Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:12:11.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A British Bronze Bowl of the Belgic Iron Age from Poland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

J. V. S. Megaw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to elaborate the recent publication of a remarkable piece of bronze-smithing and to illustrate rather more fully than has been done hitherto an object which should be of particular interest to British prehistorians. Some discussion of the implications of a Belgic bowl imported into the Germanic area of the Roman Iron Age may be added by way of an appendix to Lady (Aileen) Fox's recent paper on the Rose Ash find.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 1963 , pp. 28 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 27 note 1 The bowl was first drawn to my attention by Professor Konrad Jażdżewski, Łódź. For general information and generous assistance prior to its original publication as well as the photographs here reproduced, my thanks are due to Miss Alina Kiet-lińska, Curator at the Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, Warsaw, where the tomb group is now preserved and where the bowl was recently rediscovered. I have also benefited from discussions with Professors Stuart Piggott and Tadeusz Sulimirski, Mr. E. M. Jope, and Mr. T. G. E. Powell. The drawings, which correct in certain details those previously published, have been most kindly prepared for me by Mr. Philip R. Ward. An abbreviated version of this paper was presented to Section VB of the VIth International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Rome, on 30th August 1962.

page 27 note 2 Antiq. Journ. xli (1961), 186–98Google Scholar, which I was privileged to see in proof, while just prior to my departure for Australia the bowl itself was kindly made available to me by Mr. J. W. Brailsford of the British Museum Department of British and Medieval Antiquities.

page 27 note 3 P.Z. xxxiv/xxxv, 2 (1949–1950), 58–111Google Scholar; for a summary see Sir Wheeler, Mortimer, Rome beyond the Imperial Frontiers (1955), 49–63Google Scholar.

page 27 note 4 Inventaria Archaeologica: Poland, 5 th set (1961), PL 32Google Scholar; only the briefest mention of the circumstances of discovery have previously appeared: cf. Durczewski, Z. in Z otchł. wiek. ix (1937), 157Google Scholar.

page 27 note 5 Users of Inventaria should be warned that the top right-hand scale on sheet PL 32 (1) is incorrect.

page 27 note 6 A study of this group will shortly be published by E. M. Jope and H. Maryon.

page 28 note 1 For the history of enamelling in the West see Henry, F. in Préhistoire, ii (1933), 65–143Google Scholar, and Maryon, in Singer, C. et al., History of Technology, ii (1956), 158–68Google Scholar.

page 28 note 2 Smith, R. A. in Antiq. Journ. vi (1926), 280–1Google Scholar; Sir Fox, Cyril, Pattern and Purpose: Early Celtic Art in Britain (1958)—here abbreviated PP—,79 and pl. 51 for excellent photographsGoogle Scholar.

page 28 note 3 Not zigzags as Jope has written in U.J.A. xvii (1954), 94Google Scholar.

page 28 note 4 Jope, , op. cit., 92–93Google Scholar and pl. VIII a—‘first half of the first century A.D.’

page 28 note 5 Op. cit., 96 and pl. VIII d.

page 29 note 1 Bulleid, A. and Gray, H. St. G., Glastonbury Lake Village, i (1911), 179–81, fig. 40 and frontispieceGoogle Scholar.

page 29 note 2 Op. cit., 194, note 1; add too the Winchester mounting published by Smith, R. A. in Archaeologia, lxiii (1911–1912), 16–17 and fig. 15Google Scholar.

page 29 note 3 See Clarke, R. R. in P.P.S. xx (1954), 63–66Google Scholar and pl. XVI–‘c. 50–25 B.C.’ On the subject of torcs the great silver ring of Trichtingen has a double sinuous line encircling both sides of the tore: Powell, T. G. E., The Celts (1958), pl. 36Google Scholar.

