes are replicated in many of the Type 3 spearheads. Another source may be the Irish Class III kite-shaped spearheads and their equivalent in the basallooped Type 1 variant B. In this variant, the kite-shaped blades have both angular and curved bases. The curved base form with the addition of a longer, extended blade becomes transformed into the Type 3 spearheads with wide low bases (CHAPTER 5.3), which should be considered as an Irish development.

The basal-looped spearhead in the Kish hoard 63:392 is associated with a socketed axe and knife dated to the Dowris phase, giving it a clear terminus post quem in the Late Bronze Age (Eogan 1983, 173 no 155). This is the only Irish example of a basal-looped spearhead from a hoard context prior to Type 8: Late Irish/Scottish, and it is difficult to assess its significance as to the normal period of use for Type 3 spearheads in Ireland.

49

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

has been found in the Thames Valley, East Anglia, the Trent Valley, Ireland and Scotland, so there is no distribution concentration. The presence of midrib ridges and incised decoration on four spearheads of this type suggests Irish influence.

The Buckingham hoard 45:26-7 contains only Type 3 basal-looped spearheads with no other associated artefacts, so is unhelpful for dating purposes. These two spearheads were identified at Buckinghamshire County Museum by the author as being from the same mould or pattern, and have not previously been published.

Type 5: Flame, projecting loops Typologically, this can be seen as a transitional type between the leaf and flame shaped spearheads with incorporated loops, and the projecting loop types with triangular blades. Hoard and radiocarbon dating evidence is limited. The one potential association containing a spearhead of this type is difficult to interpret. The context of Four Mile Bridge 61:289 cannot be considered secure, because the two artefacts, the basal-looped spearhead and a Class V spearhead, were not found on the same day, and were located three meters apart (Lynch 1991, 236). The Class V spearhead is a common type, with earliest associations in the late Penard phase, but more usually in the Late Bronze Age. The Penard hoard, which was the type site for the Penard phase, had a Class V spearhead, described as “an example of the long-standing continental type of riveted spearhead” (Savory 1980, 51).

The shafts of two Type 3 spearheads have been radiocarbon dated:Site Datchet 9:28 Lanesborough 13:358

BP cal. range (2 sigma) Lab. no 3035±40 1405-1131BC OxA 5196 3150±40 1518-1320BC GrN 12347

The dating range for the Datchet spearhead spans both the Acton Park and Taunton phases, while that for Lanesborough falls into the Killymaddy phase (Acton Park). The evidence from hoards and radiocarbon dating suggests that Type 3 originated in the Acton Park phase, and had its main period of use in the Taunton Phase. This places it as contemporary with the British Class IV sidelooped series, and Type 2 basal-looped spearheads. The hoards of Late Bronze Age deposition may, but do not necessarily, mean that the type remained in use for an extended period of time from the Taunton phase into the Late Bronze Age.

The Type 5 spearheads, for which radiocarbon dating on the wooden shaft has been carried out, gave the following results:Site Strand-o-t-Green 21:125 Wandsworth 20:133

Type 4: Ogival There are no hoards or radiocarbon dates that include this type of only seven spearheads. A metallurgical analysis of Lakenheath Fen 19:228 was carried out by Brown and Blin-Stoyle (1959, no 76) and the low lead formulation did no more than suggest a Middle Bronze Age date. In consequence, typological analysis is the only way in which its date can be estimated. This type is similar to Type 3, the only difference being the ogival blade form, in which there is a concave arc to the blade edges in the upper section of the blade. The ogival form can also be recognised in some Class IV spearheads from Britain (Rowlands 1976, pl 38 nos 1219, 1227, 1281, 1338, 1341). Class IVa rapier-bladed spearheads, mainly provenanced to Ireland, have an ogival blade form, though the concave arc starts from the base of the blade, rather than in the upper section of the blade (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, pl 77). There may also be a Continental influence since the ogival blade shape was present in Continental riveted spearheads during the Middle Bronze Age (Briard & Mohen 1983, 126 fig 4; O’Connor 1980, 65 and 448 list 21).

BP cal. range (2 sigma) Lab. no. 3110±50 1501-1221BC OxA 5949 3055±50 1428-1131BC OxA 6177

The Strand on the Green dating range covers the Acton Park and early Taunton phases. The dates for the Wandsworth spearhead span the Acton Park and whole Taunton phase. Both results are similar to those for Types 2 and 3. Taking into account both the typological interpretation and the dating evidence, a likely scenario is that Type 5 represented a development of Type 2 and 3, with the main period of use running concurrently through the Taunton phase and possibly into the Penard phase. The Four Mile Bridge context should probably be discounted as insecure, and the Class V spearhead from this site has a potentially wide dating range. Type 6: Triangular The dating of this large group of 133 spearheads is relatively well supported by hoard and radiocarbon evidence. Typologically, the triangular blade form and the projecting loops clearly differentiate it from the early leaf/flame types.

One of the attributes of Type 4 spearheads is their considerable size – all within the top 15% of all basallooped spearheads in terms of length. The median length of the basal-looped series increased over the period of currency of the series. It therefore may be reasonable to conclude that Type 4 developed towards the end of Type 3’s main period of use, which would place it in the late Taunton phase. In terms of geographic origins, the type

Two hoards from Humberside, Appleby 49:140-2 and Burringham 48:146-7, are from secure contexts with Penard associations. The Appleby hoard included a Rosnoën sword, a solid hilt sword and Class IV rapiers, while the Burringham hoard included Class IV rapiers and a palstave from the Penard phase. There is a degree 50

6. CHRONOLOGY

from a single vertical pass of the grab (Davis 2003). As noted above in relation to the Langwood Fen hoard which contained a Type 2 spearhead and Type Yetholm shield, a Penard date is possible (Needham 1979b, 128).

of uncertainty about the full inventory of the Appleby hoard which may affect the dating. Two socketed axes were found within the nineteenth century wrappings of the hoard, but were contained separately in a further wrapping with a note indicating that one was found at a quarry called Maud’s Hole at Appleby Line, which is 4.6 km from the hoard site. It is likely that they were an unrelated find (Davey & Knowles 1972, 154-5). A Class V spearhead was definitely part of the hoard. This can be compared to a similar spearhead from the Penard hoard, allowing a Penard dating.

Radiocarbon dating has been carried out on the shafts of six Type 6 spearheads, three from Britain and three from Ireland:Site St Ives 23:52 Fairford 31:72 Isleworth 25:89 Menlough 23:328 Menlough 23:329 Menlough 23:330

Three hoards from Northern England contained basallooped spearheads, and were representative of the Wallington complex – the Wallington hoard itself 54:181, Farnley 53:180 and Shelf 58:249. Burgess (1968a) argued that the Wallington complex was contemporary with the Wilburton phase. However, Needham (1990b) has made a convincing case for it being a northern manifestation of the Penard phase, based on more recent finds from Croxton and Thirsk.

BP cal. range (2 sigma) 3045±55 430-1130BC 3030±100 1500-1000BC 3015±45 1399-1126BC 2990±35 1390-1046BC 2930±35 1259-1009BC 3015±35 1387-1129BC

Lab. no. OxA 1526 OxA 5954 OxA 5953 GrN 16880 GrN 16881 GrN 16879

The radiocarbon dating range at 2 sigma is generally too wide to identify a single industrial phase. In these cases, the dates span both the Taunton and Penard phases. However, the results are differentiated from those for Type 2 and 3 where they hardly extended into the Penard phase.

The basal-looped spearhead in the Maentwrog hoard 61:281 was associated with three Class IV rapiers, dated to the Penard phase. On the Continent, the Kergoustance en Plomodiern hoard 63:494 from Brittany contained four small sword fragments attributed to Type Rosnoën, a chape fragment and two looped palstaves. The hoard has been attributed to the Rosnoën phase in France (Briard 1965, 170), contemporary with the early Penard phase. The Tirancourt hoard 64:523 from the Somme contained a large basal-looped spearhead and a distinctive Cypriot type sword with a looped tang. Millotte (1976, 147) dated the hoard to the Bronze Final II (late Penard/early Wilburton) based on the sword which was similar to one in the Pépinville hoard. This sword type was termed “rodtanged” by Colquhoun and Burgess (1988, 11-13) and dated by them to the Penard phase in Britain.

In summary, the hoard evidence suggests that Type 6 had its main period of use in the Penard phase, possibly extending into the Wilburton phase. This is supported by the interpretation of the typological sequence in which Type 6 can be seen as a development from Types 2 and 3 and the transitional Type 5, where the main period of use was the Taunton phase. The radiocarbon dates are consistent with this interpretation, though the span of the dating range would also allow earlier use. Type 7: Narrow channel This type can be seen as a regional development of Class 6. On typological grounds, its origin and main period of use would be the Penard phase. The distribution concentration in the Thames Valley, which accounts for 23 of the 44 Type 7 spearheads, suggests that this was the geographical point of origin.

At the Dainton metalworking site 67: 550, clay mould fragments were recovered for a spearhead described as basal-looped by Needham (1980, 201). He noted that the projecting loop plates did not have an aperture moulded into them, and would have been cast as solid bars. Normally, the loops were formed in the mould, and it is possible that the loops may have been decorative bands similar to those on spearheads identified by Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 460 and pl 68 figs 35, 36) and defined by them as Class Va. The remains of other clay matrices have been reconstructed to represent moulds for a large ogival lunate spearhead, two Type Wilburton swords and two ferrules, all characteristic of the Wilburton phase (CHAPTER 10.1).

Two hoards contained Type 7 spearheads. The associated artefacts in the Ambleside hoard 47:57 are all attributable to the Penard phase – a Rosnoën sword, a solid cast hilt sword, a Class IV rapier, a north German ferrule and a Type Shelf palstave. The context of Greffern 64: 534 can not be considered secure: a Type 7 spearhead and a sword similar to Type Ballintober were found on different days within the same gravel quarry. The sword has been attributed to the early Urnfield period by Schauer (1974), equivalent to the Penard phase. The single radiocarbon date is consistent with the other evidence. As with the Type 6 spearheads, the radiocarbon date range is too wide to identify a single industrial phase and in this case it spans both the Taunton and Penard phases:-

A Type 6 basal-looped spearhead and a Type Yetholm shield fragment were recovered together on the conveyor at Elvaston Quarry 47:64. While not representing a secure context, the evidence suggests that they may have been deposited together because they came from material taken

Site Mortlake 38: 97

51

BP cal. range (2 sigma) 2975±45 1373-1046BC

Lab. no. OxA 5952

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

Basal-looped spearheads: conclusions (PLATES 92-4) The earliest basal-looped spearheads, Type 1: Transitional, were among the innovative designs that evolved in Ireland from the Class III kite-shaped spearheads (PLATE 92). The other contemporary designs that were part of this process were the Irish side-looped, leaf-shaped types (Ramsey 1989; PLATE 86). It is likely that these developments occurred during the Killymaddy phase.

Type 8: Late Irish/Scottish The spearheads in this type are of a quality and innovative form that suggest they were designed for special use as symbols of status (Ramsey 1989, 102). They represent a marked difference from the other basal-looped types, and there are no examples that can be considered as transitional leading to Type 8. It can be speculated that they may have been produced after the main body of the basal-looped series had been replaced by the leaf-shaped, riveted types, and were a revival of an archaic form that was deemed to represent a period of warrior ancestors – a type of “gothic revival”.

In Britain, the Class IV side-looped spearheads developed from the Irish kite-shaped and leaf-shaped spearheads (PLATE 92). The substantial number of British side-looped spearheads indicate that they were produced in Britain where further indigenous design evolution took place (Rowlands 1976, 51). Their initial production may be dated to the Acton Park phase.

The type is provenanced to Ireland and Scotland, apart from Harrogate 41:183, though this also had a Scottish connection in that the Class V spearhead in the Harrogate hoard had a decorated gold band on the base of the socket similar to that on the basal-looped spearhead from Pyotdykes 41:273 (Coles et al. 1964). Ireland is the more likely point of origin than Scotland, due to its more highly developed metalwork industry and history of design innovation.

Types 2 and 3 basal-looped spearheads were developed together. A number of influences can be traced, which include the Irish Type 1 basal-looped spearheads, the Irish and the British Class IV side-looped spearheads (PLATE 92). Whether Types 2 and 3 were first manufactured in Ireland or Britain is not known, but the homogeneity in Britain and Ireland of Type 2 and some of the Type 3 variants suggests that regular contact across the Irish Sea led to local production of common forms. There is a possibility of further influence from the prevailing Continental leaf-shaped blade form in that the largest Type 2 spearheads are provenanced to the Continent, suggesting local manufacture. Some attributes of Types 2 and 3 spearheads appear to have Irish origin based on distribution patterns, and their limited presence in Britain and the Continent may be the result of Irish exports. These attributes are the midrib ridges, incised decoration, and the wide, low base attribute of some Type 3 spearheads.

Seven of the fourteen spearheads from this type were recovered in hoards, giving clear dating evidence since all have Dowris/Ewart Park associations. The Tempo hoard 62:321 included two Class 4 swords (Eogan 1983, 86, no 80) from the Late Bronze Age. The Knockanbaun hoard 62:373 included a disc headed pin of a type found in two other Irish Late Bronze Age hoards (ibid, 149, no 130). The Gortagowan hoard 63:378 contained a sword whose design originated in the Roscommon phase, but the hoard may well have been deposited in the Dowris phase which was the main period for hoard deposition in the Irish Late Bronze Age (Journal of the British Archaeological Association vol 1, 1846, 255; Eogan 1983, 12). The large hoard from St Andrews 59:262 included a wide range of metalwork types dated to the Ewart Park phase. The metallurgical analysis of the St Andrews basallooped spearhead showed it to be of high lead content (Cowie et al. 1998, 146), a formulation that Brown and Blin-Stoyle attributed to the Late Bronze Age (Brown & Blin-Stoyle 1959, 193, but note Northover 1980, 235). In the Harrogate 55:183, Pyotdykes 60:273 and Carinish hoards 60:274, the basal-looped spearheads were associated either with Late Bronze Age sword or spearhead types. None of the Type 8 basal-looped spearheads have been the subject of radiocarbon dating tests.

Types 2 and 3, and Type 4: Ogival appear to have had their main period of use in the Taunton phase in Britain, and the first half of the Bishopsland phase in Ireland. Hoard evidence from Britain suggests that the Class IV side-looped spearhead continued to be produced during this period. In Ireland, there is no hoard evidence on which to assess the extent to which Class III and Class IV continued into the Bishopsland phase. Type 5 represented a transitional phase between the incorporated loop Types 2 and 3 from the Taunton phase and the main projecting loop Types 6 and 7 from the Penard phase (PLATE 93). On typological grounds the Type’s origins can be dated to the end of the Taunton phase, continuing into the Penard phase. The distribution pattern of Type 5 suggests it may have been of British origin.

In summary, the Late Bronze Age dating for Type 8 appears secure. In all probability, Ireland was the geographic point of origin for the type, with contact links to Scotland providing the inspiration for the Scottish variants.

Type 6 is well distributed in both Britain and Ireland with similar forms present in both regions, suggesting that the British and Irish industries were closely linked. 52

6. CHRONOLOGY

The distribution concentration in the Thames Valley with 35 spearheads marks the growing importance of this region. Type 7 appears to be a variant of Type 6, probably originating in the Thames Valley which accounts for 52% of its distribution. Types 6 and 7 had their main period of use during the Penard/late Bishopsland phase. In Britain, but perhaps not in Ireland, they appear to have largely replaced the side-looped spearheads and the early basal-looped spearheads with incorporated loops (Types 2, 3, 4).

the basal-looped Types 6 and 7 may have continued into the Wilburton phase.

Class V leaf-shaped, riveted spearheads began to appear during the Penard phase, with a Class V spearhead present in the Penard type site hoard. This form was predominant throughout the Late Bronze Age, though occasional use of

The chronological sequence of various Middle Bronze Age spearhead types has been charted in PLATE 94. The different pattern of use between Britain and Ireland should be particularly noted.

A local and specialised revival of basal-looped spearheads emerged in the Dowris/Ewart Park phase with a small number of large, finely crafted spearheads – Type 8. It has been suggested that this type was primarily for ceremonial use (Ramsey 1989, 102). The distribution pattern suggests that they originated in Northern Ireland, with variants produced in Scotland.

53

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

7.

OTHER SPEARHEADS WITH BLADE APERTURES

Other forms of blade apertures are discussed in this section. Protected-loop spearheads are considered at some length because they are likely to have been contemporary with the basal-looped series. The production of spearheads with lunate and similar blade apertures began at the end of the main basal-looped series in the British Isles. The other types are almost certainly not directly related to the basal-looped series, and will be treated more briefly. They include pierced-blade spearheads, drilledloop spearheads from the Mediterranean region and Hungary, and the Chinese side- and basal-looped spearheads.

