Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:21:11.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

There's Method in the Fragments: A Damage Ranking System for Bronze Age Metalwork

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2020

Matthew G. Knight Open the ORCID record for Matthew G. Knight [Opens in a new window]
Matthew G. Knight*
Affiliation:
National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Broken and damaged Bronze Age metalwork has long been studied, but there is no methodology for identifying signs of intentional versus unintentional action. Past approaches have tended to rely on assumptions about how such finds were damaged. Drawing on the material properties of copper alloys, as well as on recent research into wear-analysis and experimental fragmentation of bronze implements, this article presents a working methodology for identifying deliberate damage. Seven ‘Destruction Indicators’ are presented, with associated criteria, for making informed interpretations about archaeological artefacts. These contribute to a ‘Damage Ranking System’, an index for ranking damage on Bronze Age copper alloy objects based on the likelihood that damage was intentional. Two case studies illustrate how this system can be applied.

Les objets métalliques brisés et endommagés de l’âge du Bronze ont été étudiés maintes fois mais une méthode permettant de distinguer un dégât accidentel d'un acte intentionnel fait encore défaut. Jusqu’à présent, les études se sont généralement fondées sur des suppositions concernant les causes de ce phénomène. En se basant sur les caractéristiques matérielles des alliages de cuivre, en s'appuyant sur des recherches récentes sur l'usure des objets et en tenant compte de travaux expérimentaux sur leur fragmentation, l'auteur propose une approche méthodologique permettant d'identifier ces dégâts. Il identifie sept « indicateurs de destruction » et leurs critères de distinction permettant d'interpréter judicieusement ce matériel archéologique. Ceci le mène à proposer un système de classement gradué des atteintes au mobilier (« Damage Ranking System »), c'est-à dire une méthode d’évaluation du dommage infligé aux objets en alliage de cuivre de l’âge du Bronze basée sur la probabilité qu'un objet a été endommagé intentionnellement. Deux cas d’étude illustrent l'application de ce système. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Die gebrochenen und beschädigten bronzezeitlichen Metallgegenstände sind seit Langem bekannt und erforscht, aber es gibt noch keine Methodologie, die es ermöglicht, zwischen absichtliche und unabsichtliche Geschehen zu differenzieren. Frühere Untersuchungen haben sich oft auf Annahmen über die Schadensursache gestützt. Auf der Grundlage der Materialeigenschaften von Kupferlegierungen, und auf der Basis von neueren Studien über Gebrauchsspuren sowie experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Fragmentierung von Geräten aus Bronze, schlägt der Verfasser ein methodologisches Verfahren zur Bestimmung von absichtlichen Schaden vor. Sieben „Zerstörungskennzeichen“ und dazugehörige Merkmale werden hier vorgelegt, um das archäologische Material fundiert zu deuten. Diese Indikatoren führen zu einem Rangfolgesystem für die Bewertung von beschädigten bronzezeitlichen kupferlegierten Gegenständen, eine Methode, welche die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines absichtlichen Schadens bewertet. Zwei Fallstudien verdeutlichen, wie solch ein System eingesetzt werden kann. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Keywords

Bronze Agedamagedestructionfragmentationmetalworkâge du Bronzedégâtsdestructionfragmentationmobilier métalliqueBronzezeitSchadenZerstörungFragmentierungMetallgegenstände
Type
Article
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 48 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2020