page 29 note 4 For a reassessment of the Birdlip burials see Green, C. H. in P.P.S. xv (1949), 188–90 and fig. 16Google Scholar. Bagendon, the Dobunnic oppidum, has two bronze brooches with cast zigzags; cf. Hull, M. R. in Clifford, E. M., Bagendon: a Belgic oppidum (1961), figs. 30Google Scholar: 3 (Colchester type) and 33: 3 (Bagendon type). For continental examples of Hod Hill type brooches with undulating ribbing on the bow see ibid., 180–2.

page 30 note 1 PP, 81 and pl. 53 b.

page 30 note 2 To be noted in passing are the Snailwell nostrils with their? enamel settings as on the Harpenden mounts, PP, pl. 50. The notching on the horns of both Snailwell and Harpenden is a convention followed by the Youlton escutcheon.

page 30 note 3 PP, pl. 17 (Battersea); 107 and pl. 41d (Tre'r Ceiri—A.D. 60 according to Fox). The treatment of the spring-cover is similar to that of the top of the Rose Ash animal's head.

page 30 note 4 Clarke, in Arch. Journ. xcvi (1940), 70 and fig. 12:3Google Scholar.

page 30 note 5 PP, 115 and pl. 67b.

page 30 note 6 Fox, Aileen, op. cit., fig. 5Google Scholar.

page 30 note 7 Jacobsthal, P., Early Celtic Art (1944)—here abbreviated ECA—no. 109Google Scholar.

page 30 note 8 Klindt-Jensen, O., ‘Bronzekedelen fra Brå’, Jysk Arkœologisk Selskabs Skrifter, iii (1953), 89–90 and fig. 40Google Scholar; I agree that these are very Celtic looking, perhaps even continental Belgic workmanship! See my comments in Helinium, i, 3 (1961), 241Google Scholar.

page 30 note 9 Jope, in ‘Problems of the Iron Age …’, Inst. Arch. Occ. Paper, no. ii (1961), 74Google Scholar and pl. iv b. Dotted as well as enamelled ornamentation occurs on La Tène III sword-hilt guards in the British Museum Durden Collection—in one example combined with a single wavy line: Brailsford, J. W., Hod Hill, i (1962), 1 and fig. 1: A1–5Google Scholar.

page 30 note 10 Professor Stuart Piggott has suggested to me that the combination of derived palmette and dot ornament is not a true southern British feature; e.g. the trial pieces from Cairn H, Loughcrew: Tempest, H. G. in Man, xliv (1949), 13–16 and fig. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the Langbank bone comb in the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland; for an illustration see Munro, R., Archaeology and False Antiquities (1905), pl. 12Google Scholar.

page 30 note 11 Harford, C. J. in Archaeologia, xiv (1803), 90–93 and pls. XXI–XXIICrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 30 note 12 PP, 129 and pl. 72c.

page 31 note 1 Clarke, , op. cit., 68–69 and pls. XV–XVIIIGoogle Scholar; for the correction of this date to A.D. 60 see Sir Syme, Ronald, Tactitus, i (1958), 391Google Scholar.

page 31 note 2 PP, 97 and fig. 60. The original water-colours of the objects from the cemetery are preserved in the Library of the Society of Antiquaries: Brown Portfolio: Devon, f. 62.

page 31 note 3 MacGregor, Morna in P.P.S. xxviii (1962), 17–57Google Scholar.

page 31 note 4 PP, frontispiece; Fox's (a) is a view I used some years back when working on a general study of animals in La Tène metalwork to illustrate this possible inspiration for the form of the Witham bosses. It is gratifying to learn from Mr. Jope that he has been thinking along similar lines. Compare for classical examples Lamb, W., Greek and Roman Bronzes (1929), pls. XLIVdGoogle Scholar (patera), LX (mirrors); for a crude Celtic Apollo supporting the Hochheim mirror: ECA, no. 374.

page 31 note 4 Fox, Aileen, op. cit., fig. 5Google Scholar. I have added a few more notes on this convention with regard to the continental La Tène plastic style in Antiq. Journ. xlii (1962), 28Google Scholar.