7.1

Fifty eight of this type are known. Distribution is weighted to Ireland, accounting for thirty six spearheads (Ramsey 1989, nos 745-778, and page 171). There is a concentration in Northern England with eleven spearheads, scattered distribution in Southern England with four, and three in Scotland (list and references: Needham 1990a, 268). One spearhead recovered from Shardlow Quarry, Derbyshire, in 1997 (Derby Museum, L1998-456) is unique in that it has two triangular apertures positioned asymmetrically in the blade, as well as the protected loops (PLATE 95:3). One protected-loop spearhead has been found on the Continent, the result of dredging in the River Isle, Dordogne (Briard & Mohen 1983, 143 and 144 fig 2).

Protected-loop spearheads (PLATES 82, 95)

Protected-loop spearheads were present in four hoards from Northern England – Farnley 53:180, Wallington 54:181, Corbridge and Netherby Fort. All these hoards are attributed to the Wallington complex which has been dated to the Penard phase (Burgess 1968a, 67-8; Needham 1990a, 261). Basal-looped spearheads were also present in two of these hoards – at Farnley and Wallington. A protected-loop spearhead was one of a number of associated finds from Croxton, Norfolk, also attributed to the Penard phase (Needham 1990a, 261).

Protected-loop spearheads have loops within the blade, further above the blade/socket junction than on basallooped types, and adjacent to the midrib. They have a raised protective plate on the outer side of the loops, similar to the lozenge loop plates on the basal-looped spearheads (Coffey 1893-6, 501). The blades are flameshaped, with the position of maximum width 34% or less up the blade. The blade surface is flat, with bevels to the blade edges.

Radiocarbon dating has been carried out for just one protected-loop spearhead from Cloghore, Co. Donegal, in Ireland:-

Spearhead length in the group mainly falls into the range 100mm-350mm, representing 85% of those complete spearheads for which data is available. There are six which are substantially longer, from 411mm to 610mm, which Coles (1963-4, 110) interpreted as having a ceremonial function.

Site Cloghore

The date range at 2 sigma equates to the Killymaddy and early Bishopsland phases (Acton Park/Taunton). This is the only dating evidence for Ireland.

Fig. 7:1 Protected-loop spearheads: length

The distribution pattern suggests an Irish origin for this type. Ramsey (1989, 98) noted the typological similarity with Type Larkfield which has a similar blade shape and surface, though its loops are tucked below the blade rather than within the blade (PLATE 86). It can be speculated that the protected-loop type was one of the innovative developments from the kite-shaped spearheads in Ireland, which included the Irish sidelooped, leaf-shaped types and the early basal-looped types. This is supported by the fact that the blades are flat like the Irish kite-shaped and side-looped types, rather than having blade ribs which are present in the majority of basal-looped spearheads.

PROTECTED-LOOP SPEARHEADS 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

BC Cal. range (2 sigma) Lab no. 3095±40 1439-1222BC GrN 11439

50 10 99 01 15 49 019 20 9 02 25 49 02 30 99 034 35 9 03 40 99 04 45 49 04 50 99 05 55 49 059 9 60 0+

SPEARS

mm

Sources: Needham 1990a; Ramsey 1989

54

7. OTHER SPEARHEADS WITH BLADE APERTURES

a basal-looped and a lunate spearhead. This site is dated to the Wilburton phase (Needham 1980, 210). The lunate development, therefore, overlapped the last stage of the main basal-looped series, but continued until the end of the British Bronze Age as the examples on Class VI barbed spearheads indicate, since this class is considered to be the “last phase” in British Bronze Age spearhead design (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, 454, and pl 75 fig 57).

Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 450) proposed a different scenario, suggesting that the protected-loop spearheads developed from the basal-looped group, representing a further move of the loops up the blade. They saw this as the last looped variant prior to dropping the loop entirely in favour of rivets in the socket. In my view, this is less persuasive because of the close typological correlations between protected-loop spearheads and the innovative types developed from the Irish kite-shaped spearheads. If we can rely on just the single Irish radiocarbon determination, the protected-loop spearheads can be seen as contemporary with the side-looped and the basallooped series.

The purpose of the apertures was considered by Coffey (1983-6, 503) to be both ornamental and to reduce the weight of the spearhead. Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 452) suggested a further reason – to economise on metal – though this may be considered doubtful as the type emerged at a time of increasing availability of raw materials (Burgess 1974, 209; Tylecote 1986, 11). Many of the spearheads with these apertures were large, and displayed a high level of craftsmanship, including the addition of raised mouldings and cable patterning (Coffey 1893-6, 503; PLATE 96:1). These attributes suggest that at least part of the use of these spearheads was for ceremonial occasions.

A number of characteristics of the protected-loop spearheads bring into question the purpose of the loops. Their positioning further up the midrib meant that they were at a greater distance from the shaft than in the case of the basal-looped types. The loops were normally very small, making the threading of any binding a difficult operation. A number of the type have long sockets which further extended the distance between loop and shaft: examples with long sockets are River Thames (Greenwell & Brewis 1909, pl 66:29), Portglenone, Co. Antrim and Ballymore Eustace, Co. Kildare (Ramsey 1989, nos 746 and 773). Coffey (1893-6, 502) considered that the most reasonable explanation for the loop plates was that they protected the binding from abrasion. However he doubted that the loops on the larger examples were used for bindings and noted that the socket mouth had in these cases been hammered “as if to grip the shaft”. Estyn Evans (1933, 193) considered that the loops were obsolescent on these spearheads, and picked up on Coffey’s point, noting that “the socket is often of ungainly length, and it appears frequently to have been hammered in at the mouth so as to grip the shaft”. It is possible that the loops were used to hold decorative streamers (Wilde 1861, 494) – the use of the loops will be discussed in CHAPTER 12 below.

7.2

Wilde (1861, 495) considered that the spearheads with large blade apertures were “peculiarly Irish”. Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 453) noted that they were widely distributed throughout the British Isles, but “rarely found” elsewhere. More recent research has established their distribution in France, the Netherlands and Spain (Briard & Mohen 1983, 143, 145; Coffyn 1985, map 17; Butler 1987, 32 note 6). This distribution pattern can be attributed to increasing cross-Channel contact in the Late Bronze Age. Several lunate spearheads and moulds have been recovered in the Ukraine, and southern Russia to the Urals. These are generally smaller than the lunate spearheads from the British Isles, and have some unique lunate forms. It has not been established whether this series was influenced by the British and Western European spearheads, or whether they were a separate, indigenous development (Tallgren 1926; Schüle 1969; Bockarev & Leskov 1980; Klochko 1995).

Lunates and other blade apertures (PLATE 96)

Apertures within the spearhead blades have been interpreted as a typological development of Irish origin from the basal loops (Wilde 1893-6, 495; Evans 1933, 197). The apertures took a number of forms – semicircular, termed lunate by Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 452), circles, slots, and geometric shapes such as triangles.

7.3

Pierced blade spearheads (PLATE 95)

Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 451) and Evans (1933, 198) drew attention to pierced blade spearheads from Greece. These spearheads were tanged, and the function of the apertures in the blade has been interpreted as the means of binding the spearhead to the shaft. PLATE 95:8 provides an interpretation of the method use in which the spearhead is pushed into the shaft and held in place with bindings through the apertures (British Museum 1904, fig 118).

The lunate shape is the most common, and is likely to be of the earliest date. A spearhead with this type of aperture was recovered in Thirsk in 1988, and was associated with metalwork that has been dated to the Penard phase (Needham 1990b, 260-4). The debris from the Dainton metalworking site 67:550 contained matrix fragments for 55

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

The hoard is interpreted as being associated with a sanctuary site, and there are suggestions that the cult of a warrior god was honoured there (Albanese Procelli 1993; Leighton 1999, 213; Müller-Karpe 1959, figs 8-11 in which he referred to the site as Aderno, probably a misprint for the nearby town of Adrano).

This spearhead form originated in Anatolia in the second half of the third millennium BC (Maigret 1976, fig 4). Examples have been recovered from the royal tombs in Alaca Hüyük, dated to around 2300BC, and from Troy (Yadin 1963, 46, 157). They have also been found in Crete, Cyprus and the Greek Islands, dated to the local Early and Middle Bronze Ages (Avila 1983, 131-2, pl 3031). The type can be considered a primitive spearhead form, and was replaced when hollow casting technology was developed to enable the production of hollow sockets.

As noted, these drilled spearheads were exceptionally large. Of the 36 complete spearheads of this type catalogued by Albanese Procelli (1993), the median length is 567mm. Those from the Mendolito hoard ranged from 482mm to 652mm. The length distribution is depicted in FIG. 7:2.

The pierced blade form has a superficial similarity to the blades of lunate spearheads in the British Isles. However their main period of use ended some four hundred years before the lunate type was developed, so it is unlikely that there is any connection. Prior to the development of hollow sockets, a tang with a rivet at the base was the method of fixing head to shaft in the British Isles rather than pierced loops, so no relationship can be traced between the two traditions.

7.4

The size, appearance and presence in the Mendolito, Giarratana and Tre Canale di Vizzini hoards has suggested that they had ceremonial and votive uses (Albanese Procelli 1993, 180). The purpose of the loops has been interpreted by Albanese Procelli as taking bindings to secure the spearhead to the shaft. In her view the unusual length of blade together with the short socket had made this spearhead form unstable, even when secured through rivets in the socket. Only eight of the thirty six complete spearheads of this type catalogued by Albanese Procelli had rivet holes, and in the case of four of them, the rivet holes were small, making it difficult to utilise a rivet of substantial proportions (ibid., 179).

Drilled loop spearheads: Sicily, Italy, the Greek sanctuaries, Hungary and the Ukraine (PLATES 97-8)

Fig. 7:2 Drilled loop spearheads from Sicily: length

In a footnote, Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 452) recorded that “some spearheads found in Italy, Hungary etc. have small round holes at the base of their wings, but these do not seem in any way to represent the lunate openings or loops on the socket found in the United Kingdom”. A distinct geographic grouping of this spearhead type has been identified by Albanese Procelli (1993, 181) covering Sicily and Southern Italy including the regions of Calabria, Basilicata and Campania, with an isolated presence in Central Italy in the Bernardini di Palestrina Tomb. Additionally, the type has been recovered from the Greek sanctuary sites of Delphi and Olympia (Avila 1983, 140-5), and isolated examples in Hungary and the Ukraine (Klochko 1995, pl 20).

DRILLED LOOP: SICILY 14 12 10 8

SPEARS

6 4 2

50 10 99 014 15 9 01 20 99 02 25 49 029 30 9 03 35 49 03 40 99 044 45 9 04 50 99 05 55 49 059 9 60 0+

0

mm

Source: Albanese Procelli 1993

These spearheads are large, have flat blades with either curved, horizontal or angled bases, and small holes drilled at the base of each blade wing. The midrib takes different forms – oval, hexagonal and polygonal with a number of facets or ribs. The socket is short, occasionally containing rivet holes (Albanese Procelli 1993, 178-9).

Two of the Mendolito spearheads had crosspieces – an annular band inserted through the socket at the base of the blade (ibid., 179 nos M109, M117). These may be interpreted as boar spears to restrain a charging boar once it had been struck by a hand-held spear (PLATE 97:M117).

The largest assemblage of this type was recovered from the Mendolito hoard, Sicily. This massive hoard was recovered in 1908, shortly before the Greenwell and Brewis (1909) paper was published, and consisted of over one thousand objects, weighing approximately 900 kilos. The artefacts included spears, axes, razors, decorated sheet bronze, ornaments and clothes fittings. Among the spearheads, 47 can be recognised as having drilled loops. 30 of these are complete and the remainder are fragments.

The majority of the artefacts in the Mendolito hoard, including the spearheads, are dated to the late eighth or early seventh century BC. The origins of the type were earlier in that the Tre Canale hoard, which contained one drilled spearhead, has been attributed to the tenth and ninth centuries BC (Müller-Karpe 1959, 227; Leighton 1999, 212-3). They are considered to be the product of

56

7. OTHER SPEARHEADS WITH BLADE APERTURES

It is possible that five of the basal-looped corpus classified as Type 9: Drilled Loops may have originally come from the Continent. Their design is not matched by other British spearheads. Unprovenanced Scotland 42:278 has an octagonal midrib and socket which is a common feature of Italian spearheads from the eighth century (Müller-Karpe 1959, figs 39-41). Unprovenanced Britain 42:292-4 in the British Museum with no accession numbers or records are also of Continental design. The incised circular decoration on 42:292 is similar to that on a spearhead from the Mendolito hoard (Müller-Karpe 1959, pl 8: 20). Unprovenanced Ireland 42:466 also has incised circles of a similar design. These artefacts may have been brought to the British Isles in antiquity or more likely by eighteenth and nineteenth century antiquarian collectors.

indigenous industries rather than influenced by Greek traders and settlers (Leighton 1999, 248). Eleven spearheads of the Sicilian drilled loop type have been recovered from the Greek sanctuary sites, seven from Olympia and four from Delphi (Avila 1983, 140-5). They are interpreted as imports or dedications from Southern Italy or Sicily (Albanese Procelli 1993, 181). The mechanics of this process are not clear – whether they were deposited by indigenous Sikels or by Greek colonists and traders, and whether they were obtained by peaceful means or as war booty. Albanese Procelli (1993, 179 note 329) raised the issue of whether the drilled loop attribute was influenced by the loops of the British spearhead sequence. No British looped spearheads have been found in the region, though it is possible that the concept may have been communicated through trade contact. The earliest date for the Sicilian series may have been during the tenth century BC as noted above, at which time the basal-looped series in the British Isles was reaching the end of its period of use, apart from the small number of Type 8 in Ireland and Scotland. Insufficient evidence is available to support the suggestion of influence from the British looped series, and a separate, indigenous development of the drilled hole concept is more probable.

7.5

Chinese side-looped and basal-looped spearheads (PLATES 99-101)

Looped spearheads from China were first described in a British archaeological journal in 1854 (Banks 1854, 4145, fig 2; PLATE 99:7). The example illustrated had a single loop on the front face of the socket, and can now be dated to the Zhou III Period 770-450BC (Loehr 1956, 46 fig 41A and 113).

In tracking down the substance of the Greenwell and Brewis footnote (1909, 452), the only Hungarian bronze spearhead of this type that I have found is from Marczal (PLATE 98:4), which is similar in design to those from the Mendolito hoard. It was a gift from Sir John Ramsden to the Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in 1927. Its provenance seems to be secure as it formed part of a group of twenty four bronze artefacts from Marczal, presumably part of a hoard. The group comprised six spears, three socketed axes, one socketed chisel, two sickles, four bracelets, five pins and three fibulae. The recent museum computer record at Cambridge attributes the spearhead to Hallstatt A, which coincided with the Penard/Wilburton phases in Britain. The other artefacts from Marczal support a similar date (Museum records).

The earliest Chinese bronze spearheads are attributed to the Anyang period (1300-1028BC) of the Shang Dynasty. Large quantities of bronze artefacts have been recovered during excavations and looting in the region of the ancient capital, Anyang (Karlgren 1945, 101-2). Loehr traced a typological sequence through the period. This started with a side-looped spearhead with leafshaped blade, similar to British Class IV spearheads (Loehr 1956, 40 fig 36A; PLATE 99:1). The next stage was the addition of lateral flanges on the socket to join the blade and loops, and the inclusion of a sunken field in the centre of the blade, matching the blade outline (ibid., 40 fig 36C; PLATE 99:2). Finally, the loops were fully integrated in the base of the lateral flanges (ibid., 40 fig 36E; PLATE 99:4 & 5). Side loops with decorative swirls were a further development in the Zhou II Period 927-771BC (ibid., 137 no 30 and pl 16; British Museum, accession number 1911.10-25.4; PLATE 99:6).

An enquiry was made seeking further information from the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, about this type of bronze spearhead. They reported that they had none in their collection, and were not aware of any others (I. Szathmári, letter 17/3/2003). However, they mentioned that similar pre-Sythian iron spearheads with loops in the base of the blade have been found in Dunakömlöd (Gallus & Horvath 1939, 28 figs 1-3; PLATE 98:1-3). These are dated to the eighth century BC, contemporary with the Sicilian sequence.

The origins of the Chinese side- and basal-looped spearheads are unclear. Although the Chinese had a longestablished and highly developed bronze industry, there is no evidence that it had been applied to spearheads prior to the Anyang period. No primitive tanged forerunners have been recovered in China, the earliest being the fully developed looped type using the difficult hollow casting technology. Loehr (1956, 42), quoting Li Chi the excavator of Anyang, drew the conclusion that the earliest Chinese spearheads were were not indigenous designs, but copied and modified from foreign models by the skilled Chinese bronzesmiths.

Two spearheads with a drilled hole in the base of one blade wing are recorded from the Ukraine (Klochko 1995, pl 20:2-3). 57

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

other direction – from Eurasia to China (Loehr 1956, 103-4). Gimbutas supported Karlgren, and argued that “this type of spearhead is of Asiatic origin and was diffused by the steppe people over an enormous area of Eurasia” (Gimbutas 1965, 571-2). She identified links between Seima, Tomsk and Anyang through similar typology on other metalwork types apart from spearheads – daggers, knives and accessories for bows (ibid., 104). The dating for Seima, Borodino and other sites with looped spearheads has been proposed as 1450-1250BC, the later part of the range overlapping the Anyang Period in China 1300-1028BC (ibid., 104-5).

This raises the question of the source of the external examples. No prototypes have been recovered from adjacent regions to provide the explanation. The nearest examples of looped spearheads are from Western Siberia, Central Russia, the Ukraine and the Baltic coast. They include spearheads with a single side loop, and two opposed side loops, but none with basal loops. Another attribute diagnostic of some of the Anyang spearheads is lateral flanges on the socket. This attribute was present, without loops, on spearhead moulds from the Krasnomajatsk foundry in the Ukraine, and spearheads from Hungary, Western Ukraine and the Middle Volga area (Gimbutas 1965, 571 fig 397: 5.6, and 572 fig 399; PLATE 100).

The evidence can be read to support either westward diffusion of looped spearheads from Eurasia to China, or eastward diffusion from China to Eurasia, and the issue remains unresolved. However, any link that may be claimed between the Chinese looped spearhead series and the British looped series (Loehr 1956, 42) must be a remarkably tenuous one, given the distances involved and the limited number of examples recovered along the proposed diffusion route. The use of the loops is uncertain, whether for securing the spearhead to the shaft or to hold decorative materials. In either case, the development of loops for these purposes can be considered a relatively obvious approach, which could have been originated separately by different cultures.

A distinctive animal head style was present in Anyan metalwork, in particular elk head pommels on knives/ daggers (Karlgren 1945, 139 and pl 31; Loehr 1956, 1034). This style was prevalent in the nomadic cultures adjacent to Anyang to the north and west in Mongolia and Siberia. Karlgren attributed the origins of the style to Anyang, and he traced a diffusion route westwards, eventually reaching Scythia around 500BC (Karlgren 1945, 130-144). In contrast, Loehr argued for a diffusion of metalwork styles, including looped and flanged spearheads, in the

Fig. 7:3 Examples of looped spearheads from Eastern Europe and Asia (PLATE 100-101) Region Western Siberia Central Russia Central Russia Central Russia

Site Tomsk Seima Podbornoe Pokrovsk

Spearhead type Single and double loop moulds Single looped Double looped mould Single looped

Ukraine

Borodino

Single looped, silver

Ukraine Baltic

Koblevo Skowarcz

Single loop mould British side-looped

Baltic

Muhuu

Single loop

•

Reference Gimbutas 1965, 104 fig 64 Gimbutas 1965, 98 fig 56: 3, 4 Gimbutas 1965, 560 fig 384:1 Tallgren 1926, 78 fig 53 & 79 fig 54:1; Loehr 1956, 42, fig 39; Gimbutas 1965, 108 fig 69:1,2 Tallgren 1926, 129 fig 73 Gimbutas 1965, Pl 12:12 Gimbutas 1965, 133 fig 98:5 Gimbutas 1965, 105 fig 65:2* Jacob-Friesen 1967, pl 109:6 Gimbutas 1965, 655 fig 460, 1

Gimbutas (1965, 105 figs 65:1 & 2) illustrates the close similarity of the Skowarcz spearhead with one from Thetford in England.

58

8. CONTEXTS

8.

CONTEXTS, RECOVERY AND REASONS FOR DEPOSITION

8.1

Interpretation of hoards

This difference of interpretation marked the origins of a debate that has continued to the present day, described by Needham (2001, 291) as the “ritual-utilitarian divide”. Indeed the study of Continental material, in particular from the Nordic and North Alpine zones, has tended to favour the importance of the votive interpretation, while studies of material from the Atlantic zone have favoured a utilitarian interpretation.

Single finds account for 89% of spearheads in the basallooped spearhead corpus, the remaining 11% coming from hoards. Of those spearheads for which the context is recorded, 80% came from a wet location, predominantly river, bog and fen. Before describing this information and its implications in detail, the different ways in which hoards have been interpreted – “one of the most discussed, though least understood aspects of the Bronze Age” (Harding 2000, 352) – is first considered.

Worsaae (1866-71, 61-75) drew the conclusion that deposition of some hoards was votive in nature from his reappraisal of some of the rich Danish hoards which included large but broken horns (lurs) and other artefacts likely to have been used in ritual activity. He related this to evidence in a later period for water cults, and suggested that similar practices may have occurred in the Bronze Age. By extension, he also considered that hoards of new artefacts were also votive offerings, and that even hoards containing metalworking debris were votive offerings on the part of bronzesmiths.

The importance of hoards was recognised as a way of establishing a relative chronology for metalwork types, because hoards preserved the associations and relationships between metalwork artefacts, and in some cases with pottery and other artefact types (Montelius 1986 [1885]; Evans 1881). Conclusions on relative dating can be drawn based on association with artefacts of an established date within the hoard assemblage. Hoard data can also be used to illuminate the social, economic and religious aspects of Bronze Age society. The method of approach has normally been a detailed analysis of the composition of hoards, and a comparison of geographical and chronological differences.

Hundt’s influential paper of 1955 was based on hoards from Mecklenburg in the Baltic region of North Germany, in which his analysis of contexts indicated that a significant proportion of the hoards came from watery sites. In considering the implications of this, he drew the conclusion that it was unlikely that the volume of such valuable metalwork could be the result of mischance. The presence of weapons in these hoards argued against storage for recovery in troubled times because that was exactly the time that weapons would be most needed. Again, following Worsaae, he considered that the category of founders’ hoards, which apparently were the most utilitarian group in terms of their contents, may well have represented votive offerings by bronzesmiths. He recognised several dry land hoards from the Late Bronze Age as being grave goods, but of course these also had a votive dimension.

During the nineteenth century, the first stage of analysis was a functional classification of hoards based on their content. Conclusions were drawn as to the type of people who had collected them and for what purpose. Evans (1881, 457) identified three main types:1. Personal hoards containing a small number of artefacts which were interpreted as the personal “treasured property” (ibid.) of an individual. 2. Merchants’ hoards containing artefacts ready for use, often in considerable numbers. 3. Founders’ hoards containing material suitable for recycling – damaged and cut down artefacts, ingots, metalworking waste and moulds.

In analysing Nordic hoards, Baudou (1960, 120-7) was not prepared to go as far as Hundt in interpreting them all as votively motivated. He proposed three classes of hoards taking into account the content, context and likely reason for deposition. The classes were defined as Votive, Treasure and Technical hoards. His assumption for votive hoards was that they would not be recovered, while temporary safe keeping was the objective of treasure and technical hoards, which precluded a votive dimension.

In making this classification, Evans recognised the contribution of others working in the field – de Mortillet and Chantre from France and Worsaae from Denmark. He adopted a strictly utilitarian rationale for deposition: the hoards represented goods stored for future use, but had not been recovered. He noted Worsaae’s interpretation that some hoards were votive depositions, but gave it scant attention: “I am not aware of any of our British hoards being of such a character that they can safely be regarded as votive” (ibid.). 59

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

a regional data base. Smith’s study on Somerset hoards (1959) identified the presence of several types of ornament which were associated with tools, primarily palstaves and sickles. She traced the distribution of this distinctive assemblage across Southern Britain, taking account of its exotic influences, and was able to identify an “Ornament Horizon” of contemporary associated artefacts. This was taken a stage further by Rowlands (1976) who created a new classification of hoards based purely on content, in contrast to Evans’ (1881) functional classification which had sought to determine why and how the metalwork in hoards was brought together. Rowlands’ purpose was to identify regional differences in the metalwork industries “to support spatial arguments in the definition of cultural groupings and in discussions on the production and distribution of implements” (Rowlands 1976, 99).

Von Brunn (1968) was also cautious in accepting a votive interpretation for all hoards. He recognised that different interpretations were being made for hoards in different regions, with strong support for the votive motivation in the Nordic zone, while the utilitarian motivation was favoured in the Carpathian/Danube zone. It may be argued that this reflects the cultural perspectives held by the scholars of these regions, with a strong tradition of mythology in the Nordic zone, and of invasions across the Carpathian/Danube zone (Mozsolics 1967). Von Brunn therefore concluded that there was a need to consider the hoarding phenomenon more widely than his own region and period of study, which had concentrated on Central Germany in the Later Bronze Age. Interpretations continued to range across the spectrum from those strongly weighted to a votive interpretation (Stein 1976; Kubach 1977) to those who considered that the deposition of hoards may have had either votive or utilitarian motivation depending on the period, contents and context (Sprockhoff 1956; Mandera 1972). Levy (1982) sought to make a clear differentiation between those hoards that were votive (ritual) in character, and those that were utilitarian (non-ritual). Arguing from an ethnographic perspective and taking account of Tacitus’ discussion of Germanic ritual practices, she reviewed the key aspects of hoards which included location, content, non-metal associations and the way in which the hoard was physically arranged (ibid., 21-3). Using this matrix, she defined criteria for ritual and for non-ritual hoards. Briefly, her conclusion was that ritual hoards were located in a watery site or a special place in nature – under a stone, in a grove or in a burial. The metalwork was mainly weapons and ornaments that were intact. These were associated with other objects denoting food, including animal bones and pottery. The objects were specially laid out, perhaps in a vessel or surrounded by a neck ring. In contrast, a non-ritual hoard was characterised by a dry land site without any special attributes, the metalwork was tools, fragments and raw materials, and there were no food associations or special arrangement (ibid., 24).

He identified three metalwork categories – tools, weapons and ornaments – and analysed hoard content by these three types, separately and in combination. He then drew conclusions on the different distribution patterns by region. From a data base of 120 hoards from the Taunton and Penard phases in Southern Britain (ibid., 101), his figures can be tabulated as follows:Fig. 8:1 Hoard content in Southern Britain during the Middle Bronze Age (%) Tools only Weapons only Ornaments only Tools and weapons Tools and ornaments Weapons and ornaments Tools, weapons, ornaments Total Hoards containing tools Hoards containing weapons Hoards containing ornaments

52% 4% 10% 11% 15% 4% 4% 100% 82% 23% 33%

The regional analysis showed:1. Hoards containing “tools only” were concentrated in the Thames Valley and South Coast. 2. “Ornaments only” were concentrated in Dorset/Wilts, and the South Coast. 3. “Tools and ornaments” were concentrated in Somerset/Devon (see Smith 1959) and the South Coast. 4. The few composite tools, weapons and ornaments hoards were concentrated in the South West. This information contributed to Rowlands’ identification of the location and the characteristics of local metalworking industries in Southern Britain (CHAPTER 11.2).

Others consider that Levy’s criteria were too rigid, and such fine distinctions could not be applied in practice to many hoards because the evidence was unclear or intergraded (Willroth 1985; Larsson 1986). Nevertheless, the debate on Continental material has continued to place a votive interpretation firmly at the forefront of the discussion, even if it may not be the sole motivation for deposition. In the Atlantic zone, hoard analysis and interpretation have been mainly concerned with other issues, and “the idea that all hoards might be ritual in nature has been little considered in Britain and Ireland” (Harding 2000, 364). Hoard content was analysed more closely, normally using

Taylor (1993) studied hoards in Southern Britain and covered the whole of the Bronze Age, establishing a 60

8. CONTEXTS

For Ireland, Eogan (1983, 6-8) considered the most plausible explanation was that hoards were hidden for safety in times of danger, but he accepted that a votive interpretation may be possible in some cases based on contents and context. Mohen (1977, 202), in his study on the Paris region, cautiously accepted the possibility of a ritual dimension to some of the hoards.

comprehensive data base. Apart from considering hoard content and condition, he looked in detail at the chronology of hoard deposition. Very considerable differences emerged. 70% of all the hoards came from his MBA2 period (Taunton) and LBA3 (Ewart Park). The Taunton phase accounted for 32% of the total, while the periods before and after – Acton Park and Penard – accounted for only 3%.

Needham (2001) sought to move the issue forward by questioning whether there was in fact a conflict between the concept of deposition made ritually and deposition for temporary safe keeping. In his view it was possible that the purposeful deposition of all metalwork may have had a ritual element, and also that all metalwork thus deposited may have been subject to retrieval if required. Even deposits in open water could have been located by the aid of markers and cords, or association with landmarks. To illustrate his hypothesis, he suggested that the small Middle Bronze Age hoards containing palstaves and torcs may have been contributed by the two families in a marriage alliance, with the intention of retrieval when the marriage had issue (ibid., 292-4). The difficulty of proving this and other ritual interpretations suggests that the controversy may never be resolved.

A further analysis of hoard content was published by Needham (2001, 281) covering a different though overlapping area and period to Rowlands’ and Taylor’s studies. Needham’s analysis covered Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in the Penard phase. The data base of 55 hoards in his study came mainly from Scotland, Northern England and Wales – Taylor identified only nine from Southern Britain during this period. Needham’s figures on hoard content are compared to those developed by Rowlands:Fig. 8:2 Hoard content: Britain (%) Rowlands 1976 Southern Britain Taunton/Penard Tools only 52% Weapons only 4% Ornaments only 10% Tools and weapons 11% Tools and ornaments 15% Weapons and ornaments 4% Tools, weapons, ornaments 4% Total 100% Hoards containing tools Hoards containing weapons Hoards containing ornaments

82% 23% 33%

Needham 2001 All Britain Penard 27% 20% 14% 24% 9% 2% 4% 100%

8.2

Hoards containing basal-looped spearheads

59 basal-looped spearheads, accounting for 11% of the corpus, have been recovered from 39 hoards. This includes five sites in which the metalwork appears to be associated, but the context is not secure. The hoards have been analysed as to context and content and can be compared to the figures for all hoards in FIG. 8:2. Percentages are shown, but the small numerical base should be noted:-

64% 49% 29%

“Hoards containing weapons” in Britain during the Penard phase represented more than double the percentage of those in Southern Britain during the Taunton/Penard phases, while tools had less importance, particularly in the “Tools only” hoards. This demonstrates that the characteristics of hoards varied considerably on a geographical and temporal basis, suggesting that caution is necessary when drawing general conclusions on the interpretation of hoards.

Fig. 8:3 Hoards containing basal-looped spearheads: context Watery location

Coombs (1975, 70-74) distinguished between the types of artefact in a hoard, considering that some had a ritual function or were indicative of social status. From the Middle Bronze Age, these special types were weapons and ornaments, with cauldrons and horse and wagon equipment added in the Late Bronze Age. In Coombs’ view, elite items were likely to have been the subject of ritual deposition, in contrast to tools, raw materials and scrap which he considered to be utilitarian.

Number 15

Dry: special Dry: unspecified Total

12 7 34

Context not identified Total

5 39

% 44 Includes fen, bog, peat, riverine gravel, marsh. 35 Includes two burial sites 21 100

Fig. 8:4 Hoards containing basal-looped spearheads: content Weapons only Weapons and ornaments Weapons and tools Weapons, tools, ornaments Total

61

Number 17 3 11 8 39

% 44 8 28 20 100

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

Gerloff 1981). In the present study, 73% of the basallooped spearheads for which the context is known in Britain came from watery sites, while only one can be interpreted as grave goods in a burial site (Crawford, Strathclyde 6:270). In the Middle Rhine region (Wegner 1976), swords from the Ha B3 period were mainly river finds, but those from Ha C typically come from burial sites, suggesting a change in ritual practice. A possible corollary of this relationship is that river deposition of fine metalwork may have had a strong connection with burial rites.

Contents of all the basal-looped spearhead hoards are analysed in detail in the “Table of Associations” at the end of the CATALOGUE, with information on the different basal-looped spearhead types. Two of the hoards contained a high level of fragments suggesting that they should be considered founders’ hoards on Evans’s definition (1881, 457). These were Yattendon 23:45 and Farnley 180:53. Randsborg (1995) considered that axes were sometimes used as weapons during the period, based on burial and rock carving evidence. It is possible therefore that axes found in conjunction with weapons could still be considered high status weapon hoards. Three from the corpus have several weapons and just a single axe – Ambleside 47:57, Methwold 51:165, and Burringham 48:146-7.

Torbrügge’s interpretation has led to a number of studies which sought to test the case for votive deposition in watery places. In the British Isles these include British rivers such as the Thames (Ehrenberg 1977), and the Trent (Scurfield 1997; Davis 1999), the main rivers of Ireland (Bourke 2001) and fens of East Anglia (Trump 1968; but contra Pendleton 1999). Among the many such studies on the Continent are those for the Seine (Mohen 1997), the Oise (Blanchet & Lambot 1977), the Scheldte (Verlaeckt 1996), the mid Rhine and Main (Wegner 1976), Torbrügge’s own earlier study (1960) of the Inn, the rivers of Italy (Bianco Peroni 1978-9) and the bogs of Denmark (Levy 1982).

Conclusions As may be expected, the contexts are mainly from watery sites and special places in the dry landscape. Indeed, the “Dry: unspecified” sites may also have been considered special in the Bronze Age, though the evidence for this is no longer detectable. If these hoards are to be considered predominantly votive, the presence of tools in virtually half of them (48%) argues against the proposal (Coombs 1975, 70-74; Levy 1982, 24) that weapons/ornaments represent ritual and tools represent non-ritual deposition.

8.3

Possible non-ritual interpretations for the presence of the fine artefacts in rivers were considered in many of these studies, and have been well summarised by Needham & Burgess (1980) and Verlaeckt (1996, 53-4). One argument for non-ritual deposition is that the metalwork may be the result of erosion of riverbank settlements, demonstrated at Runnymede Bridge (Longley 1980). However, the bronze finds from this site and from other dry land settlement sites tend to be small or fragmentary artefacts, in contrast to the perceived high status metalwork generally recovered from rivers. An extension of the erosion theory is that the material may have originated from hoards deposited on dry land close to the river. Verlaeckt (1996, 53) argued that such hoards tend to have a larger axe content than the material found in rivers, and that the main concentrations in rivers tend to include artefacts dating to a wide time period, extending beyond the Bronze Age. The Clifton, Nottinghamshire site exemplified this with material from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman and Saxon periods (Phillips 1941, 140-2).

Single finds

On the Continent, the argument for votive deposition of hoards was extended to include single finds, since there was no logical reason why a single artefact could not be considered a suitable votive offering. This became particularly relevant in relation to the extensive volume of fine metalwork recovered from rivers in Western Europe. In a study of finds from a range of watery sites in South West Germany, Zimmermann (1970) noted that, as well as hoards, there were a large number of single, unassociated finds, and he considered that they were predominantly attributable to votive deposition, while accepting that some may have been the result of accidental loss. Torbrügge’s (1970-1) influential paper on river metalwork was comprehensive in its geographical and temporal coverage, and has been the starting point for this field of study. From a detailed evaluation of regional distribution data over time, he was able to establish a relationship between the deposition of metalwork in graves and rivers, tracing the movement of ritual behaviour in the differing choice of deposition site. In Britain, daggers from the Early Bronze Age were predominantly recovered from grave sites, but the category of bladed weapon that followed – the dirk and rapier – was deposited mainly in rivers and fen (Trump 1968; Gerloff 1975; Burgess &

Accidental loss of cargo or possessions from boats is another scenario. Verlaeckt (1996, 53) argued that many of the rivers in North Western Europe, such as the Scheldt, were shallow in the Bronze Age. Considerable effort would have been expended in trying to recover any valuable goods lost in this way, with the likelihood of a high level of success. This would have been particularly the case with spears, because their wooden shafts would 62

8. CONTEXTS

Ramsey (1989, 31) noted that Rev. Canon Grainger, one of the leading collectors of Irish antiquities, rarely committed to paper any information relating to his acquisitions, and his collection was practically unlabelled and uncatalogued. Roach Smith deplored the practice of “rich indiscriminate” collectors whose “disintegrated works of art” were “severed from their birthplace” ie. unprovenanced (Evans 1943, 129, quoting Roach Smith).

have given them a degree of buoyancy (Ehrenberg 1977, 17; Bradley 1990, 24). Rivers as the site of battles is a further reason suggested for riverine metalwork. Rivers were boundaries, and fords were recorded in Celtic sagas as a special site for the meeting of warrior champions. In The Táin, Cúchulainn slaughtered many of his enemies in encounters at the ford (Kinsella 1970, 132, 136, 167 etc.), and a ford was also the chosen site for a fight of honour in The Mabinogion (Gantz 1976, 48). Verlaeckt (1996, 53) challenged the validity of extrapolating events set in a later period to the Bronze Age, but it is reasonable to speculate that some of the riverine metalwork was the result of battles or ambushes. However, it could be argued that most of the weapons would have been recovered as valuable booty from the shallow river bed.

In some cases, when a collection was donated to a museum, the accession records just listed the artefacts with very little provenance information other than the name of the collection. The Bell collection in the National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh, includes a large number of Irish artefacts for which no further provenance is recorded. The provenance of two basallooped spearheads at Ipswich Museum was described as “Felixtowe” (17:171 and 34:223) because that was the town in which the previous owner had lived (Ipswich Museum records). One of the spearheads can be identified as part of the Stibbard hoard 17:171 because all the spearheads in the hoard came from the same mould or master, and had identical flaws. The other is likely to have been of Irish origin.

Given the volume of prestige metalwork recovered from rivers, Verlaeckt concluded that the only plausible explanation was that the majority must have been purposeful deposition, and that this was of a votive nature, which he described as being for “sacral and/or sacro-social reasons” (ibid., 54)

8.4

The methods by which antiquarian collectors obtained their artefacts sometimes led to further unreliability in provenance. In Ireland, rag and bone men were an important source. They obtained bronze metalwork and other prehistoric artefacts that had been recovered by farmers, and then sold them on to the collectors. Through this process, the provenance was often lost, or embellished to enhance the value of the artefact to the seller (Ramsey 1989, 33). In the opinion of Colquhoun and Burgess (1988, 1) “many nineteenth century dealers were not averse to changing the provenance of what they were trying to sell in order to please the buyer”. There was considerable rivalry between collectors of Irish antiquities, such as Canon Greenwell, John Evans, Robert Day and Dr Neligan of Cork. William Arthurs, a dealer from Ballymena, was able to exploit this to his profit. The artefacts that he sold were rarely provenanced because he obtained them from “hard working farmers” who often found them from locations no more specific than “bogs from a great depth” (Evans 1943, 127, quoting William Arthurs).

The basal-looped spearhead corpus: accuracy of the data.

Almost two thirds of the basal-looped spearheads whose recovery date has been recorded were discovered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Many of them eventually found their way into public museums through the bequests of antiquarian collectors of that period. Among the notable collectors whose names occur in the basal-looped spearhead catalogue are Canon William Greenwell, Sir John Evans, Roach Smith, Thomas Layton, William Lloyd, Rev. Canon Grainger, John Bell, Robert Day and Thomas Boynton (Evans 1943). Many had a keen interest in the archaeological significance of the artefacts, and kept a record of the context, method and date of recovery. Some of this information is no longer available because labels from the artefacts and accession records were lost during the process of eventual transfer to a museum by donation, or through the sale rooms. Other collectors were more interested in the artefacts per se, and took little note of their contexts.

Layton and Lloyd built their collections on material gathered by workmen employed in dredging the Thames (Read 1911-2, 232; Smith 1920, 1). The opportunities for imprecise or false provenances were clearly present in this process. Pendleton (1999, 24) noted that there was a flourishing trade in antiquities in East Anglia during the nineteenth century. The antiquarian collectors tended to take up residence in a public house in the fens at regular intervals, so that agricultural workers could bring their finds to them for purchase. The tall stories to enhance the value can be imagined.

The quality of recording and storage by the various collectors was variable. In the case of Thomas Layton, one of the main collectors of artefacts from the Thames, it was noted in his obituary that he had “the most original and the most confusing private museum that it has ever been my fortune to see. In order to provide space for the mere storage...shed after shed was added, and every empty corner filled with books, pottery, fossils, stone implements, bronze swords and every conceivable thing that can be found in an antique store” (Read 1911-2, 232). 63

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

Lincoln 33:153 was found in a crevice in an old wall on Free School Lane, Lincoln (Davey 1973, 78 no 176). Dalton Castle 17:58 was found in 1875, cemented into the walls of the medieval castle (Cowper 1905, 183-4).

Provenancing problems are not limited to nineteenth century finds. In recent years, the location and context of many of the finds by gravel quarry workers have been imprecise. At Attenborough Quarry, Nottinghamshire, Robert Alvey from the University of Nottingham and Mr H. Martin from Beeston developed a good relationship with the quarry manager in the 1950s and 1960s, and visited the quarry site office to inspect the finds made by the work force. However, the exact find spots could rarely be identified, though some could be traced to areas that were being worked at the time of discovery (Alvey 1967, and pers. comm. 3/2003; EMAB 9, 1966, 35). Several artefacts that probably came from the River Trent gravel quarries remained in private possession or were acquired by dealers such as Thompson of Nottingham. These had imprecise provenances, probably because the finders were reluctant to disclose on whose property the find was made. Examples of this may be a Type Sompting socketed axe from Attenborough (Scurfield 1997, 47 no 1) eventually recorded by Doncaster Museum on behalf of a private owner, and another Sompting socketed axe from Holme Pierrepont whose exact find spot is vague (EMAB 7, 1964, 23; Scurfield 1997, 53 no 57). The provenance of metal detector finds can also be suspect for the same reason. However, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, established in 1997 by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and early pioneering work in developing a productive working relationship between archaeologists and metal detectorists as at Scunthorpe Museum (K. Leahy, pers. comm. 10/1998) has increased the number and accuracy of reported detectorist finds.

In addition to the problem of inaccurate recording of contexts, full recovery information has not been recorded on a substantial percentage of the basal-looped spearhead corpus. 32% do not have context information, 47% do not have the method of recovery and 28% do not have any date of recovery.

8.5

Contexts

The contexts of basal-looped spearheads have been tabulated under the following headings – rivers, wet, dry: special, and dry: unspecified. The category of “Rivers” includes finds directly from the river, and also from palaeochannels in the floodplain, normally found in riverside gravel quarries. Loughs and lakes are included under this heading because they are often, but not always, part of river systems. Examples are Dromineer 22:376 which came from Lough Derg, part of the River Shannon system, and Ardonan NA:308 which came from Inishmuck Lough, part of the River Erne system. The definition of “Wet” includes fen, bog, turbaries (peat cutting sites), marshy areas and the sea shore. This definition relates to conditions believed to have prevailed in the Middle Bronze Age rather than at present. There is some doubt as to whether sites described as fen edge or fenland in the records were in fact rivers or marsh in the Bronze Age, rather than dry land next to the water. Trump (1968, 225) equated fen edge sites with a watery context in the Bronze Age. Pendleton (1999, 88) contested this and sought to demonstrate that the majority of fen edge deposition was on dry land. His argument was that the distribution pattern for metalwork, pottery and lithic scatters all coincided, which suggests that they represented the residue of settlement sites. I have tested this claim against the basal-looped corpus in which 31 spearheads have been recovered from a context described as “fen edge” or “fenland”. Of these, 26 have no further context information, and only have a four number grid reference. 13 of the 20 with a recovery date were found before 1908. My conclusion is that in the case of the basal-looped spearheads, there is scant evidence to support or counter Pendleton’s claim.

Pendleton (1999, 81-2) discussed factors that have led to the redistribution of artefacts in East Anglia from their point of deposition to their actual find site. These include peat and mineral extraction and drainage schemes, where clay and soil that may have contained metalwork was excavated in large quantities and deposited elsewhere, thus changing the context in which artefacts were eventually recovered. It should be noted that Colin Pendleton takes a sceptical position on votive deposition of metalwork in watery places, preferring explanations of accidental loss, “discarded as waste” and “stored but not retrieved”. He naturally marshalled facts and interpretations that support his case in his monograph on Bronze Age Metalwork in Northern East Anglia (1999), and in a personal discussion with me (2/4/2003). I have referred to his arguments at various points in this section, since they provide a useful balance to the prevailing opinion in favour of the votive interpretation.

Bog sites are normally equated with a wet context for metalwork recovery. However, it is not necessarily the case that today’s bog land was wet all the year round in the Bronze Age (Bradley 1990, 5). The Céide Fields, Co. Mayo, demonstrated that today’s bog landscape was productive farmland enclosed by field systems in the Neolithic period (Caulfield 1988). The accession records for basal-looped spearheads that describe the context as “bog” normally have no additional information (see

Examples of other forms of redistribution of artefacts are present in the basal-looped spearhead corpus. Wilford/ Clifton 33:195 was found at Tollerton Airport in gravel intended for cement, the gravel having been dredged from the River Trent (Scurfield 1997, 50 no 26). Unprovenanced Norfolk 18:178 was discovered in Hereford “among vegetables from Norfolk, probably the fens” (Hereford Museum records, accession number 8718). 64

8. CONTEXTS

CATALOGUE). None have details on the stratigraphy of the find site to detirmine whether it was a bog when deposition took place.

Fig. 8:5 Contexts of basal-looped spearheads: number of spearheads

TOTAL Britain Ireland Continent Types 1-4 Types 6-7

Rivers/ loughs 210 117 50 43 87 94

Wet 87 61 20 6 48 25

Dry special 47 41 0 6 34 10

Dry Total unspecified 28 372 23 242 4 74 1 56 14 183 6 135

Not Total available 179 551 54 296 103 177 22 78 100 283 42 177

“Dry: special” refers to sites that may have had special significance in the landscape, particularly in relation to religious activities. The category includes caves, special Fig. 8:6 Contexts of basal-looped spearheads: percentage of total with known rock formations, hill tops, and contexts high land overlooking watery features such as the sea, rivers Rivers/ Wet Dry Dry Total or springs (Bradley 1990, 10). loughs special unspecified TOTAL 57% 23% 12% 8% 100% Groves and forest clearings Britain 48% 25% 17% 10% 100% would also fit this category, but Ireland 67% 27% 0% 5% 100% there is no way of identifying Continent 77% 10% 1% 2% 100% the location of such features in Types 1-4 48% 26% 18% 8% 100% the Bronze Age. Some of the Types 6-7 70% 19% 7% 4% 100% special locations are identifiable from the find records, others from study of Fig. 8:7 Basal-looped spearhead contexts: breakdown by rivers and their coastal the relevant grid reference on aspect Ordnance Survey maps. Burial Britain Ireland Continent sites are also defined as Thames: east 89 Shannon: west 18 Seine: north 23 special, as are hoards that have Trent: east 19 Erne: west 6 Scheldt: north 5 evidence of votive behaviour, Ouse/Cam: east 2 Corrib: west 3 Rhine: north 2 even if their location has no Till, Lincs: east 1 Arrow: west 1 Douve: north 1 unusual geographic features. Nene: east 1 Garvoge: west 1 Loire: west 4 The Appleby hoard 49:140-2 is Severn/Wye: west 2 Barrow: south 6 Dordogne: west 2 an example of possible votive Eden/Eamont: west 1 Bann: north 10 Sèvres: west 1 behaviour in that the metalEsk, Cumbria: west 1 Aude: west 1 work had “sandy accretions on Meon, Hants: south 1 Sill, Spain: west 1 Sâone: south 1 one surface, and an irregular Total 117 Total 45 Total 41 pattern of rust-coloured fibres on the other. This feature suggests that they were unlikely to have formed the contents of a scrap bundle or It can be seen from these figures that watery sites, container, and may well have been laid out in a systematic including “Rivers” and “Wet” account for 80% of known manner” (Davey & Knowles 1972, 161). basal-looped spearhead contexts. Additionally, much of the unprovenanced Irish material is likely to have come “Dry: unspecified” are dry land sites for which no special from rivers and bogs. Richard Warner, Keeper of geographical features can be discerned. They may have Archaeology at Ulster Museum, has observed that many been sites considered special in the Bronze Age, but there of the unprovenanced Irish spearheads have a similar is no evidence to justify such a conclusion. water patina to those with known river and bog contexts (Warner, pers. comm. 15/1/2003). If contexts were The contexts of the basal-looped spearhead corpus are allocated to the unprovenanced Irish material on a protabulated in FIGS. 8:5-6, with a breakdown by region and rata basis to that of the provenanced material, it would by spearhead type. Types 1-4 are accumulated together, more than double the number of spearheads from Irish since they represent the early phase in the basal-looped rivers from 45 to 108, and bogs from 14 to 34. The series, broadly equivalent to the Taunton phase. Types 6-7 figures from Irish rivers listed in Fig. 8:7 are therefore appear to have had their period of main use in the Penard likely to be understated. phase (CHAPTER 6.4). The context of a third of the corpus is “not available”, Ireland presenting a particular problem with 58% unprovenanced.

It may be concluded that the choice of river for deposition was very selective (FIG. 8:7). In Britain, rivers facing the North Sea accounted for 96% of basal65

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

of Scotland 1879-80, 138). The mould from Grotte de Rancogne, Charante 44:554 was recovered from a cave (Coffyn 1985, 73).

looped spearhead river recovery, a point made by Bradley (1990, 139) in relation to all Bronze Age weapon finds from rivers. The Severn and the Wye are both major rivers which have been dredged extensively in modern times. However, they only account for one basal-looped spearhead each.

“Dry special” includes seven basal-looped spearheads that have been recovered from burial sites. Five of these were of Continental provenance and their dating can be attributed to the end of the Urnfield period. All are from the extremities of the distribution area for basal-looped spearheads. They include Obergrünhagen 11:535, Aasbüttel 7:538 and Liesbüttel 7:539 from northern Germany, Wiesloch 5:536 near Heidelberg on the Rhine, and Heimiswill 3:548 in Switzerland (references listed in the catalogue for each site). Crawford in Scotland 6:270 is believed to have been recovered from a cairn (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 18812, 147). At Dorchester 43:205, a skeleton was recovered with the tip of a basal-looped spearhead lodged in the pelvis, the presumed cause of death. The spearhead was identified as basal-looped from the configuration of the blade and midrib section (Ehrenberg 1977, 37 no 54).

There appear to have been special sites for deposition along the important rivers. Material has been recovered from the length of the Thames downstream from Oxford, but there are marked concentrations at various places from Kingston to the City (PLATE 102). On the River Trent, the evidence suggests that there were concentrations of deposition near Nottingham at Clifton, Attenborough and Colwick/Holme Pierrepont (Scurfield 1997). The Seine and its tributaries dominate the figures from the Continent. The Rhine and Scheldt are also important rivers for metalwork recovery, but the spearheads have been mainly Continental rather than British types (Torbrügge 1970-1; Verlaeckt 1996). The “Wet” category represents 23% of basal-looped spearhead contexts. Within the wet category, the East Anglian fens account for 31 sites, and the turbaries of Somerset, which was similar fenland in the Bronze Age, account for a further two. Bogs in Ireland account for fourteen sites, but the pro-rata reallocation of unprovenanced Irish artefacts would increase this to 34. As noted earlier in this section, some doubt can be cast on whether all sites described as fen and bog were in fact watery in the Middle Bronze Age (Pendleton 1999).