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

Anderson, K. 2011. Slashing and Thrusting with Late Bronze Age Spears: Analysis and Experiment. Antiquity, 85: 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00067983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. 2012. The Weapons, Warriors and Warfare of Northern Britain, c. 1250 bc–850 ad (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh).Google Scholar
Bietti Sestieri, A.M., Salzani, L., Giardino, C. & Verly, G. 2013. Ritual Treatment of Weapons as a Correlate of Structural Change in the Italian Late Bronze Age Communities: The Bronze Hoard of Pila del Brancon (Nogara, Verona). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, 63: 155–69.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bridgford, S.D. 2000. Weapons, Warfare and Society in Britain 1250–750 bc: Volume 1 (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sheffield).Google Scholar
Brown, M.A. & Blin-Stoyle, A.E. 1959. A Sample Analysis of British Middle and Late Bronze Age Material, Using Optical Spectrometry. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 25: 188–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čivilytė, A. 2009. Wahl der Waffen. Studien zur Deutung der bronzezeitlichen Waffendeponierungen im Nördlichen Mitteleuropa. Bonn: Habelt.Google Scholar
Colquhoun, I. & Burgess, C. 1988. The Swords of Britain (Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 5). Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Crellin, R.J., Dolfini, A., Uckelmann, M. & Hermann, R. 2018. An Experimental Approach to Prehistoric Violence and Warfare? In: Dolfini, A., Crellin, R.J., Horn, C. & Uckelmann, M., eds. Prehistoric Warfare and Violence: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Cham: Springer International, pp. 279–305.10.1007/978-3-319-78828-9_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. 2012. The Early and Middle Bronze Age Spearheads of Britain (Prähistorische Bronzefunde V, 5). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Davis, R. 2015. The Late Bronze Age Spearheads of Britain (Prähistorische Bronzefunde V, 7). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Dietrich, O. 2014. Learning from ‘Scrap’ about Late Bronze Age Hoarding Practices: A Biographical Approach to Individual Acts of Dedication in Large Metal Hoards of the Carpathian Basin. European Journal of Archaeology, 17: 468–86.10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, O. & Mörtz, T. 2019. Sockets Full of Scrap? Remarks on Deliberate Fragmentation in Late Bronze Age Metal Deposits in South-eastern and North-western Europe. In: Brandherm, D., ed. Aspects of the Bronze Age in the Atlantic Archipelago and Beyond (Archæologia Atlantica – Monographiæ III). Hagen, Westfalen: curach bhán publications, pp. 281–97.Google Scholar
Faulkner-Jones, R. 2016. Experiments with the Replica Friarton Dirk. Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal, 21–22: 1–6.Google Scholar
Fontijn, D.R. 2019. Economies of Destruction. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315109879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontijn, D., Theunissen, L., van Os, B. & Amkreutz, L. 2012. Decorated and ‘Killed’? The Bronze Sword of Werkhoven. In: Bakels, C. & Kamermans, H. eds. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 43/44: The End of our Fifth Decade. Leiden: Leiden University, pp. 205–13.Google Scholar
Gentile, V. & van Gijn, A. 2019. Anatomy of a Notch: An In-depth Experimental Investigation and Interpretation of Combat Traces on Bronze Age Swords. Journal of Archaeological Science, 105: 130–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwilt, A., Kucharski, K., Silvester, R. & Davis, M. 2005. A Late Bronze Age Hoard from Trevalyn Farm, Rossett, Wrexham, with Some Observations on Hoarding Practice and Gold Bracelet Weights. Studia Celtica, 39: 27–61.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. 1998. Migration und Kommunikation während der späten Bronzezeit. Die Depots als Quelle für ihren Nachweis. Dacia N.S., 40–42: 5–28.Google Scholar
Horn, C. 2011. Deliberate Destruction of Halberds. In: Uckelmann, M. & Mödlinger, M., eds. Bronze Age Warfare: Manufacture and Use of Weaponry (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2255). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 53–65.Google Scholar
Horn, C. 2013. Weapons, Fighters and Combat: Spears and Swords in Early Bronze Age Scandinavia. Danish Journal of Archaeology, 2: 1–25.10.1080/21662282.2013.838832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, C. & Karck, T. 2019. Weapon and Tool Use during the Nordic Bronze Age. Danish Journal of Archaeology, 8: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.7146/dja.v8i0.111834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, C. & von Holstein, I.C.C. 2017. Dents in our Confidence: The Interaction of Damage and Material Properties in Interpreting Use-Wear on Copper-Alloy Weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Science, 81: 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, M.G. 2017. The Deliberate Destruction of Late Bronze Age Socketed Axeheads in Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology, 56: 203–24.Google Scholar