page 31 note 6 Watson, W. in Antiq. Journ. xxix (1949), 41, 50-51. figs. 3, 4, 8, and pl. vGoogle Scholara–b—the last 1:1 not 1:4 as printed; I cannot see the ‘corrections’ in PP, fig. 49.

page 31 note 7 Watson, , op. cit., 44–46 and fig. 6Google Scholar.

page 31 note 8 Penninger, E. in Mitt. Ges. Salzburger Landeskunde, c (1960), 6–7 and Abb. 3Google Scholar.

page 31 note 9 For information on this point I am much obliged to Mr. Donald E. Strong of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum.

page 31 note 10 Shoe, Lucy T. in Hesperia, i (1932), 57–59 and figs. 1–2Google Scholar.

page 32 note 1 Schumacher, K., Beschreibung der Sammlung antiker Bronzen zu Karlsruhe (1890), nr. 638 and Taf. ix: 24Google Scholar.

page 32 note 2 B.M. reg. no. 73, 8–20, 202; for this and a second satyr spout cf. Walters, H. B., B. M. Catalogue of Bronzes: Greek, Roman and Etruscan (1899), nos. 652 and 2484Google Scholar. Incidentally, we may dismiss as too late to be considered here the lion-head spouts of Dragendorff Form 45 mortaria of late second/early third century A. D. date; for Lezoux examples cf. Déchelette, J., Les Vases céramiques ornés de la Gaule romaine, ii (1904), pl. IXGoogle Scholar. The only Roman vessel from Britain with a boar's head spout is a bowl of grey ware from St. Martin's-le-Grand: Wheeler, , ‘London in Roman times’, London Museum Cat. No. 3 (1946), 148 and fig. 55Google Scholar: 2, ‘first half of the 2nd century A.D.’—with a strainer!

page 32 note 3 ECA, no. 394.

page 32 note 4 ECA, no. 402.

page 32 note 5 Or so I would term those noted in ECA, 31 and pl. 222a–b.

page 32 note 6 PP, 26–27, and pl. 15a Witham was clearly always a parade shield and not intended for defence in battle.

page 32 note 7 e.g. those of the Garonne region as illustrated by Varagnac, A., Fabre, G., and Mainjonet, M., L'Art gaulois (1956), following 192, pl. 1Google Scholar: 11 and 17; for the Sequani cf. Blanchet, A., Traité des monnaies gauloises (1905), figs. 324–5Google Scholar; for the Leuci of present-day Belgium cf. Moreau, J., Die Welt der Kelten (1958), Taf. 91 belowGoogle Scholar; for Central Europe see Filip, J., Keltové ve střední Evropě (1956), obr. 69:5Google Scholar.

page 32 note 8 Filip, , Die keltische Zivilisation und ihr Erbe (1961), Abb. 19Google Scholar; for sword stamps in general see Wyss, R. in Jahrb. des Bern. Hist. Mus. xxxiv (1954), 201–22Google Scholar.

page 32 note 9 Filip, , Keltové…, 244–5 and obr. 91–92Google Scholar.

page 32 note 10 Penninger, , op. cit., Abb. 7Google Scholar found with a typical L.T. II shield.

page 32 note 11 Jope, , op. cit., 95Google Scholar.

page 32 note 12 Hawkes, C. F. C. and Hull, M. R., Camulodunum (1947), 136 and pl. XVII, 6–7Google Scholar.

page 32 note 13 Piggott, Stuart in Antiq. Journ. xxxix (1959), 24–32Google Scholar—‘first century A.D.’ My notes on Celtic boars are expanded from those which appear on p. 28 of this article.

page 33 note 1 Sandars, N. K., Bronze Age Cultures in France (1957), 327–8Google Scholar. For other Iron Age ‘ritual meals’ of pork see Graves, Danes, Greenwell, W. in Archaeologia, lx (1906), 263–5 and fig. 9Google Scholar; Jogasses, Les, Favret, P. M. in Rev. arch., ve série, xxvi (1927), 87Google Scholar.

page 33 note 2 Hoffman, W. in Altschlesien, ix (1940), 10–31Google Scholar. Complete interments under Iron Age barrows; Trnovec-H. Jatov, Slovenia: Filip, in Arch. roz. v, 2 (1953), 231–2Google Scholar and obr. 115; Felsőcikola, Hungary: Thomas, E.-B. (ed.), Archäologische Funde in Ungarn (1956), 164Google Scholar.

page 33 note 3 Forrer, R. in Préhistoire, i (1932), 19–123Google Scholar.

page 33 note 4 Powell, , op. cit., 146 and fig. 29Google Scholar.

page 33 note 5 Ibid., pl. 67.

page 33 note 6 Lambrechts, P., Contributions à l'étude des divinités celtiques (1942), 94Google Scholar.

page 33 note 7 Varagnac, et al., op. cit., 146 and pls. 47–48 precedingGoogle Scholar; Moreau, , op. cit., Taf. 68Google Scholar.

page 33 note 8 ECA, pl. 260g.

page 33 note 9 Cehak-Hołubowiczowa, H. in Z otchł. wiek. xxi (1952), 49 and rye. 1–3; these have also been claimed as bearsGoogle Scholar.

page 33 note 10 de Vries, J., Keltische Religion (1961), 114Google Scholar; Duval, P. M., Les dieux de la Gaule (1957), 50 and fig. 19Google Scholar.

page 33 note 11 O'Rahilly, T. F., Early Irish History and Mythology (1946), 122–3Google Scholar and—less reliable!—Bonwick, J., Irish Druids and Old Irish Religions (1894), 288–31Google Scholar. For sacred boars and the hunt see A. and Rees, B., Celtic Heritage (1961), 71, 264, 283, and 295Google Scholar.

page 33 note 12 The emaciated Witham-like figure in relief of the Rynkeby cauldron is a true Northern beast—cf. Klindt-Jensen, O. in Acta Archaeologica, xx (1949), 11–12 and fig. 68bGoogle Scholar, while the soldiers with boar-crested helmets on the inner plate of the Gundestrup cauldron with the boar-moulded carnices, ibid., fig. 78e, foreshadow the Torslunda figures; a possible La Tène helmet mount in the form of a bronze boar from Gutenberg, Liechtenstein, is illustrated by Moreau, , op. cit., Taf. 16Google Scholar above. For boar-crested or boar-tusk helmets of the Migration period see Werner, J. in Acta Archaeologica, xx, 248–57Google Scholar, while in Saxon Britain this northern cult of the boar is continued through to the seventh-century Christianized Benty Grange helmet with its standing figure; Wilson, D. M., The Anglo-Saxons (1960), 120–1 and pls. 28-29Google Scholar. For further remarks on Beowulf and the boar see Martin-Clarke, D. E. in Fox, C. and Dickens, Bruce, The Early Cultures of North-West Europe (1950), 115, 117Google Scholar.

page 33 note 13 All three have now been issued in Inventaria; tomb 2 is PL 37 and tomb 3 PL 26, the latter contained in the fourth set.

page 33 note 14 The basic work is Eggers, ‘Der römische Import im Freien Germanien’, Atlas der Urgeschichte, i (1951)Google Scholar, with Wheeler, , op. cit., 21–117Google Scholar, as a useful introduction. For Poland itself Majewski, K., Importy rzymskie w Polsce (1960)Google Scholar is indispensible—with a full summary, annotated catalogue, and critical bibliography in French.

page 34 note 1 Łuka, L. J. in Slavic Antiqua, vi (1957–1959), 1–99Google Scholar.

page 34 note 2 As commented by Wheeler, , op. cit., 91Google Scholar.

page 34 note 3 = period C 1; for the absolute chronology of Free Germany in imperial times see Eggers, in J.R.-G.Z.M. ii (1955), 196–244Google Scholar.

page 34 note 4 Wiad. archeol. xxvi, 3–4 (1959–1960), 98–118Google Scholar.

page 34 note 5 Op. cit., 51-52.

page 34 note 6 Déchelette, , Manuel d'archéologie.…, iv (1927), 786–90 and fig. 555Google Scholar.

page 34 note 7 Nadolski, A. in Wiad. archeol. xviii (1951), 85–136Google Scholar.

page 34 note 8 Majewski, , op. cit., 25, 53, 115, and pl. XLIII b (cat. no. 29)—‘first century B.C.’; for this early class in general seeGoogle ScholarWerner, , op. cit. in note 9 below, 56–57Google Scholar, although I am not so sure how far it is safe to rely on the sophisticated method of manufacture as support for a Capuan origin in view of the skilled native smithing demonstrated by, for example, our Youlton–Rose Ash bowls.

page 34 note 9 Bayer. Vorg. xx (1954), 43–72Google Scholar; see also Fischer, F., ‘Der spätlatènezeitliche Depot-Fund von Kappel’, Urkunden zur Vor- und Frühgesckichte aus Südwürttemberg-Hohenzollern, i (1959), 16–18Google Scholar.

page 34 note 10 Majewski, 138 (cat. no. 76) and pl. XLII = Werner nr. 22.

page 34 note 11 Ibid., 139 and pl. XLIII a (cat. no. 84) = Werner nr. 23.

page 34 note 12 Klindt-Jensen, in Acta Archaeologica, xii (1941), 145 and figs. 1 and 2d = Werner nr. 19Google Scholar.

page 35 note 1 For the jug and skillet cf. Evans, A. J. in Archaeologia, lii (1890), 375–80Google Scholar.

page 35 note 2 Smith, R. A. in Archaeologia, lxiii (1911–1912), 18–20Google Scholar.

page 35 note 3 For Camulodunum: Hawkes, and Hull, , op. cit., 332Google Scholar and pl. xcix, 9; Rządz (= Werner nr. 25) is not mentioned by Majewski; my remarks on Byrsted, are in loc. cit. p. 30, n. 8Google Scholar.

page 35 note 4 For Rządz: Majewski, 137 and pl. XLII d (cat. no. 71); for Stanfordbury: Fox, C., Archaeology of the Cambridge Region (1923), 99–100Google Scholar and pls. XVI: 1 and XVII.

page 35 note 5 Boon, G. C. in Antiq. Journ. lxi (1961), 13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 35 note 6 Antiquity, xxxiii (1959), 122–3Google Scholar.

page 35 note 7 PP, 91–93; note also that apart from the Lexden boar there is from the Boudiccan destruction level at Camulodunum a linch pin of the S.E. type. The arms of the pin bear two Lydney-like collared dogs, while at right angles to the shaft of the pin is a pig's head with upturned snout, cf. Hawkes, and Hull, , op. cit., 331 and pl. XCIX, 7Google Scholar; the authors write of this possible Icenian import that it displays ‘a blend of native convention and romanizing naturalism’.

page 35 note 8 Pliny, , Nat. Hist. xiv, 24Google Scholar.

page 35 note 9 Fox, Aileen, op. cit., 193Google Scholar; and Jope in litt.; compare Werner, , op. cit., Taf. 1–2Google Scholar: 1. I might add that from Bagendon comes a little pierced bronze—illustrated but not otherwise referred to—which, if reversed, looks very similar to the Youlton handle mount and might well be from a Youlton-Rose Ash bowl. The report offers no further hints save the mention of sheet bronze and the illustration of part of a riveted ? cup-handle; cf. Clifford, , op. cit., 193, figs. 36Google Scholar: 4 and 32: 10 respectively. These presumably belong to the first half of the first century A.D.

page 36 note 1 Op.cit. 195.

page 36 note 2 PP, 80.

page 36 note 3 The most recent study of La Tène III is R. Hachmann in B.R.-G.K. xli (1960); for Poland see 24–82.

page 36 note 4 A point I owe to Professor Piggott. For cauldrons, Hawkes, C. F. C. and Smith, M. A. in Antiq. Journ. xxxvii (1957), 160–98Google Scholar; chains, Piggott, in P.S.A.S. lxxxvii (1952–1953), 13–14 and 24-26Google Scholar; fire-dogs, Déchelette, , op. cit., 905–18Google Scholar, and Piggott, in Antiquity, xxii (1948), 21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 36 note 5 Germania, xxxvii (1959), 138–40Google Scholar; on a Gaulish origin for Marlborough see Nylén, E. in Acta Archaeologica, xxix (1958), 1–20Google Scholar.

page 36 note 6 Mr. Powell in litt. has pointed this out as a subject which deserves further study.

page 36 note 7 For Manching cf. Krämer, W. in Reinecke Festschrift (1950), 84–95Google Scholar; for a fine illustration of the Hoby handle cf. Broholm, H. C., Kulturforbindelser i œldre jœrnalder (1960), 204 and fig. 100Google Scholar. The detailed consideration of trade in Poland of of the late La Tène and Roman period by Wielowiejski, J. in Materiały Starożytne, vi (1960), 172–247Google Scholar—English summary: 421–4—should also be consulted; see particularly Mapa V opposite p. 416 for the east–west routes into Gallia Belgica.

page 36 note 8 But a warning–Professor W. Glasbergen of Amsterdam informs me that the conditions of the Nijmegen find in the Roman cemetery are not so settled as has been stated, for example, by van Buchen, H. J. H. in Numaga (1955), 21Google Scholar and Afb. 11; the pioneer survey is of course Dunning, G. C. in Arch. J. lxxxv (1928), 69–79Google Scholar: his fig. 1, the illustration usually referred to, is not exactly accurate. The alleged first-century association with the mirror, though late, is certainly not impossible, and in the reverse direction one may recall the export to the British oppida of the Gallo-Belgic wares as represented at Nijmegen, see Clifford, , op. cit. 12Google Scholar.

page 36 note 9 Klindt-Jensen, , ‘Bronzekedelen fra Brå’, especially 86–88Google Scholar.

page 36 note 10 Commented on by Woźniak, Z. in Wiad. archeol. xxvi, 91–97Google Scholar, in a review of the Polish La Tène cemeteries in the light of Filip's recent work; this paper supersedes in part Rosen-Przeworska, J. in Światowit, xix (1948), 179–322Google Scholar on La Tène finds in Poland as does Hachmann, op. cit., for the later period. A handy short survey of the Celts in Poland for non-Polish readers also by Dr. Rosen-Przeworska has been published in Antiquiés nationales, 11, i/ii (1961), 37–48Google Scholar and 11, iii/iv, 28–30; rather fuller and more up to date is Potocki, J. and Woźniak, Z. in Actes du premier colloque international d'études gauloises … = Celticum, i (1961), 79–102Google Scholar.

page 37 note 1 For the Dacian origin T. G. E. Powell is shortly to publish a vindication of this long-held view contra Klindt-Jensen, as most recently in Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, i (1960), 45–66Google Scholar; for some interim remarks see Megaw, in Helinium, i, 236Google Scholar.

page 37 note 2 Rosen-Przeworska, in Antiquités nationales, 11, i/ii, 44Google Scholar. On the classical references to such trade see Wielowiejski, , op. cit., 173 and 175Google Scholar.

page 37 note 3 For the trade routes to the North see Klindt-Jensen, in Acta Archaeologica, xx, 192–8Google Scholar.