“Dry unspecified” sites only account for 8% of basallooped spearheads with known contexts. These are dry land sites where spearheads have been recovered normally as a result of agricultural activity, construction, metal detecting or chance finds. Nothing special can be discerned about the sites in terms of their geographical or geological contexts. This does not preclude special natural or man-made features having been present in the Middle Bronze Age.

A number of sites have been described as being marshy, for example Bristol 7:1 (Tratman 1944-6, 39) and Brading 13:148 (Crawford & Wheeler 1921, 38). The sole sea shore context was New Gale Beach 6:279 (Museum records) on the western extremity of Pembrokeshire (now Dyfed) facing Ireland.

8.6

Recovery

Information on the methods of recovery has been recorded for just over half (53%) of the basal-looped spearhead corpus. The information is tabulated in FIG. 8:8. Breakdowns by region and spearhead type have not been included in view of the low level of recorded information.

47 spearheads representing 12% of known contexts, are defined as “Dry special”. They include a number of spearheads recovered from high ground with a commanding position. The Horrington hoard 56:210-2 (Cook 1973, 119) and Loxton 17:213 were from the edge of the Mendips, overlooking the Somerset Levels. Kingsland 43:65, Bonfire Hill 18:68 and Great Limber 30:151 all appear to be from sites on high ground, on the basis of plotting their grid references on Ordnance Survey maps. A relationship between high ground and water can be observed from the grid references of West Bradford 29:150 which overlooked the River Ribble, Lynton 14:66 which overlooked the sea, Wadeford 37:217 close to the source of the River Isle, Somerset, and Frampton 9:69 on high ground overlooking the River Frome. The Glentrool hoard 58:260 was found under a large overhanging rock (Burgess & Gerloff 1981, 14 no 61). The Fell of Barhullion spearhead 12:259 was jammed between two masses of rock (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries

In defining the categories, “Dredging” relates to river dredging activity, but does not include the construction of field drainage schemes. “Agriculture” includes ploughing, peat cutting, digging field drainage ditches, and general agricultural labour. Examples of spearheads turned up by ploughing are the Appleby Hoard 49:140-2 (Davey & Knowles 1972, 154), and Stockton 33:252 (Moore 1968, 99). Peat cutting led to the recovery of Cragg 33:312 (Herbert 1940, 84 and Museum records) and two spearheads from the turbaries near Glastonbury 8:208 and 16:209 (Gray 1902, 83-4). The Stibbard hoard 17:166-175 was recovered as a result of field drainage work in agricultural land (Inv Arch GB50). The Burringham hoard 48:146-7 was discovered when “the

66

8. CONTEXTS

Fig. 8:8 Methods of recovery of basal-looped spearheads Dredging 158 54%

Agriculture Construction Quarrying Excavation Metal Chance detector find 55 27 18 14 12 8 19% 9% 6% 5% 4% 3%

Total 292 100%

Not available 259

Total 551

Fig. 8:9 Methods of recovery of basal-looped spearheads. Includes projections for agriculture and dredging in river and wet contexts Dredging 174 50%

Agriculture Construction Quarrying 99 28%

27 8%

18 5%

Excavation Metal Chance Total detector find 14 12 8 351 4% 3% 2% 100%

Not

Total available 199 551

Pendleton highlighted the importance of metal detection since the 1970s, and demonstrated that “over 90% of Bronze Age metalwork is now found as a result of metaldetecting” in his East Anglian study area (Pendleton 1999, 65 and fig 11). This trend is becoming apparent for basal-looped spearheads. Two identical spearheads were found on waste ground adjacent to the Buckinghamshire County Council tip 15:26-7 by a metal detectorist in 1991 (Bucks SMR CAS 5744). The seashore find at New Gale Beach 6:279 was made by a metal detectorist in 1995 (Museum records). Pendleton (1999, nos 261-3), recorded three basal-looped spearhead finds by metal detectorists in Suffolk – Brandon 43:221, Gravel Drove 43:224 and Kenny Hill 43:226. The latest recorded find, made by a metal detectorist in 2003, came from a waste heap at Attenborough Quarry 34:188.1 (pers. comm. by the finder, 11/2003).

servants of Mr George Healey was (sic) digging up firewood in a large moor, and at the bottom of a fir root they found a British spear...” (Jackson 1882, 206). “Construction” covers a number of building activities. The digging of building foundations led to the discovery of the Yattendon hoard 45:23-5 (Coghlan 1970, 1) and the St Andrews hoard 59:262 (Cowie et al. 1998, 141). Reservoir construction accounted for “Near Walton Bridge” NA:245 (Phillips 1967, 310) and San Esteban del Rio Sil 10:547 (Almagro 1960). The construction of a railway tunnel led to the recovery of Langburnshiels 18:256 (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 1862-4, 214). The spearhead from Derrygoony 4:363 (Ramsey 1989, no 712) was found during the construction of a bridge. “Quarrying” mainly relates to sand and gravel quarries adjacent to rivers, where metalwork could in many cases be traced to palaeochannels. Examples are Elvaston 24:63, recovered from a quarry adjacent to the River Derwent close to its confluence with the Trent (Davis 2003, 63), and Greffern 35:534 from a palaeochannel of the old River Rhine in a gravel quarry site (Schauer 1974, 27-9).

Chance finds are quite varied in their circumstances. Two river-related chance finds were Datchet 9:28 which was “taken up by a casting net from the bed of the Thames” (Museum records) and River Trent, Derbyshire 26:64 which was spotted and picked out from the river bank (Museum records). Dalton Castle 17:58 was noticed within the mortar of the castle walls, presumably placed there during one of the medieval building phases (Cowper 1905, 183-4).

“Excavation” is defined here as purposeful intrusion into the landscape for archaeological purposes. This has led to the recovery of basal-looped spearheads in the German and Swiss burial contexts noted in CHAPTER 8:5 above. The excavation of the Wadeford Roman villa site led to the unexpected recovery of a Bronze Age basal-looped spearhead 37:217 (Pearce 1983, 510). Le Pinacle, Jersey 6:479 (Pattern 2001) was also a multi-period archaeological excavation site. An underwater archaeological programme in the River Shannon during the 1980s is included in this category. Scuba divers were able to recover a substantial quantity of Bronze Age metalwork, including five large basal-looped spearheads, numbers 384-388, in an intensive search of the river bed at Hillquarter even though this stretch of the river had previously been thoroughly dredged (Bourke 2001, 197).

The Horrington Hill hoard provides an interesting case study of different methods of artefact recovery (Cook 1973, 119). In October 1978, a schoolboy made the chance find of a basal-looped spearhead 4:210 because its tip was “sticking out of a bank by the track”. He took it to Wells Museum, where he was encouraged to make a further search of the area. This led to his discovery of a second basal-looped spearhead 11:212 in the same place later in the same month. Its method of recovery has been defined as “excavation” in that it was a purposeful search to achieve an archaeological result. In 1990, a third basal-looped spearhead 4:211, which was identical in form to the first, was found by a metal detectorist in the same location (Museum records). Three different 67

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

being resolved, and metalwork deposition did indeed extend along the river in South Derbyshire.

methods of recovery were therefore employed in recovering the hoard – chance find, excavation and metal detection.

The distribution of basal-looped spearheads from the River Thames shows a concentration in the lower reaches (PLATE 102). Ehrenberg (1977, 17) noted that dredging had been the main method of metalwork recovery, accounting for “nearly all the material from the Thames”, and that most of the dredging had been carried out below Taplow. In her view, the differential dredging programme may explain the different recovery level in the upper and lower reaches of the river, rather than differential Bronze Age deposition practices.

A large proportion of the East Anglian finds are described as coming from the fen edge or fenland, without an indication as to method of recovery. The same applies for the bog finds from Ireland. By interrogating the database, it can be shown that there is a strong correlation between “wet” contexts and agriculture as the method of recovery. Agriculture accounted for 79% of “wet” finds for which the method of recovery was recorded. Similarly, dredging accounted for 83% of “river” finds for which a method of recovery was recorded.

A number of dredging programmes were carried out on Irish rivers in the nineteenth century, continuing into the twentieth century. Their purpose has been to reduce flooding in low lying areas and to improve navigation. Of particular importance was the work along the River Bann between Toome and Coleraine which produced “thousands of artefacts” (Ramsey 1989, 285). The dredgings were carefully scanned for antiquities by the workforce because of the particular interest of antiquarian collectors. This commercial interest may have increased the level of recovery from dredging in these areas (ibid., 89). A similar programme was carried out on the Shannon around Keelogue Ford, leading to a similar concentration of metalwork finds. Dredging as a source of metalwork recovery has continued in recent times with the dredging programme on the River Corrib, Co. Galway, in 1985 which led to the recovery of three large basal-looped spearheads 23:328-330 (ibid., 287).

A projection has been made, using these percentages, to establish the likely method of recovery of spearheads from wet and river contexts where recovery information is not available. This adds a further 44 spearheads to the agriculture total and 16 to the dredging total (FIG. 8:9). The same methodology has not been applied to the other contexts and methods of recovery, because the figures are too small to yield a reliable result. These projections have been incorporated into the methods of recovery totals, and suggest that agriculture has played a more important role in basal-looped spearhead recovery than was originally indicated. Dredging and quarrying together account for 90% of basal-looped spearhead finds with a river context. The presence or absence of a dredging programme and the location of quarries are therefore crucial in enabling the pattern of Bronze Age deposition to be revealed. The River Trent has been consistently dredged from its confluence with the Derwent at Shardlow in South Derbyshire to Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. This followed the Act of Parliament of 1783 which authorised the River Trent Navigation Company to carry out the work (Evans 1945, 50). The Trent and Mersey canal, which had opened in 1777, made it unnecessary to dredge upstream of Shardlow (ibid., 12). A substantial quantity of Bronze Age metalwork has been recovered from the river around the Nottingham conurbation as a result of dredging and quarrying (Scurfield 1997), while until recently a relatively small quantity had been recovered from the river in South Derbyshire above Shardlow, despite a large number of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age field monuments in the floodplain (O’Brien 1978, 6-8; Knight & Howard 2004). The explanation may well be the lack of a dredging programme along this stretch, rather than differential deposition practice in the Bronze Age. With the recent expansion of quarrying activity along the floodplain of the Trent in South Derbyshire, a number of Bronze Age metalwork artefacts have been recovered. They include the basal-looped spearhead and shield from Elvaston quarry 47:64 found in 1985 (Davis 2003, 63), and nineteen bronze artefacts from Shardlow quarry between 1997 and 2004 (ibid., 69, and recent research by the author). It appears that the previous recovery bias is

Although dredging of Irish rivers has been extensive, it has by no means exhausted the river beds of their metalwork. The success of the underwater archaeology survey on the River Shannon in the 1980s, referred to above, has demonstrated this (Bourke 2001, 197). The extent of dredging activity has been drastically reduced in the River Trent since the 1980s. British Waterways now use SONAR and other equipment which maps the river bed, and they only carry out occasional remedial dredging work where needed. Their engineers suggest that the river bed has been thoroughly scoured out by dredging over the past two hundred years, and that any metalwork that rested in the silt will have been removed by now (A. Dawson, British Waterways, pers. comm. 4/2000). The experience of the underwater archaeology programme on the River Shannon makes this somewhat dubious, particularly since gravel churning caused by flooding may drive artefacts below the surface of the current river bed, as has been shown by the stratigraphy of the quarry sections at Colwick (Salisbury et al. 1984, 199-200). A similar differential rate of recovery has occurred as a result of differing agricultural practices. Pendleton has argued that the archaeological record of metalwork distribution in East Anglia, based on records from 68

8. CONTEXTS

century finds. Recovery dates were often lost when antiquarian collections were accessioned into the museums records. An example of this is Abingdon 21:4 which was originally from the Goodacre collection, and was accessioned at the Jewry Wall Museum, Leicester in 1964 with the number 1964.185. Some museums have adopted a new accession numbering system, and the date code in the accession number for artefacts already in the collection relates to the origin of the new system rather than the original date of accession.

Museums and SMRs, is not representative of actual Bronze Age deposition. The concentration of metalwork finds at the fen edges has been enhanced by the deep ploughing of this fertile agricultural land. Other parts of East Anglia are now covered by forest, heath and pasture, and have not been subject to the incursion of deep ploughing in the landscape. These areas, not surprisingly, have been relatively sparse in metalwork recovery. This certainly is the case with the basal-looped spearhead corpus in which 80% of find sites with a recorded context from East Anglia are described as fen edge or fenland. Recent field walking surveys and metal detectorist activities in areas less desirable agriculturally have built up a picture of a much more even spread of metalwork and settlement across the area (Pendleton 1999, 9 and 8991).

8.7

There is a clear weighting to older finds in the recovery date profile of the basal-looped spearhead corpus. Accurate and detailed records of location, context and recovery information, a characteristic of modern archaeological discipline, is therefore unlikely to be present in much of the database. This suggests that interpretation of recovery data should be treated with caution.

Date of recovery 8.8

A specific or rough date of recovery can be identified for 72% of the basal-looped spearhead corpus. The record is more complete for Britain at 77%, while the figure is 64% and 67% respectively for Ireland and the Continent. The information has been tabulated by century for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and split for the first and second halves of the twentieth centuries (Figs. 8:1011). Exact dates, where available, are recorded in the catalogue.

Is the corpus a representative sample?

The mechanics of recovery, the limited content of the database records, and the age of the records all affect the validity of the database as a representative sample of basal-looped spearhead deposition in the Bronze Age. Other factors should also be taken into account. The earliest recorded find is dated to the eighteenth century, but it is likely that metalwork had been recovered throughout the period from the Bronze Age up to the eighteenth century. Agriculture, field drainage projects, construction and river and flood management activity all may have brought Bronze Age metalwork to the surface during this time. The impact of human activity in the Trent Valley provides an example of the type of factors at work. Knight & Howard (2004) noted the intensification of agricultural activity in the Iron Age and

Roughly two thirds of the recovery dates are attributable to the nineteenth century, and one third to the twentieth, while the eighteenth century accounts for only one percent of known recovery dates. A similar number of finds were recorded for the first and second half of the twentieth century. While studying the museum records, it became apparent that many artefacts without a recorded date of recovery are likely to have been nineteenth

Fig. 8:10 Date of recovery of basal-looped spearheads: number of spearheads

TOTAL Britain Ireland Continent

18th century 4 3 1 0

19th century 249 141 74 34

1st half 20th C 70 40 19 11

2nd half 20th C* 71 44 20 7

Total 394 228 114 52

* include 21st century finds - one to date.

Fig. 8:11 Percentage of total with known date of recovery

TOTAL Britain Ireland Continent

18th century 1% 1 1 0

19th century 63% 62 65 65

1st half 20th C 18% 18 16 21

2nd half 20th C 18% 19 18 14

69

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Not Available 157 68 63 26

Total 551 296 177 78

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

rivers may have experienced extensive gravel churning which drove metalwork far below the surface (Salisbury et al. 1984, 199-200), so that it can only be recovered by deeply intrusive human activity such as gravel quarrying.

Romano-British period, and control and exploitation of the river during the Medieval period. In the seventeenth century, a major drainage programme was mounted by Cornelius Vermuyden in the wetlands of the Lower Trent Valley, transforming the face of the landscape. Vermuyden went on to manage a similar project in East Anglia (Van de Noort et al. 1998, 23). Metalwork revealed by intrusive human activity during these periods is likely to have been reused, or recycled as raw material. The Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Programme gave a medieval dating determination for the shaft of a sidelooped spearhead from Ruskington, Lincolnshire:Site Ruskington

Metallurgical analysis has suggested that recycling was an importance source of raw material during the Bronze Age (Northover 1982, 50; Tylecote 1986, 30, 81). It is not possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the volume of metalwork deposited in comparison to the volume recycled. It can be speculated that the choice between deposition and recycling would vary between type of artefact, by geographical region and by different periods during the Bronze Age. A number of factors may have influenced the choice including availability of raw material, prosperity of the community, and social and religious traditions. Within different metalwork categories, some artefact types may have been considered suitable for deposition while others were suitable for recycling. Among the basal-looped spearheads, the larger artefacts may have had greater merit as votive offerings, while the smaller may have normally been recycled. If this scenario is correct, the basal-looped spearheads in this corpus would not be a representative sample of actual production.

BC Cal. range (2 sigma) Lab no. 840±40 AD1045-1278 OxA 5958

This can either be interpreted as a contaminated result, or the spearhead being recovered and reshafted during the period indicated by the radiocarbon determination. In recent years, some Bronze Age metalwork will have been recovered but not recorded. It is the experience of Colin Pendleton, SMR Officer for Suffolk (pers. comm. 2/4/2003), that finds made by farmers during the course of their work may be kept as curios and stored in farm outhouses, only to be forgotten or thrown out eventually as rubbish. The bronze mould from Shepton Mallet 44:551 was brought into the public domain in unusual circumstances, as described by Steve Minnett of the Somerset Museum Services (pers. comm. 20/8/2002). It was found by a farmer while working in his apple orchard in the 1980s. The farmer did not recognise its significance but appreciated its weight as a useful door stop. An antique dealer made a casual offer for it while visiting the farm, alerting the farmer to its potential value. He took the mould to the Somerset County Museum at Taunton where its importance was immediately recognised. It was sent off to the British Museum for evaluation, and then purchased from the farmer by the Museum at a price substantially in excess of that offered by the antique dealer. A description of the mould is as yet unpublished, but a paper by Steve Minnett is in preparation.

The main period of production and use of basal-looped spearheads can be broadly equated to the Taunton and Penard industrial phases, a period of approximately 300 years. In Britain, 296 basal-looped spearheads have been recorded in the corpus, equivalent to a recovery rate of only one spearhead per year of production. The land area of Britain is 88,735 square miles (Geelan & Lewis 1992, xiii). Mathematically, this means a recovery rate of one spearhead per 301 square miles (one spearhead per 780 sq. km.), though it is recognised that population is likely to have been concentrated in the more favourable agricultural land of the lowland zone. Even in England, which has a higher percentage of land suitable for agriculture, the recovery rate was only one spearhead per 198 square miles (515 sq. km.). Prehistoric population levels are notoriously difficult to calculate. Brothwell (1972, 79) estimated a range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Britain in the Bronze Age. Pryor considered a higher figure more realistic, estimating 250,000 at the beginning of the Bronze Age, and 500,000 at the end. He recognised that this was a “rough and ready guess” but his figures were based on a close understanding of the East Anglian landscape during the Bronze Age, which he projected more broadly (Pryor 2002, 228). Using Pryor’s estimates, a figure of 350,000 may be an appropriate average figure for the later part of the Middle Bronze Age when basal-looped spearheads were used, making the recovery rate of 296 spearheads appear very low in relation to the total population. Burgess (1985, 214 fig 11.3) also made population estimates for Britain during the Bronze Age. His range for the Middle Bronze Age was from 500,000 to 3

Metal detectorist finds may be kept in the finder’s collection or traded to dealers or other collectors, and never brought into the public record. The Portable Antiquities Scheme is aimed at increasing the level of recording for such finds, but it is likely that there is only a partial take up of the scheme. For artefacts that are recorded, incorrect provenances may sometimes be attributed either purposefully or through genuine error. Finds are still being made, so it follows that Bronze Age metalwork still remains hidden in the landscape and indeed may remain so indefinitely. Urban landscapes around rivers that have been rich in metalwork such as the Thames and Seine are covered by urban infrastructure, which prevents all but the occasional excavation of palaeochannels in construction projects. High energy 70

8. CONTEXTS

material objects which may be broken during the ritual process. There may be evidence of the investment of wealth in the ritual occasion. Attention should be paid to evidence of other religions in the community or of a change in religious ritual (ibid., 26).

million, in which he projected a sharply increasing population up to c1200BC, followed by a catastrophic decline. This scenario is controversial, and Pryor’s estimates are preferred here. It can be concluded from these figures that the basallooped spearheads in the corpus are likely to be a small and unrepresentative sample of total basal-looped spearhead production. It has been shown that the information recorded about the location and context of deposition is subject to a degree of inaccuracy. Also the practice of deposition may have varied regionally, so that the level of deposition may not equate to the level of use by region or spearhead type. Having noted these reservations, the number of spearheads in the corpus is reasonably large at 551. It represents a wide geographical distribution, a number of different contexts and a range of typological variations – and it is the best information we have available.

8.9

In considering whether basal-looped spearheads were the subject of votive offerings, a number of the points in Renfrew’s check list apply. The spearheads have been mainly recovered from liminal places in nature. They may represent the offering of material objects during the invocation of the gods. A number were purposefully broken prior to being offered (CHAPTER 9.2: 22% of the corpus have signs of purposeful damage). Since the spearheads were among the most impressive artefacts of the period, they may have represented the investment of wealth in the ritual activity. In view of the decline in the building of field monuments by the end of the Early Bronze Age, metalwork deposition in liminal places in nature may represent a change in religious rituals. At Flag Fen, there is evidence for the sacrifice of animals and the consumption of food alongside the deposition of metalwork (Pryor 2002, 297). Considerable Middle Bronze Age metalwork has been recovered at Flag Fen, though surprisingly there have been no basal-looped spearheads. At Elvaston Quarry 24:63, a human skull and sixty one animal bones, some with butchery marks, were found on the same section of the conveyor as the basallooped spearhead and a shield fragment (Davis 2003, 67). Basal-looped spearheads were also recovered in association with animal bones at Frampton 9:69, Croydon 19:79, Stow/Cammeringham 13:157, Barton Mere 30:220 and Plumbridge 13:379.

Votive offerings

Renfrew (1985, 11-26) discussed the issues involved in approaching and interpreting cult practices and the religious beliefs that motivated them. He recognised a hierarchy of evidence, with verbal testimony – oral and written – being the most useful. Next in order are iconographic records such as rock carvings and frescoes depicting the gods and cult practices. Finally there are the material remains of ritual activity which include structures, and symbolic objects which may either represent the deities or votive offerings (ibid., 12).

There are some elements from Renfrew’s list that cannot be identified in relation to the basal-looped spearheads. There is no guidance as to who participated in the ritual of metalwork deposition, or what form of ritual activity was involved – whether it was a public ceremony or a private rite. Representations of the deity and cult objects have not been found in conjunction with the deposition of basal-looped spearheads.

His definition of the purpose of cult activity is that it brings humans into contact with the supernatural powers that control their lives, and it provides the opportunity to acknowledge the power of the gods and to pay the appropriate respect and dues. Cult activity normally takes place in a liminal position between the human world and the world of the gods. This may be a place in nature like a hill top, a grove of trees and a river. It may be a specially constructed building, or a room within a larger complex. One crucial occasion on which the gods are approached by every human being is at death, the ultimate liminal occasion when humans pass from one world to the next (ibid., 16).

Since votive offering is proposed by some as the primary reason for the deposition of the basal-looped spearheads and other Middle Bronze Age weapons, the purpose of the offerings needs to be considered. While the behaviour may be relatively clear, the set of ideas that motivated them are difficult to interpret (Levy 1982, 117). Literary and iconographic evidence, the two most valuable forms of evidence to understand belief systems according to Renfrew (1985, 12), are not available. Even with the wealth of images at Camonica Valley in the Southern Alps, Anati (1961,151) recognised that it was “extremely difficult to understand the significance of a vaguely discernible rite, to make out its main lines”. Rock art in the Bronze Age British Isles was rare and limited in its range of images (Bradley 1998; Waddington 1998:

Renfrew developed a deductive system to identify cult behaviour in the archaeological record, proposing a check list of elements that may be involved (ibid., 18). These includes the location in which the ritual is carried out – the liminal place in nature or a special building. The occasion may be either a public gathering or a hidden mystery. Invocations to the gods may be carried out, with an appropriate mood created by dance, music and drugs. Attention may be focused by cult images of the gods. Part of the ritual may include sacrifice of animals and humans, the consumption of food and drink, and the offering of 71

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

demonstrated this in a table showing that 88% of daggers (Early Bronze Age) came from burial contexts while 95% of dirks/rapiers (Middle Bronze Age) came from watery contexts. Prominent burial sites, many with grave goods, were characteristic of the Early Bronze Age. Attitudes to burial appeared to have altered in the Middle Bronze Age: in the Deverel-Rimbury tradition, cremation cemeteries contained large numbers of interments, and generally were located in flat urnfields and as secondary burials in existing barrows. The deposition was often only a token representation of the human remains, and grave goods were rare (Burgess 1974, 215).

Beckensall 1999), and no direct literary evidence is available. Various interpretations of possible motivations and beliefs behind the rites of votive deposition in watery places have been considered in previous studies, and are discussed below. However, it is clear that they remain essentially speculative. It is likely that only glimpses can be obtained of the subtleties and regional variation of the prevailing belief systems. Offerings seeking benefits from the gods Votive offerings may be defined as gifts to the gods/ spirits/ancestors. Bradley (1990, 37) made a distinction between offerings and sacrifices. He considered that sacrifice applied only to animate objects which included animals, humans and vegetable matter. They were ritually killed to transform their nature into something sacred, and ownership was thus transferred to the gods. Inanimate objects could not change their nature and could only be offerings, which implied lesser value.

With this apparent downgrading of the importance of dry land burial sites, it has been speculated that the bronze weapons found in watery sites may represent a new location for elite funerary rites (Bradley 1990, 107). A substantial number of human skulls, as well as the metalwork, have been found in British rivers, and it has been tempting to draw the conclusion that their deposition may have been connected. The problem has been to establish a clear association between the human remains and the metalwork. Bradley and Gordon (1988) made a case for this connection based on evidence from the Thames, but their conclusions were vigourously rebutted by Knüsel and Carr (1995). Although crania and metalwork may have been dredged up within clearly identified areas of concentration, this could well have been the result of taphonomy. Water action may have moved both crania and metalwork into backwaters where prevailing currents had taken and finally deposited them (ibid., 163-6). Knüsel and Carr (ibid., 162) pointed out that the limited radiocarbon dating that has been carried out has demonstrated that crania from the Thames can be attributed to many periods, from Neolithic through to Anglo-Saxon, so they argued that no specific relationship between the metalwork and the human remains could be established for the Bronze Age in this case.

Pryor (2002, 308-9) took a different view in the light of the incidence of apparent deliberate destruction of prestige metalwork prior to its deposition at Flag Fen. Other notable examples of this phenomenon were the sheet bronze shield at South Cadbury which had apparently been deliberately penetrated by a wooden stake (Coles et al. 1999, 45), and the Blackmoor hoard in which a large number of the spearheads and swords had been broken (Colquhoun & Burgess 1988, pl 158-163) and one spearhead had been repeatedly slashed on the blade edges and midrib (ibid., pl 161:10). It was Pryor’s (2002, 309) view that the purposeful damage and deposition of the metalwork artefacts was a process of transforming them into “functioning objects in the world of the ancestors”. The differential value between animate and inanimate gifts to the gods is a matter of speculation. The process may be interpreted as a form of gift exchange with the gods, carried out in different situations – to maintain a favourable relationship with the gods on a regular basis, to seek help before a particular event, and to give thanks afterwards for a successful outcome. Considering the intrinsic character of the offerings, weapons may have related to issues of rank or warfare, such as the appointment of a new chief, a treaty, or a successful battle. In contrast, the sacrifice of animals and crops may have related to fertility. Levy (1982, 111), however, speculated that metalwork hoards may have had a wider role, in that their symbolism may have related to all the main social concerns – fertility, health, and the maintenance of an ordered society.

A number of human skulls have been recovered from the River Trent – six from Clifton, four from Langford Quarry and one from Elvaston Quarry, all of which were sites containing basal-looped spearheads (Phillips 1941; Garton et al. 1995; Davis 2003). The skulls from Clifton came from the same area as the prestige metalwork. However, material from the Early Bronze Age to the Saxon period came from the same site, and the skulls have not been dated. The Langford skulls were found at the edge of a palaeochannel with several large and medium-sized logs, suggesting that the accumulation was the result of a log jam or backwater. Radiocarbon dating of human remains at Langford gave a late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age determination (Garton et al. 1995, 9), thus precluding a connection between the human remains and the basal-looped spearhead and other metalwork from the quarry:-

Burial The contexts from which bronze weapons in Britain were recovered can be seen to have changed between the Early and the Middle Bronze Ages. Bradley (1990, 100 fig 20)

Site Langford

72

BP Cal. range (2 sigma) Lab. no. 3780±50 2400-2034BC Beta-87093

8. CONTEXTS

However, Randsborg (1995, 38) considered the Hjortspring weapon and boat sacrifice of the late fourth century BC to be “the spoils from a defeated enemy army attacking the region where the find has been made”. He based his conclusion on descriptions in classical authors of similar Celtic sacrifices.

The case for elite river burial based on the association of human remains and metalwork in rivers does not appear to have yet been substantiated. However, the increase in water deposition of metalwork does seem to coincide with the end of prominent dry land burials with rich grave goods. It may therefore be reasonable to speculate that the conspicuous consumption of metalwork to enhance social status may have switched from land burial to river funeral rites (Bradley 1982, 113, 119-120), and that this may account for some of the river metalwork finds.

Social and economic benefits Bradley (1984, 99-100) considered that purposeful deposition of metalwork took three main forms at different times and regions within Northwest Europe (including the British Isles) in the Bronze Age. These were as grave goods, hoards and river deposits. Grave goods were clearly purposeful. In the case of river deposition and hoards, it was Bradley’s view that “metalwork which took a long time to make can hardly have come to us through the incompetence of so many boatmen and the forgetfulness of so many smiths” (ibid., 101). Other metalwork may have been recycled, or appear in the archaeological record as dry land stray finds which had been lost, discarded or purposefully deposited.

Booty Purposeful deposition of weapons in watery places may appear to be a waste of valuable war materiel, thus reducing the military capacity of those making the offering. An explanation may be that the weapons deposited were booty taken from the enemy in combat, and represented an offering of thanks for victory. Krzyszkowska noted that the taking of booty from the defeated enemy was a common phenomenon in ancient warfare. This was recorded in contemporary literature and iconography, and she quoted a number of examples from Greece, Egypt and Assyria (Krzyszkowska 1999, 491, note 8). However, she recognised the difficulty of determining whether certain artefacts were the spoils of war or the result of trade/gift exchange. The Greek Sanctuaries were considered particularly suitable for the dedication of weapons and armour taken in battle (ibid., 494). The drilled spearheads from Sicily that were recovered from the sanctuaries of Delphi and Olympus, referred to in CHAPTER 7.4, may well have been booty but no record remains to substantiate it.

Accepting that purposeful deposition of metalwork had a religious function, Bradley (ibid., 101) also considered that it may have had a social and economic dimension. Based on modern economic theory, he explained metalwork deposition as a way of controlling the supply of metalwork to maintain its value. Local elites obtained bronze through long distance exchange networks, and the procurement of metalwork artefacts was one of the ways in which they were able to establish and maintain their power and status, using it for display and gift giving. In Britain, the primary raw material sources have been traced to North Wales, Cornwall, Ireland and the Continent (Northover 1982; Timberlake 2003). Given the distances involved, the local elites would have had no control over raw material production. If there was a shortage, the value of bronze artefacts would be high and their period of use would be extended by reworking, until they were finally recycled as raw material. Other types of goods could have been used to fill the role of votive offerings. However, if output increased, the only way the value of bronze could be maintained at the local level was by developing mechanisms for taking the surplus out of circulation (Kristiansen 1998, 79). It is Needham’s view (2001) that material deposited in hoards or even as votive offerings in watery sites could be recovered if necessary.

In studying the basal-looped spearhead corpus, there are a number of major distribution concentrations – the Thames Valley, the East Anglian fenland, River Trent, River Seine around Paris and various Irish rivers. It is likely that fighting would have been between local groups, since the supply logistics for long distance campaigns are unlikely to have been present. In consequence, the weapons taken in booty were likely to have been subject to the same cultural influences, and therefore could not be differentiated in the archaeological record on typological grounds. Only waterborne raiding – piracy – is likely to have extended beyond cultural boundaries. In the case of the basal-looped spearheads, this could have been along the various coastlines, and across the Irish Sea, the Channel and along the Atlantic coast from Ireland to Spain. The presence of Irish types along the west coast of Britain has been noted in relation to the attributes of incised decoration and midrib ridges (CHAPTER 5.11; PLATES 77-8). This may be explained by piratical raiding in either direction, with dedication of booty after a successful expedition, though this interpretation can only be a matter of speculation.

Bradley (1982; 1984, 102-3) also considered ethnographic approaches to explain the use of purposeful deposition to withdraw metalwork from circulation. Agricultural societies had an investment in their land and could not move on in times of food shortage. There was a need to build reciprocal relationships with neighbours to ensure a basic food supply in the event of crop failure. One method proposed was that gifts of metalwork were made to act as “social storage” in that they could be

In Krzyszkowska’s opinion (ibid., 496), the deposition of booty cannot be distinguished in the archaeological record, but only from written or iconographic material. 73

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

contexts, and 89% of Types 6-7 (Penard phase). Burgess attributed the change in orientation to a deterioration in climate in the form of colder, wetter weather and rising water levels, which adversely affected settlement and farming practices. The resulting reduction in productivity in turn led to increasing social stress and tension, and the need to propitiate those gods that were connected with water (ibid., 196).

repaid in food during a shortage. If there was a surplus of metalwork, it would devalue the goodwill built up, and therefore there was a need to eliminate the surplus. The mechanics of votive deposition could be used to achieve this. A further ethnographic argument (Bradley 1984, 104-5) is that river deposition of metalwork had the potential of being a spectacular event which would enhance the status of the depositor. Taking the analogy of the Big Man feasts of New Guinea and the potlatches of North America, such displays of conspicuous consumption/destruction, which were possible in a time of surplus, could have been a form of competition to enhance elite status.

The evidence for climate change is not as clear as suggested originally by Burgess, and was not uniform across the regions of Northwest Europe where deposition in watery places was practised. Champion (1999, 103) considered that the period of deterioration started much later – “towards 1000BC”. Burgess (1985, 200) later modified his position, proposing that the mild period lasted until the Penard phase, after which conditions deteriorated sharply. The basal-looped spearhead context data has shown that deposition in watery sites was practised well before the Penard phase, so other causal factors for the switch to water-oriented rites must have been involved.

The first two scenarios are based on the need to take metal out of circulation to maintain its value, and the validity of the arguments are debatable. For the reduction of metalwork supply through deposition to be effective, it would require agreement among local elites to adopt the same policy, which may have been hard to negotiate. Unilateral reduction of metal circulation through votive deposition by one elite group would leave it open for the neighbouring elite to enhance their position by retaining their surplus, and employing it in display and an increased level of gift giving.

Discussion A strong case has been made in recent years that the deposition of metalwork in watery places was purposeful and that it represented a form of votive offering. Renfrew (1985) argued that the basis of religious beliefs was that all aspects of human life were controlled by supernatural powers, and that these powers required propitiation through offerings. The gods were visualised in various forms, the most prevalent being representations of fertility – the sun, the bull and the stag. They were approached through liminal places in nature between the present world and the world of the gods and the ancestors – hilltops, groves, watery places and caves. The emphasis on deposition of valuable gifts in watery places in the British Isles during the Middle Bronze Age did not necessarily signify a change in gods, but rather a change in ritual practices. It is likely that gods representing the same supernatural forces were still being honoured, and that the same benefits are likely to have been sought – fertility, health, protection against the elements and success against enemies.

Controlling supply through wealth destruction may not be an appropriate concept for the Middle Bronze Age. It could be equally argued that a surplus controlled by the elite would enhance prestige through allowing increasingly spectacular display and gift giving. If the value of a particular artefact was reduced by the surplus, it could be supplemented by a more impressive gift to the benefit of both giver and receiver. The quest for greater wealth, rather than retention of the status quo, can be considered one of the driving forces of elite regimes in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East that were contemporary with Middle Bronze Age Britain (Dickinson 1994, 234-7). Change in religion Burgess (1974, 195-6) identified a significant change in religious practice in the British Isles during the Bronze Age. He interpreted the building of prominent burial sites, pits, shafts, circular field monuments and stone alignments in the Early Bronze Age as indicating a religion that was oriented to subterranean and celestial gods. Many of these practices were discontinued in the Middle Bronze Age, and were apparently replaced by the deposition of valuable goods in watery places, suggesting a new water orientation in the approach to the gods.

Votive deposition may have had the effect of reinforcing the leadership of the elite, and provided them with the opportunity for enhancing their status. The metalwork used for deposition is likely to have belonged to them. It is also likely that they controlled the ritual activity, and thus the society’s access to the gods. However, the economic rationale that metalwork needed to be taken out of circulation during times of surplus is subtle indeed. If correct, it is likely to represent a secondary benefit of deposition, but this interpretation remains speculative.

This growth in importance of water orientation is supported by the basal-looped spearhead corpus with 74% of Types 1-4 (Taunton phase) coming from watery

74

8. CONTEXTS

9. CONDITION 1. Complete. 2. “More substantial damage to terminal, hilt and/or blade tip”. 3. Most of hilt or tip missing. 4. Fragments. 5. More than one piece present.

9.1 Objectives and methods A number of aspects of the condition of the spearheads in the corpus were analysed. These included major breaks and bending that may have been inflicted purposefully, blade edge damage and use, damage to the weaker sections of the spearhead, and casting flaws.

These definitions are sufficiently specific for others to achieve very similar results carrying out the same test. The same methodology is suitable for evaluating purposeful damage to spearheads, and has been used in the present study using slightly different criteria to reflect the type of damage experienced on spearheads.

Objectives 1. To evaluate the level of purposeful damage, since the hypothesis has been advanced that some metalwork was destroyed, or “killed”, prior to deposition (Grinsell 1975, 60-7; Bradley 1990, 138). This is supported by the presence of a number of broken or bent metalwork artefacts at Flag Fen (Coombs 1992; Pryor 1992, 528), and all the swords and some of the spearheads from the Late Bronze Age Blackmoor hoard show clear evidence of different types of purposeful damage (Colquhoun & Burgess 1988, pl 158-163).

Bridgford (ibid., 106; 2002, 127, 132 fig 4) evaluated the degree of blade edge notching compatible with use in combat on a five point scale. Those swords whose blade edges could not be classified, presumably because of corrosion or resharpening, were excluded from the sample. She recognised that the process involved subjective assessment, requiring a very clear definition of the five points on the scale if the results were to be replicable by others. Her five categories were (Bridgford 2002, 132 fig 4):1. None. 2. Slight. 3. Combat type. 4. Severe. 5. Catastrophic.

2. To evaluate whether spearheads had been used (in combat or training) prior to deposition. The size and craftsmanship of a number of spearheads have led to the suggestion that they were designed for ceremonial and ritual use rather than combat (Bradley 1982, 108; Ramsey 1989, 101-2; Needham 1990a). 3. To identify the problem areas in the manufacture of basal-looped spearheads. This may be achieved by analysing the damage to weak points and the casting flaws, as recorded in the database.

The presence of notching was interpreted as the result of combat damage, a conclusion that may be questionable in some cases, as discussed below in CHAPTER 9.3. However, the method is considered to be an effective way of measuring blade use, and has been adapted for the present study, with new definitions for the five point scale.

Other studies of metalwork condition Analysis of the condition of Bronze Age metalwork has been carried out by Bridgford (1997) on Irish swords, and York (2002) on various metalwork types from the River Thames, upstream from Teddington. Their experience in the development of evaluation criteria has been taken into account in the present study. Kristiansen (2002, 323-6) assessed the evidence for blade damage and resharpening to Bronze Age swords. He discussed the type of damage and location on the blade where it may occur, but did not propose specific evaluation criteria.

York (2002, 79-80) assessed “wear and tear” in her study, and defined four damage categories:1. Unused. 2. Used. 3. Unused and deliberately destroyed. 4. Used and deliberately destroyed. “Unused” was defined as being without apparent edge damage, but it was accepted that river rolling and corrosion may have obscured light use wear, or eroded an originally unworn edge. “Used” blade edges showed “nicks, notches, chips, bows and tears caused by metal striking metal” (ibid., 80).

Among the topics covered by Bridgford (1997, 109, 115) were two that relate directly to the present study on basallooped spearheads – in her terms, “state of completeness” and “blade edge notching”. Her purpose in measuring state of completeness of the swords was to evaluate major damage apparently due to use, and only secondarily to consider purposeful damage. She defined five categories (ibid., 109):-

York (ibid., 80) considered that “deliberate destruction” had probably taken place when an artefact had been:-

75

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

1. Chopped across at right angles to its length. This was mainly present on swords and spearheads. 2. Struck and crushed in a manner inconsistent with its primary use. With spearheads, this would include a flattened midrib, and blade edges badly beaten or bent. 3. Bent to breaking point. 4. Burnt.

9.2 Purposeful damage Severe damage beyond the wear and tear of combat has been interpreted as purposeful, except for damage that is clearly post depositional (Pryor 2002, 309). The definition used for purposeful damage covers a break across the blade and midrib at right angles to the blade edge, and across the socket, normally close to the loops. Experimental combat with replica Bronze Age weapons carried out by the Royal Armouries has shown that such breaks are unlikely in a combat situation.

York’s study covered all bronze artefacts, the main types being spearheads, swords, dirks/rapiers, knives and axes. The manifestation of use wear and damage differs across these artefact categories, and the criteria have of necessity been simplified to include them all. As a result, different degrees of blade wear were not separated, nor were the effects of corrosion or resharpening. York’s methodology for separating used and unused artefacts is a less sophisticated approach than that adopted by Bridgford for measuring blade edge notching. However, her definitions of deliberate destruction cover the main possibilities, and were applicable to all the various artefact categories. The conclusions reached on spearheads in York’s research are also a useful comparison to those in the present study, though the definitions of use and damage are different.

Severe bending can also be considered a form of purposeful damage. Experimental combat with Bronze Age swords has shown that blades can be seriously bent in concussion with a wooden shield, but the bend can be straightened by striking the blade on a hard surface in the opposite direction (J. Waller, Royal Armouries, pers. comm. 3/4/2003). In consequence, only severe bending has been interpreted as purposeful. This is a matter of judgement, and Richmond 28:106 and River Bann 20:353 are among the few cases where purposeful damage through bending can be interpreted with confidence. Judgement is also required when the blade is broken off near the tip, since it also may have been the result of combat, as in the case of Dorchester 43:205, where 117mm of the tip was lodged in the pelvis of a human skeleton (Osgood 1998, 21).

Database for the basal-looped spearhead condition study The data on the condition of spearheads in the basallooped corpus has come from two sources. I have made a direct study of 371 spearheads in museum and private collections using a magnifying glass with 10 times magnification. Secondly, visual information on a further 154 spearheads has come from photographs, drawings and photocopies of the actual artefacts placed on the photocopier glass. These have been supplied by museums, or taken from the literature, and are of variable quality. Visual reference to the remaining 26 spearheads in the corpus is not available. The breakdown of the data source is listed below. It shows a high level of direct study of British and Irish spearheads at 73% and 85% respectively of the regional totals. Only three spearheads from the Continent were studied directly, since museum visits were not carried out on the Continent.

These forms of damage cover all the definitions of “deliberate destruction” in York’s study, apart from “burnt” (York 2002, 80). The only basal-looped spearhead that was damaged by fire was Wiesloch 5:536, which was recovered from a cremation cemetery. It also had a break across the blade and midrib prior to deposition, and so was already included in the purposeful damage category. One probable type of purposeful damage, which cannot be measured, may have been the breaking of the wooden spearhead shaft. Wood has been found in the socket of several basal-looped spearheads, indicating that the shaft was not removed prior to deposition, at least in those cases. With long shafts and/or light spearheads, the spear would float, or the shaft butt stick vertically upwards in the water, allowing the spear to float away from its point of deposition and making its recovery easy (Bradley 1990, 24). At Clifton, Nottinghamshire, six basal-looped spearheads were found in close proximity to other metalwork (Phillips 1941). This suggests that the artefacts were all deposited from a specially identified part of the river bank or possibly a wooden platform. The full assemblage at Clifton covered a wide date range and is likely to have been deposited over an extended period of time. In this case, the spearhead shafts are likely to have been broken prior to deposition to ensure that they remained in the same spot: wood has been found in all the sockets. This must remain a matter of speculation because only a very few complete or large sections of

Fig. 9:1 Database for the study of spearhead condition: number of spearheads Britain Studied directly 217 Photos/drawings 61 Not available 18 Total 296

Ireland Continent 151 3 23 70 3 5 177 78

Total 371 154 26 551

For the analysis of purposeful damage to spearheads, both those “studied directly” and “photos/drawings” were used since breaks across blade and socket, and severe bends are clear from both sources (sample size: 525). For the condition of blade edges and other features, only those spearheads that were “studied directly” have been used (sample size: 371). 76

9. CONDITION

There is some indication that the larger spearheads with a high level of craftsmanship were more likely to incur purposeful damage prior to deposition. Six out of the seven Type 4 Ogival spearheads, and five of the fourteen Type 8: Late Irish/Scottish spearheads were purposefully damaged. The median length of basal-looped spearheads with any purposeful damage is 330mm, 32% greater than the median length for the total corpus (histogram in PLATE 89).

Bronze Age wooden spear shafts have survived. Hooper and O’Connor’s (1976) listing for Europe comprised just six examples. The categories of purposeful damage that have been recorded in the database are “Broken blade”, “Broken socket”, “Severe bending”, and any combination of these on a single spearhead – “Any purposeful damage”. Since the objective of this analysis is to establish the level of purposeful damage as a preliminary to ritual deposition, fragments that have the appearance or context of scrap are excluded. Examples of scrap are two fragments from the Yattendon hoard 43:24-5, Wallington 34:181, Brandon 43:221, Kenny Hill 43:226 and Reay 43:267.

The overall level of purposeful damage for the basallooped category at 22% is lower than that shown by York (2002, 87 table 4) for Middle Bronze Age spearheads from the Upper Thames. Her figure was 33%. This may be explained by a number of factors – a different area of coverage, and some differences in the definitions of purposeful damage in the two studies. Additionally, all Middle Bronze Age spearhead types were included in the York study as compared to only basal-looped spearheads in the present study. Her figures show an increase during the Middle Bronze Age from 25% in the Acton Park/Taunton phases to 44% in the Penard phase. A similar progression is shown in the present study in that Types 1-4 (Taunton) have a 21% incidence of damage, while Types 6-7 (Penard) have a 27% level. Regionally, there appears to be a lower incidence of purposeful damage in Ireland than in Britain and the Continent.

The extent of purposeful damage is shown in FIG. 9:2, with a breakdown by type of damage and a total figure for spearheads with any form of purposeful damage. The figure for “Any purposeful damage” is less than the total of the different damage categories, because a number of spearheads had both broken blades and sockets. Fig. 9:2 Purposeful damage: by damage category (Sample base: 525) Damage category

Spearhead % of total spearheads illustrated

Broken blade 88 Broken socket 47 Severe bend 8 Any purposeful damage 118

17% 9% 2% 22%

Purposeful damage is particularly prevalent among basallooped spearheads in hoards. 15 out of the 39 hoards/ associated finds in the corpus have basal-looped spearheads that have incurred purposeful damage (37%). These are Buckingham 45:26-7, Blandford 48:67, Appleby 26:141, Burringham 48:147, Stibbard 52:170, Horrington Hill 56:211-2, Sherford 56:215, Taunton Workhouse 57:216, Shelf 58:249, St Andrews 59:262, Pyotdykes 60:273, Gortagowan 63:378, Grammond 65: 500, Wiesloch 65:536, and San Esteban 66:547. A further four hoards have damaged spearheads that are defined in this study as being scrap, in that they are small fragments. These are Yattendon 45: 24-5, Appleby 29:142 (hoard contains basal-looped spearheads both purposefully damaged and scrap), Farnley 53:180 and Wallington 54:181.

Further analysis of figures for “Any purposeful damage” by region and by basal-looped spearhead type is shown in FIG. 9:3. Fig. 9:3 Any purposeful damage: by region and basallooped spearhead type Region Britain Ireland Continent

Any damage 70 31 17

Total in region/ type* 278 174 73

% 24% 17% 22%

Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Other

1 12 40 6 1 36 11 5 6

30 99 144 7 30 128 45 14 28

3% 12% 28% 86% 3% 28% 24% 36% 21%

Total

118

525

22%

9.3 Spearhead use The condition of the blade edges is one of the ways in which an assessment can be made of the extent to which Bronze Age weapons were used in combat prior to deposition. In this section, “combat” is taken to include fighting in earnest with an enemy, and training to develop weapon skills. Damage caused by a clash with another metal artefact may be shown by a concussion mark in the blade edge, variously described as a cut, notch, nick, chip, bow, tear or bend (Bridgford 1997, 106-7; Kristiansen 2002, 323; York 2002, 80). Experiments with replica Late Bronze Age swords at the

*Excludes those not illustrated

77

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

that blade edge hardness can be increased from a normal 70 HV (Vickers hardness) after casting to 150HV as a result of cold working. After damage in combat, the edges are likely to have been resharpened as a matter of course. If the weapon had a long period of use, it may have been resharpened several times which would have eventually altered the form of the blade. Examples of ext-ensive reworking are Unprov-enanced River Shannon 7:399 and Unprovenanced Ireland 18:394 and 30:447 where the edges have been reduced, leaving the tip and midrib protruding from the line of the blade edges.

Fig. 9:4 Blade edge analysis: Examples of the 5 point scale criteria

Major damage to blade edges may well have been repaired by cutting away a section of the blade edge and chamfering the edges. If this interpretation is correct, examples may be St Ives 23:52, Clifton 12:190, The Cutts 22:350 and Maghera 22:352. Some spearheads have been extensively reworked so that their original form is no longer recognisable, as in Unprovenanced Londonderry 43:354. Others have been so altered that they may have been put to different use such as a dagger or a tool, as in Unprovenanced Ireland 43:467-9. The limitations in equating damaged blade edges with use in warfare must be recognised. Damage may be the result of practice, sporting contests or accident rather than combat in warfare. In contrast, reworking may have obscured the evidence of earlier combat damage. The post depositional effects of corrosion, gravel churning and river rolling may have altered the condition of the blade edges, obscuring the evidence of combat damage. Hobbs et al. (2002), with practical experience in con-servation at the British Museum, have described the processes of corrosion on bronze and the different forms it may take. Corrosion varies based on the composition of the alloy and the burial conditions after deposition, as the alloy gradually reverts to its natural mineral forms. In some conditions, both the original surface and the metal core may become mineralised and the integrity of the blade edges completely lost (ibid., 23-4). The effects of corrosion may therefore prevent recognition of signs of blade wear prior to deposition.

Royal Armouries have shown that a hard cutting blow by one sword against another may cause a cut up of up to 5mm in each blade edge. Lesser strikes may cause a nick of around 1mm. Glancing blows can shave or bend blade edges. A direct thrust against a wooden shield may bend or blunt the tip, and a very strong thrusting blow may even break it (J. Waller, Royal Armouries, pers. comm. 3/4/2003). Further tests showed that the same effects were experienced on the replica basal-looped spearheads (ibid. 24/8/2004). Hodges (1976, 7) and Tylecote (1986, 34-5) suggested that the finishing process on blade edges normally involved a sequence of cold hammering and annealing to increase the hardness and sharpness of the edges. Experience in finishing the replica spearheads and rapiers for the Experimental Programme indicated that hammering alone achieved a satisfactory result (J. Mainwaring pers. comm. 1/7/2004). Pearce (2004) noted 78

9. CONDITION

Accepting these problems in interpretation, a five point scale was developed with the following definitions of condition (FIG. 9:4) and suggestions as to how the conditions may be interpreted. All spearheads that were studied directly were evaluated on these measures:-

Fig. 9:6 Types of spearhead damage (Sample base: 371)

Socket damage Casting flaws Loop damage Cracked channels

Score Condition Interpretation 1. Pristine. Sharp edges. No marks. Unused 2. A few small nicks. No combat use 3. Several marks: distinct cuts and notches in blade edges and possible reworking. Used in combat 4. Line of blade edge partly lost through damage. Deeper cuts, nicks and corrosion. Used in combat 5. Severe damage to blades. Unidentifiable

Fig. 9:5 Blade condition evaluation (Sample base: 371) Interpretation Unused No combat use Used in combat Used in combat Unidentifiable

31% 15% 9% 6%

Casting flaws were observed either as small circular “blow holes” or narrow gaps in the metal along thin, vulnerable parts of the casting, mainly the midrib and channels. They are the result of gas impurities in the alloy or insufficient fill of thin parts of the mould, with subsequent shrinkage.

The results were as follows:-

Score Condition 1. Pristine 2. Few nicks 3. Several cuts and notches 4. Deeper cuts 5. Severe damage

115 54 33 22

Spearhead 9 3% 69 19% 180 48% 75 20% 38 10% 371 100%

The channels and loop plates are the weakest parts of the spearhead construction. The problem of achieving an effective casting of the channel was experienced during the production of the replicas for the experimental programme. The metal is normally thin at the channels and the possibility of shrinkage during the casting process is present, particularly on the larger spearheads (J. Mainwaring, pers. comm. 10/12/2003). Loop plate damage was normally found on spearheads with other forms of damage attributable to combat.

Based on this assessment, at least two thirds (68%) of the sample are considered likely to have been used in combat or training. A further 10% are so damaged and corroded that blade edge damage can no longer be evaluated, and it is possible that part of the reason for their condition was combat use.

Surface pitting is a regular occurrence on bronze artefacts of the period, and this was noted on a number of spearheads in the corpus. No quantitative or qualitative analysis of pitting was carried out during the data collection, as it was initially thought this was caused by corrosion. However, pitting was experienced on some of the castings of the replicas used in the experimental programme, caused by the physical processes as the metal cooled. Some of the adverse effects could be smoothed away during the finishing work, but this was clearly not carried out on some of the spearheads in the corpus, for example Earlsfield 21:80 and Richmond 39:103.

In assessing the validity of this blade condition analysis, I am concerned at the difficulties in interpreting the effects of corrosion and reworking, and draw the conclusion that the results can provide directional guidance only. If the artefacts where these factors made interpretation difficult were eliminated, then the sample would no longer have been representative. On the basis of this experience, it is my view that previous blade wear studies may have been unrealistic in the degree of certainty they projected in their conclusions.

9.4 Other spearhead conditions Four further spearhead conditions were evaluated among the spearheads that had been studied directly. These were the incidence of damaged sockets, cracked channels, damaged loop plates and casting flaws. The results are shown in FIG. 9:6. Socket damage was mainly observed around the socket mouth. Possible causes are seen as lateral movements of the spearhead against the shaft in combat, damage caused by inserting and removing shafts during the process of hafting and rehafting, and hammering of the socket mouth against the shaft to make the spearhead more secure. 79

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

10. 10.1

MANUFACTURE

Moulds (PLATE 44)

Basal-looped spearhead moulds have been identified at seven sites. Three are in Britain and two each in Ireland and the Continent. Stone moulds were present at three of the sites, bronze and clay moulds at two each. Fig. 10:1 Basal-looped spearhead moulds Site

Region

44:552 Toorglass 44:551 Shepton Mallett 44:555 Gonfreville-l’Orcher 44:553 Unprov. N Ireland 44:554 Grotte de Rancogne 44:550 Dainton NA:556 Grimes Graves

Ireland Britain Continent Ireland Continent Britain Britain

Spearhead type 1: Transitional 2: Leaf 2: Leaf 3: Flame 6: Triangular 6: Triangular 6: Triangular

Stone moulds Toorglass 44:552 is one part of a steatite bivalve mould (Coghlan & Raftery 1961, 235-6 no 25). The spearhead formed by the mould is Type 1: Transitional, variant A, with a kite-shaped blade and semicircular loop plates projecting from the base. The shape of the loop plates may have been modified during the finishing process, as with Unprovenanced Ireland 1:450. Shallow runnels on each side of the socket project inwards from the base, and were possibly made for keying the two sides of the mould together. Both the tip and socket were left open, making it possible to fill from either end. It is Coghlan & Raftery’s view that the mould would have been filled from the tip (ibid., 236). A possible reason for openings at both ends may be that the metal was allowed to run through the mould initially, to let the gases escape and to ensure that all extremities of the mould were properly filled.

No provision for core location or pouring cup is apparent at the socket mouth, and it is likely that the mould was filled from the tip (Coghlan & Raftery 1961, 238 no 31). Grotte de Rancogne 44:554 is one part of a bivalve stone mould (Coffyn 1985, 73). The upper section of the mould is broken off, leaving only the socket and loops. From the design of the loops, it can be concluded that this was probably for a Type 6: Triangular spearhead. There are channels at right angles to the socket, possibly to secure Mould the core and also to provide rivet holes type in addition to the loops. The mould has Stone cavities for Médoc axes on each side. Bronze Bronze The find spot in Southwest France is Stone surprising in that only five basal-looped Stone spearheads have been recovered from Clay this part of the country. The presence of Clay a mould in an area of low basal-looped spearhead distribution (PLATE 68) may suggest that local manufacture was widespread during the later phase of the basal-looped sequence. Bronze moulds One part of a bivalve bronze mould was found at Shepton Mallet 44:551. It was designed for a Type 2: Leaf spearhead. The outside surface of the mould is formed to match the shape of the midrib and pouring cup area. It is ornately decorated with a series of vertical ribs from tip to the base section over the pouring cup, which in turn has horizontal ribs. Tylecote noted that bronze moulds “show the advanced state of the founder’s craft and would only be considered today when the quantity of castings was large enough to justify the expense” (Tylecote 1986, 92). He suggested that bronze moulds may have been used for making wax or lead patterns to be used in the clay moulding process. Experimental work has shown that bronze castings could be made in bronze moulds, but the mould would only last for around fifty castings, while wax or lead patterns could be cast indefinitely. He quoted examples of a number of Late Bronze Age socketed axe bronze moulds with lead traces remaining, including those from the Isle of Harty in Kent, Roseberry Topping in Yorkshire and Southall, Middlesex (ibid., 93, Table 54). The cavity of the Shepton Mallet mould shows no traces of lead or indeed of having been used.

The mould was found in association with one half of another steatite bivalve mould (PLATE 67). This was for a side-looped spearhead, and had a cavity for a tanged blade on the reverse. It also had two runnels on each side of the spearhead socket, and was open at both tip and socket. Neither of the two spearhead moulds show traces of use. This is one of only two associated finds where an overlap between side-looped and basal-looped spearheads has been observed, the other being Horrington Hill 56:210-2.

Another bronze mould, designed for a Type 2: Leaf spearhead, came from Gonfreville-l’Orcher 44:555 close to the mouth of the Seine. Both valves are extant. The outside surface is decorated with three ribs on each side, but is less ornate than the Shepton Mallett mould. The presence of a mould in Northeast France for this type of

Unprovenanced Northern Ireland 44:553 is one part of a steatite bivalve mould, with the tip section broken off. The mould was for a Type 3: Flame spearhead, with a wide, low base – a common Irish type (CHAPTER 5.3).

80

10. MANUFACTURE

indeed be considered as basal-looped, Dainton would suggest the continuation of manufacture of Type 6 into the Wilburton phase. The location of the site is surprising, in that it is in an area in which no triangular bladed basal-looped spearheads have been recovered, the nearest being Wadeford 37:217 in Somerset 70km away, and Wilcot 38:253 in Wiltshire 170 km away.

basal-looped spearheads is not surprising, because six of the eight longest Type 2 spearheads came from the Continent. The distribution pattern alone would suggest local manufacture on the Continent, and the presence of the Gonfreville mould can be seen as strong support for this view. Clay Moulds The excavation of the Dainton, Devon, metalworking site led to the recovery of clay debris that was interpreted as moulds for a basal-looped spearhead, a lunate spearhead, two swords and two ferrules (Needham 1980). The spearhead described as basal-looped had a number of characteristics of Type 6: Triangular. It had a triangular shaped blade with a horizontal base and blade ribs, and a circular midrib section. Plates projected below the base, but did not have loops incorporated in the mould. Needham noted that the holes could have been punched or drilled through the plates in post-casting work, but his conclusion was that “the evidence is in favour of the Dainton ‘loops’ in fact never having been intended to serve functionally, instead representing vestigial features derived from true basal-looped spearheads” (ibid., 207). He noted that there were traces of furrows at right angles to the socket that may have been used partly to hold a chaplet to position the core, partly to create rivet holes. The spearhead form suggested by the mould may alternatively be considered similar to Class Va defined by Greenwell and Brewis (1909, 460 and pl 68 figs 35-36) which had blades set on a band each side of the midrib, extending below the blade on to the socket.

The assemblage at Grimes Graves NA:556 contained clay fragments which have been interpreted as representing up to three basal-looped spearhead moulds, probably for Type 6: Triangular (Needham 1991). These are the earliest clay moulds for bronze casting that have been found in Britain. The construction of the moulds was similar to those at Dainton, in that there is evidence for two-piece moulds bound together with organic material. However, the presence of an outer clay layer is uncertain or at least partial, to “merely clamp the valve junctions with two separate strips” (ibid., 154). The site obviously had a long standing affiliation with prehistoric technology, and was relatively close to the fen edge which was a focus for deposition of basal-looped spearheads and other high status weapons. A further clay mould for a basal-looped spearhead may have been recovered at Knockadoon, Limerick. Ten fragments of clay moulds for spearheads were found at this settlement site, with one tentatively identified as basal-looped (Waddell 1998, 215). It is possible that spearheads were also made in clay moulds using the lost wax process. No examples have been recovered, but the recovery of clay moulds for spearheads is very limited. The general use of the lost wax process during the later Bronze Age is referred to by Tylecote (1988, 92) and Earle (2002, 364).

The mould making process has been interpreted from the clay fragments at Dainton (Needham 1980, 181-184 and fig 3; Tylecote 1986, 81-93 ). A pattern of the spearhead was made from either wood, wax or lead – the latter two materials could have been prepared in a bronze mould. A two-piece mould was made from the pattern by pressing one side into a prepared slab of damp clay. When dry, the first side of the mould with the pattern remaining in it was pressed into a second slab of damp clay, thus forming the two piece mould. A clay core was prepared and held in place in the open mould with chaplets. The clay core may have been formed as an integral part of the gate through which the mould would be filled, thus helping to secure it in position (Tylecote 1986, 90 fig 46 illustrates this procedure for a socketed axe). The two sides of the mould, with the core and gate in place, were bound together with a thong. The mould was covered with a further layer of clay to hold the components firmly together. It was then fired to make it ready for the casting process. Material from the core was not recovered at Dainton, but it is likely that the core was scraped out of the cast spearhead because the core was so slender (Needham 1980, 182).

Multiple manufacture Only 17 spearheads in the corpus (3%) can be identified as being the result of multiple manufacture from the same mould or pattern. These were the Buckingham hoard 15:26-7, River Thames 13:115-7, the Stibbard hoard 17:166-175 and the Horrington Hill hoard 4:210-1. The Buckingham spearheads were metal detectorist finds and are unpublished. They are badly damaged and corroded, but they can be identified as having an identical form when studied side by side, and drawn. The three “River Thames, London” spearheads have an identical form, but have no specific provenance other than the river. They are from the Thomas Layton Collection at the Museum of London, have sequential accession numbers (O 1450-2) and similar patination, all suggesting that they may have been found together. Seven of the original ten spearheads from the Stibbard hoard are in museum collections. Examination shows that they have identical and distinctive flaws and casting marks. Tylecote (1986, 92) noted that five of the palstaves from the same hoard were also identical, and he suggested that they could have been made by casting

The assemblage at Dainton was attributed to the Wilburton phase based on the lunate spearhead, swords and ferrules (ibid., 205, 207). If the first spearhead can 81

BASAL-LOOPED SPEARHEADS

The As:Ni relationship was then tabulated by spearhead type. Types 2-4 can be equated with the Taunton phase, and Types 6-7 with the Penard phase (CHAPTER 6.4). The limited basal-looped spearhead sample does not suggest any change in the pattern of raw material source over the two periods:-

directly in a bronze mould, or by using the lost wax process.

10.2

Metallurgical analysis

Metallurgical analyses have been collected for 46 spearheads from the basal-looped corpus (APPENDIX 3). The main source is Brown and Blin-Stoyle (1959). The analyses of the basal-looped spearheads in the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, were recorded in Allen et al. (1970). Peter Northover from the Department of Materials at Oxford University provided me with a number of additional analyses by letter (28/3/03). The remainder were gathered from various books and papers. The analyses cover 8% of the corpus, but it must be emphasised that it is not a representative sample by type, county or region.

Fig. 10:2 As:Ni relationship – 1 Type/Phase

As>Ni Welsh/British 2-4: Taunton 10 6-7: Penard 4

Ni>As Continental 17 7

However, Northover’s second hypothesis that impurity levels reduced during the Penard phase is supported in the basal-looped spearhead data:-

The collected data was sent to Peter Northover for his comments. He kindly suggested some conclusions that may be drawn, and avenues for further interrogation of the results (email 13/6/2003).

Fig. 10:3 As:Ni relationship – 2 Type/Phase 2-4: Taunton 6-7: Penard

Arsenic and nickel Expanding on the conclusions of his 1982 paper, Northover suggested As:Ni relationships that were characteristic of different raw material sources. As>Ni can be associated with Welsh or other British sources in the Taunton phase, while Ni>As can be associated with material from the Continent. Additionally, during the Penard phase, the impurity level tended to fall with both As and Ni below 0.3% (Northover, email 13/6/2003).

As & Ni >0.3% 26 6

As & Ni Ni (PLATE 80:1), the sample base is small at 16. To support Northover’s theory, there should be a strong weighting to regions in proximity with the known Welsh raw material sources. Nine of the spearheads are distributed in Ireland, South West Britain and Scotland, areas most likely to be in the Welsh contact zone. The one Continental example of As>Ni was from San Esteban 10:547 in Spain which may have been imported from Ireland, based on the characteristic incised decoration. However, five within the sample are distributed in the Thames Valley, East Anglia and Lincolnshire, which are more likely to have been influenced by Continental raw material sources.

Tin In his study of metalwork types from the Middle Bronze Age in Southern Britain, Rowlands (1976, 8) observed a distinction between low and high tin levels, which he defined as < and > 13%. He concluded that there was a bimodal pattern of low and high tin values. In South West Britain and the Thames Valley, there were equal proportions of high and low tin values, while in East Anglia, the low tin formulation predominated. The distribution of low and high tin values for the basallooped spearheads has been mapped (PLATE 81), and it is apparent that Rowlands’ conclusion which included all metalwork types are not matched by the basal-looped spearheads results. While there is an equal balance between low and high tin values for the basal-looped spearheads that have been analysed, there appears to be a weighting of low tin in Ireland and Western Britain, and high tin in East Anglia. The Thames Valley is equally

Where Ni>As (PLATE 80:2) which Northover associated with Continental raw material sources, the sample base is also small at 26. Nine of these are distributed in South East Britain (Thames Valley and East Anglia), but eleven are in Ireland and South West/Northern Britain, showing no clear bias to the areas close to the Continental raw material sources.

82

10. MANUFACTURE

split between low and high tin. Again, the small sample for basal-looped spearheads should be emphasised.

Fig. 10:4 Metallurgical analysis of the Stibbard hoard spearheads

Lead Brown and Blin-Stoyle (1959, 200) concluded that a low lead formulation of < 1.0% was characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age, while high lead at >1% was characteristic of the Late Bronze Age. This is borne out by the basal-looped spearhead sample. All except one are