Knight, M.G. 2018. The Intentional Destruction and Deposition of Bronze Age Metalwork in South West England (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Exeter).Google Scholar
Knight, M.G. 2019. Going to Pieces: Investigating the Deliberate Destruction of Late Bronze Age Swords and Spearheads. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 85: 251–72.10.1017/ppr.2019.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, M.G., Ormrod, T. & Pearce, S. 2015. The Bronze Age Metalwork of South-Western Britain (British Archaeological Reports British Series 610). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Knight, R.W., Browne, C. & Grinsell, L.V. 1972. Prehistoric Skeletons from Tormarton. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 91: 14–17.Google Scholar
Kuijpers, M.H.G. 2018. An Archaeology of Skill. Abingdon: Routledge.Google ScholarPubMed
Marshall, A. 2011. Experimental Archaeology. 1: Early Bronze Age Cremation Pyres. 2: Iron Age Grain Storage (British Archaeological Reports British Series 530). Oxford: Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, A. 1889–90. Purchases for the Museum. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 24: 6–17.Google Scholar
Molloy, B. 2011. Use-wear Analysis and Use-patterns of Bronze Age Swords. In: Uckelmann, M. & Mödlinger, M., eds. Bronze Age Warfare: Manufacture and Use of Weaponry (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2255). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Molloy, B. 2017. Hunting Warriors: The Transformation of Weapons, Combat Practices and Society during the Bronze Age in Ireland. European Journal of Archaeology, 20: 280–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyler, S. 2007. Life on the Cutting Edge: Interpreting Patterns of Wear on Scottish Early Bronze Age Axes (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Southampton).Google Scholar
Nebelsick, L. 2000. Rent Asunder: Ritual Violence in Late Bronze Age Hoards. In: Pare, C.F.E., ed. Metals Make the World Go Round: The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 160–75.Google Scholar
O'Flaherty, R., Gilchrist, M.D. & Cowie, T. 2011. Ceremonial or Deadly Serious? New Insight into the Function of Irish Early Bronze Age Halberds. In: Uckelmann, M. & Mödlinger, M., eds. Bronze Age Warfare: Manufacture and Use of Weaponry (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2255). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
Osgood, R. 2005. The Dead of Tormarton: Bronze Age Combat Victims? In: Parker Pearson, M. & Thorpe, I.J.N., eds. Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1374). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 139–44.Google Scholar
Perea, A. 2008. Iberian Psycho: Deliberate Destruction in Bronze Age Gold Hoards of the Iberian Peninsula. In: Hamon, C. & Quilliec, B., eds. Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metals Ages in Europe: Technical and Codified Practices, Annual Meeting of the EAA, 2005, Cork, Ireland (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1758). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 53–58.Google Scholar
Quilliec, B. 2008. Use, Wear and Damage: Treatment of Bronze Swords Before Deposition. In: Hamon, C. & Quilliec, B., eds. Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metals Ages in Europe: Technical and Codified Practices, Annual Meeting of the EAA, 2005, Cork, Ireland (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1758). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
Rezi, B. 2011. Voluntary Destruction and Fragmentation in Late Bronze Age Hoards from Central Transylvania. In: Berecki, S., Németh, R.E. & Rezi, B., eds. Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carparthian Basin. Târgu Mureş: MEGA, pp. 303–34.Google Scholar
Roberts, B.W. & Ottaway, B.S. 2003. The Use and Significance of Socketed Axes During the Late Bronze Age. European Journal of Archaeology, 6: 119–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D.A. 2012. Ancient Metals: Microstructures and Metallurgy Volume 1, 2nd edition. Los Angeles (CA): Conservation Science Press.Google Scholar
Tarbay, J.G. 2017. The Late Bronze Age Hoard from Oltárc Márki Hill: Analysis of Prehistoric Manipulations, Selective Fragmentation and Non-ritual Violence. Zalai Múzeum, 23: 73–138.Google Scholar
Turner, L. 1998. Re-interpretation of the Late Bronze Age Metalwork Hoards of Essex and Kent, Volume I of III (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Glasgow).Google Scholar
Turner, L. 2010. A Re-interpretation of the Late Bronze Age Metalwork Hoards of Essex and Kent: Volume 1 (British Archaeological Reports British Series 507). Oxford: John & Erica Hedges.10.30861/9781407304717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkin, N. 2016. Une nouvelle épée cérémonielle du type de Plougrescant-Ommerschans trouvée à Rudham (Norfolk, Angleterre). Bulletin de l'Association pour la Promotion des Recherches sur l'Age du Bronze, 14: 39–43.Google Scholar
Wiseman, R. 2018. Random Accumulation and Breaking: The Formation of Bronze Age Scrap Hoards in England and Wales. Journal of Archaeological Science, 90: 39–49.10.1016/j.jas.2017.12.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, J. 2002. The Life Cycle of Bronze Age Metalwork from the Thames. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 21: 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar