Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages Technical and codified practices Session of the XIth Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists Edited by Caroline Hamon Benedicte Quilliec BAR International Series 1758 2008 This title published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England bar@archaeopress.com www.archaeopress.com BAR S1758 Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages: Technical and codified practices. Session of the XIth Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists © the individual authors 2008 ISBN 978 1 4073 0197 6 Printed in England by Butler and Tanner All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com D. Fontijn Traders «Hoards». reviewing the relationship between trade and permanent deposition : the case of the Dutch Voorhout hoard, p. 5-17 ‘TRADERS’ HOARDS’. REVIEWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADE AND PERMANENT DEPOSITION: THE CASE OF THE DUTCH VOORHOUT HOARD David FONTIJN Abstract: This contribution studies the relation between bronze trade and the permanent deposition of trade stock by means of a detailed case study of what seems to be an outstanding, almost paradigmatic example of buried trader’s stock: the Voorhout hoard. This hoard consists of a collection of eighteen bronze axes and a chisel that were deposited in a former dune area near the Dutch coast and the Rhine mouth during the Bronze Age (c. 16th-15th century B.C.). Traditionally interpreted as temporarily buried trade stock, this article argues that its interpretation is more complicated. The hoard appears to consist of a mixed collection of useable artifacts and scrap from various regions (Wales, England, France) that were outside their traditional distribution area. Opposing established views, the hoard is likely to represent a deliberately permanent deposition of material acquired by overseas trade. It will be argued that such a deposition may nevertheless have been linked to a more general short-term commodity exchange of scrap material from abroad that was intended to be locally reworked and remelted. Samenvatting: Deze bijdrage bestudeert de relatie tussen bronshandel en permanente depositie van handelswaar gedurende de bronstijd door middel van een gedetailleerde studie van het depot van Voorhout. Deze vondst wordt algemeen gezien als een excellent, bijna paradigmatisch, voorbeeld van een ‘handelsdepot’. Het gaat om 18 bronzen bijlen en 1 beitel, vermoedelijk daterend uit de 16e of 15e eeuw voor Chr., die tesamen in voormalig duingebied langs de Westnederlandse kust en de monding van de Oude Rijn zijn gevonden. Bij nadere beschouwing blijkt de interpretatie van dit ‘handelsdepot’ gecompliceerder te zijn dan gedacht. Het bevat zowel bruikbare objecten als materiaal dat eerder als ‘schroot’ te klassiiceren is. Ook blijken de objecten een diverse herkomst te hebben (Noord-Wales, Engeland, Frankrijk). Er wordt aannemelijk gemaakt dat deze collectie doelbewust is gedeponeerd met de intentie om haar niet meer te bergen. Zo’n handeling wordt in verband gebracht met processen waarbij grote partijen verhandeld brons voor inheemse verwerking acceptabel worden gemaakt door er een selectie van ‘ritueel’ te deponeren. Introduction In 1907, sand extraction in a former dune area near Voorhout, a village near the western coast of the Netherlands, led to the discovery of a highly remarkable set of prehistoric artefacts. In a square pit (50 by 50 cm), a Bronze Age hoard of eighteen bronze axes and one lugged chisel was found (ig. 1 and 2; table 1). Throughout the 20th century, the hoard igured in many publications on the Northwest-European Bronze Age, and its artefacts were re-examined many times (in particular by Butler 1959; 1963; 1990; 1997; Butler & Steegstra 1997/1998; O’Connor 1980; Northover unpublished). The hoard has always been seen as an outstanding, almost paradigmatic, example of buried traders’ stock. The reason lies in its homogeneous content: it consists mainly of palstave axes, most of which of the same type. Since the 1950s, it has been clear that all of its content must have been imported from abroad, mainly from Britain. ‘With no doubt’, Butler argued, they represent ‘the stock of a bronze smith or trader’ (Butler 1959: 131, translation mine). This precious stock, then, must have been temporarily hidden in the ground for some reason or another, but was never retrieved (Holwerda 1908; Van den Broeke 1991: 242). Thus, the hoard was seen as a neat illustration of the ‘cosmopolitan’ bronze trade that was by then generally considered to be a hallmark of the Bronze Age making it a signiicant period in European history. This view of the Bronze Age still stands, and so does the interpretation of the Voorhout hoard as an example of buried trade stock, imported from afar. This becomes apparent, for example, from the discussion of 5 Hamon C. & Quilliec B. eds. 2008 - Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages : technical and codiied practices the Voorhout ind in the extensive, recently published synthesis on Dutch prehistory (Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2005). In a discussion on the types of hoards encountered in the Netherlands, hoards are categorized as ‘ritual’ deposits from wet places, or more profane ones like traders’ or founders’ hoards. Although the author of this chapter is rather cautious, the interpretation of the Voorhout hoard is seen as one of the more straightforward ones: ‘sometimes there appears to be little doubt about the nature of a deposit. Large, homogeneous hoards like that comprising eighteen bronze palstaves and a chisel which was found at Voorhout may have been the stock of smiths or traders’ (Van den Broeke 2005: 662). The present article aims to show that things are more complicated than that. Closer inspection of both content and context of the hoard points out that the Voorhout ind is not the unproblematic typical example of a ‘traders’ hoard’ that it is supposed to be. Rather, it will be argued that Voorhout probably relects a mixed collection of useable artefacts and scrap from various regions that were outside their traditional distribution area. Moreover, opposing established views, the point will be made that these objects are much more likely to represent a deliberately permanent deposition of bronze acquired by overseas trade. The implicit assumption that such ‘rational’ trade is irreconciable with ‘ritual’ and ‘irrational’ permanent deposition makes the Voorhout ind a remarkable interpretative problem. It will be argued, however, that this problem may be of our own making and that ‘profane trade’ and ‘ritual’ deposition may have been much more closely linked than usually assumed. 84; Fontijn 2002, ig. 1.4; Lanting & Van der Plicht 2001/2002; Schmidt & Burgess 1981: 115-125). The content of the hoard can be characterized as follows, mainly based on the recent publications of the hoard by Butler (Butler 1990: 78-84: entire hoard; Butler 1995/1996, 194-5; 222-3; 227-8: langed axes and stopridge axes) and by Butler and Steegstra (Butler 1997/1998: 180-5: palstaves; see igure 1 and 2 and table 1 of the present publication for details). A. Six primary shield palstaves type ‘Acton Park’ (as deined by Burgess & Schmidt 1981: 117-25), characteristic for North Wales. They have a broad blade with shield-shaped indentation beneath the stopridge. B. Two other palstaves (h. 1908/10.2 and h. 1908/10.10; resp. dbnos 537 and 1675 on ig. 1) have the same shield-shaped indentation but are a somewhat smaller variety. This also applies to a third example, h. 1908/10.4 (dbno 1679), which is also a type Acton Park palstave but smaller than usual and with leaf-shaped langes. Butler argues that the latter has more afinities with axes from South England or North-West French than with those from North Wales (1990: 78). C. Four primary shield palstaves type Acton Park with the same shield-shaped indentation below the stopridge but now with a vertical rib inside the shield. D. Another Acton Park palstave with shield-shaped indentation below the stopridge and vertical rib inside the shield, but with a narrower body and cutting edge like Schmidt and Burgess’ type Colchester. Content E. Two stopridge axes of the Northwest French type ‘Plaisir’. Both have high thin cast langes and an expanded blade. Since its irst publication by Holwerda (1908), the hoard’s content established its reputation as a typical trade or merchant’s hoard as deined by Childe (1930: 44), so it seems obvious to start our discussion there. The hoard consists of eighteen bronze axes and one bronze lugged chisel. Fourteen of the axes are palstaves and two are stopridge axes. There is one langed axe and one axe hard to deine as either a langed axe or a palstave. On the basis of typochronology of the axes, the hoard should be dated to Butler’s ‘Ilsmoor horizon’ (1963: 59-62), which is now seen as falling in the British ‘Acton Park’phase, c. mid. 16th to 15th century B.C.. The Voorhout hoard probably dates relatively late in that period (Butler 1990: F. A parallel-sided long and high-langed axe of ‘Atlantic’ type also with numerous parallels in Northwest France (Brittany) (Briard 1965), but very rare in Britain. Northover’s analysis shows that its metal is of an unknown source. G. An incomplete very thin axe, langed axe or palstave, of highly unusual form. It has low cast langes and faint traces of an incipient stopridge. H. A lugged chisel of British/Irish type. Its metal composition seems to conirm that it has a North 6 D. Fontijn Traders «Hoards». reviewing the relationship between trade and permanent deposition : the case of the Dutch Voorhout hoard, p. 5-17 Table 1. Information on the objects of the Voorhout. ‘Inv. no’ refers to the code by which the object is identiied in the collection of the National Museum of Antiquities (Rijksmuseum van Oudheden). ‘Dbno.’ refers to Butler’s database, as published in Butler 1995/1996 and Butler/Steegstra 1997/1998. Remarks on afiliations and condition: based on these publications and Butler 1990, and on my own observations. 7 Hamon C. & Quilliec B. eds. 2008 - Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages : technical and codiied practices Fig. 1. Content of the Voorhout hoard I. Acton Park(-like) palstaves. A to D are described in the text. ‘DB 1680’ refers to Butler’s database. Copyright axe drawings: Groningen Institute of Archaeology (formerly BAI), University of Groningen. 8 D. Fontijn Traders «Hoards». reviewing the relationship between trade and permanent deposition : the case of the Dutch Voorhout hoard, p. 5-17 Fig. 2. Content of the Voorhout hoard II: other objects. E to H are described in the text. ‘DB1684’ refers to Butler’s database. Copyright object drawings: Groningen Institute of Archaeology (formerly BAI), University of Groningen Welsh provenance just like the Acton Park palstaves (Northover cited in Butler 1990: 78). Already in his 1963 publication, Butler suggested that the primary shield palstaves that make up the greatest part of the hoard, all came from the same region in Britain. A North Welsh provenance for these palstave and the chisel later seems to have been corroborated by Northover’s analysis of their metal composition. Although the results are still unpublished, thirteen out of fourteen objects appeared to be of Northover’s ‘M Metal’ (Northover cited in Butler 1990: 78). From the early 20th century onwards, archaeologists have been mapping Bronze Age metalwork trade routes on the basis of distribution maps of hoard inds. Particularly those believed to be merchant’s, traders’ or ‘commercial’ hoards, were pivotal in these studies. Traders’ hoards are usually deined as consisting of almost entirely new or half-inished articles generally of the same type (Childe 1930: 44). As buried caches of stock, it was thought that they gave a more or less one-to-one impression of the material traded in the long-distance Bronze Age metalwork trade. In an inluential study, Sprockhoff (1941) was able to identify major European trade routes in the Middle Bronze Age on the basis of traders’ hoards consisting entirely of palstaves. And this is where the Voorhout hoard comes in, for the axe-hoards discussed by Sprockhoff consisted of palstaves of a type afiliated to the North Welsh palstaves from the Voorhout hoard. Well-known examples are the Polish Pyrzyce (formerly Pyritz) hoard, with twenty axes only sli9 Hamon C. & Quilliec B. eds. 2008 - Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages : technical and codiied practices ghtly larger than Voorhout, or the Habsheim hoard in the Alsace. In his book on Bronze Age connections across the North Sea, Butler (1963) showed that Voorhout was another example of such a large palstave traders’ hoard, and he argued that all these hoards relect widespread trading activities of itinerant smiths/ traders in one particular phase (Butler 1963: 59-62). the ‘shield’, but also for the French stopridge axes. The high-langed French axe has patinated breaks, so it must already have been broken when it entered the ground. It also applies to the unparalleled very thin palstave/langed axe h.1908/10.18 (ig. 2: dbno. 1683) which misses its middle part and for the Welsh palstave h.1908/10.16 (ig.1: dbno. 1681). Several of the Acton Park palstaves have clearly resharpened or asymmetrical cutting edges, implying that they have been (intensively) used (e.g. h.1908/10.10; h.1908/10.12; ig. 1: dbnos 1675 and 1677). In no way does the hoard represent the set of freshly-made, or half-inished castings awaiting future use that ‘true’ ‘traders’ hoards’ are thought to consist of (Childe 1930: 44). The artefacts in both the Habsheim and Pyrzyce palstave hoards which Voorhout is usually compared to were indeed deposited in such a pristine condition. Rather, the Voorhout hoard represents a deposition of used artefacts in conditions ranging from worn but still useable to straightforward scrap. Since the 1980s, the theory that ‘traders’ hoards’ like Polish Pyrzyce relect widespread trading activities of British itinerant smiths has been nuanced. The palstaves in large hoards like Pyrzyce or Habsheim in the Alsace are now more likely to consist of locally-produced palstaves with – admittedly - afiliations to true North Welsh Acton Park axes (Butler & Steegstra 1997/1998: 185). Voorhout, however, really seems to contain British imports, and this point together with the ‘port of trade-like’ location of the site near the Rhine mouth and the North Sea coast, may explain why it is seen as a characteristic traders’ hoard up until today. There are, however, a number of observations that need closer attention. Third, a traders’ hoard is seen as a collection of items awaiting further distribution. With this in mind, it is then striking to realize that most of the artefacts in such a supposed ‘traders’ hoard’ are totally unknown in the Netherlands outside this hoard, even though now hundreds of palstave inds are known (Butler & Steegstra 1997/1998). This applies to the Acton Park palstaves of both varieties. It is only for the smaller, more graceful axes dbnos 537 and 1675 (ig. 1) that a possible parallel can be mentioned, also from the coastal dune area: a stray ind from Den Haag-Savornin Lohmanplein (Butler 1990: 78). In the southern Netherlands there are some more axes of type Plaisir known, as well as one ind of a similar high-langed axe from another site in the dunes (Hillegom/Lisse, in the vicinity of Voorhout; Butler 1995/1996: 195). However, the greater part of the hoard, the North Welsh Acton Park palstaves, are completely alien to the Low Countries. This also makes it different from hoards like the one from Pyrzyce, as the axes in this Polish hoard are not alien to the region: comparable palstaves seem to have been found in North Poland (Butler & Steegstra 1997/1998:184). The conclusion that Voorhout consists of objects far beyond their normal region of distribution was only recently made. It made Butler suggest the scenario of a vessel from Britain ‘cruising along the Northwest French coast, blown off its course in a storm and ending up on the Dutch coast’ (Butler & Steegstra 1997/1998: 185). First, emphasis has always been on the North Welsh Acton Park palstaves. This is logical as this is the most largest artefact category in the hoard. However, the hoard is not the en bloc imported set of items many authors believe it to be (e.g. Butler 1990, 84). One ‘Acton Park’ palstave (h.1908/10.14) is more likely to be a South English or North-West French axe than one of a North Welsh type. The remarkable thin broken palstave or langed axe h.1908/10.18 (ig. 2: dbno. 1683) even seems to lack parallels in both Britain and the near-continent. It is particularly striking, however, to note that the hoard also contains two stopridge axes of type Plaisir as well as a highlanged Atlantic axe. Both are very rare in Britain but known in large numbers from North-West France (Butler 1990: 78). The metal composition of the high-langed axe also does not seem to it into one of the metal types Northover recognized for the British Isles (Northover 1982). The Voorhout hoard, then, rather seems to represent a more complex collection of exchanged artefacts, involving several exchange partners (Welsh, English and coastal French/Belgian?). Second, it is rarely realized that most objects in the hoard are worn, severely damaged or even scrap. This is true for the North Welsh Acton Park palstaves of both the type with and without vertical rib inside 10 D. Fontijn Traders «Hoards». reviewing the relationship between trade and permanent deposition : the case of the Dutch Voorhout hoard, p. 5-17 Context A further complicating factor in the interpretation of the Voorhout hoard as a clear example of buried trade stock, is the context of the ind. When the hoard was found, it soon raised local antiquarian interest, and shortly after its discovery, J.H. Holwerda, director of the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden visited the site. In a very early example of interdisciplinary research, Holwerda was accompanied by a geologist, J. Lorié who investigated the geological context of the ind. Quite soon after their on-the-spot investigation, both published their indings in two separate articles in the same volume of the annual museum bulletin, the Oudheidkundige Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden (Holwerda 1908; Lorié 1908). Holwerda clearly states that the objects were found in a square pit of 50 by 50 cm (implying that the axes were not hafted when deposited). This pit was dug into a peat layer. Although the precise location can no longer be reconstructed, this must have been a boggy hollow as they are known to have formed in between dunes in this region. Obviously, a boggy layer is not a logical place to hide precious trade stock in, as it is extremely hard to retrieve material that has sunk down in a bog. Already by the early 20th century, there was a longstanding debate on the interpretation of Bronze Age hoards, whether they should be interpreted as profane or ritual depositions. Holwerda explicitly refers to hoards from peat bogs in Denmark, which by that time were usually interpreted as ‘ritual’ deposits in view of the fact that such hoards were practically irretrievable and therefore cannot represent temporarily hidden caches (Holwerda 1908; Verlaeckt 1995: chapter 3). Nevertheless, the peat context of the ind did not inluence Holwerda’s conviction that the Voorhout hoard represents a (profane) cache of valuables. What is much more remarkable that Holwerda’s and Lorié’s attention for a study of the hoard’s context did not pay off until very recently: the numerous publications and discussions of the Voorhout hoard that followed since the 1950s did not mention the contextual evidence once! It is only in his 1990 publication that Butler returns to this observation, but only to argue that the corroded condition of the inds indicates that they were not purely in the peat, and that it is unclear in which peat layer the hoard was found (Butler 1990: 78). However, in a later publication of the hoard, Butler and Steegstra again bring up the issue of the peat context of the ind, but it now takes centre stage in the discussion and is for the irst time recognized as an interpretative problem, yet one they leave unsolved. ‘It is not easy to suggest an explanation for the presence of the Voorhout hoard in a boggy deposit in the coastal dune area’(Butler & Steegstra 1997/1998: 184). The Voorhout hoard as an epistemological dilemma Reviewing the interpretation history of the Voorhout hoard since its irst publication in 1908, it might be considered a rather peculiar one. The irst remarkable observation may be essentially the theory that the Voorhout hoard represents buried traders’ stock. Since its irst in-depth publication in the 1950s, all publications have been subscribing to this theory, up until now. Remarkably enough, however, this interpretation was actually never sustained by arguments based on the evidence itself. What was well-argued was the theory that the primary palstaves were British imports, a clear example of items shipped across the sea. A great part of all bronze objects in the Low Countries are imports however, so the question needs to be asked why this particular ind has always been so straightforwardly linked to trading activities. I suspect that this may be because the Voorhout hoard as a collection of (similar) axes evokes a notion of serial production and mass commodity exchange we ourselves feel some familiarity with. Also, its ‘portof-trade-like’ location may have added to this feeling. At any rate: we never ind a clear argument why Voorhout continues to igure as an almost paradigmatic example of traders’ stock up until today, an interpretation which is reached with ‘little doubt’ even in the recently published synthesis of Dutch prehistory (Van den Broeke 2005). It is almost as if this ‘traders’ hoard’ interpretation is something that goes without saying. This is particularly remarkable as we have now seen that there has always been a number of arguments that makes the traders’ hoard interpretation increasingly problematic, and it must be said that only Butler himself seems to have been realizing this in his most recent studies of the hoard (Butler 1990; Butler & Steegstra 1997/1998). The hoard is not a set of one-typed items from Wales ready for future use, but a heterogenous collection of scrap and worn objects from a variety of sources on both sides of the Channel and North Sea. As such, it is in no way comparable to the classic ‘traders’ hoards elsewhere 11 Hamon C. & Quilliec B. eds. 2008 - Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages : technical and codiied practices in Europe as Habsheim or Pyrzyce that keep on being mentioned as parallels. On top of that, it is now clear that the majority of the Voorhout items are not known in the Low Countries outside the hoard. Perhaps the most important objection is the one that has been explicitly recorded from the outset by Holwerda, but ignored in any interpretation until very recently: the peat context of the ind. If this hoard consists of trade goods, why then was this material buried in a boggy hollow in the dunes? It is as if an interpretation of Voorhout as a permanent deposition of material was seen as so irrational when compared with the pragmatic, self-evident, traders’ hoard-interpretation that it was not even discussed in the irst place. the one between profane and ritual practices, I developed an approach that is based on patterns in the evidence itself (Fontijn 2002). The reason for this is the initial observation that many of the metalwork inds appear to be found in certain contexts only, avoiding others. This seems to relect a process of selective deposition. Basing myself on a representative set of evidence from one region, the southern Netherlands and Northern Belgium, some 1300 inds were investigated. In what contexts did they enter the ground, what was the life-path of the objects in question? Are patterns in deposition and life-path discernable that are not the result of selective preservation and missing evidence? The approach, its theoretical and empirical background, its possibilities and limitations have been described at length elsewhere (Fontijn 2002), for the present discussion I will only repeat a few conclusions that are relevant here. Throughout the entire Bronze Age, evidence was found for practices in which bronzes were deliberately deposited in the landscape apparently without any intention for future retrieval. Items were thus ‘removed’ from society. It is quite clear that this happened only rarely, but not arbitrarily. A striking, long-term pattern is that such depositions seems preferably to have taken place in ‘natural’ environments, particularly in watery places. Most of the objects seem to have had a speciic sort of life-path, many must have been the subject of long-distance circulation and/or were intensively used. From this it was deduced that the objects apparently became meaningful as a result of a certain lifepath, or ‘cultural biography’ in the sense of Kopytoff (Butler 1986). The burial of this object in a speciic type of environment, then, seems to have been the appropriate end of such a biography. Deposition did not take place arbitrarily, but was highly structured. Particular objects ended up in particular types of places and not others (Fontijn 2002). This ‘selective deposition’ implies that objects accrued distinctive and circumscribed meanings. Certain types of objects were never associated in hoards, and certain types of objects were only deposited in certain types of wet places (e.g. swords in rivers; Fontijn 2002: chapter 10). From such a selective attitude, it can be inferred that in deposition the objects were not regarded as ‘things’ or mutually exchangeable commodities but as ‘valuables’ (ibid., chapter 2 and 3). The Voorhout hoard is found in a coastal region west of the one that was central in the study just cited. Culturally and in terms of subsistence economy, we are dealing with communities that were closely rela- The interpretation history of the Voorhout hoard exempliies some of the problems of the way in which archaeologists have made sense of hoards and depositions in general. In Sacriicial landscapes I made an analysis of all interpretative literature on European Bronze Age hoards that were accessible, from the mid-19th century until recent times (Fontijn 2002: chapter 2). An important conclusion was that a distinction between ‘profane’ and ‘ritual’ explicitly or implicity governed all approaches. The way in which a hoard was categorized as ‘profane’ or ‘ritual’, however, was not done on an equal basis. Practical behaviour is presupposed and self-explanatory, whereas ritual is something that requires efforts above what is needed in functional terms. As recently argued by Brück (Brück 1999), such an approach echoes a Post-Enlightenment view on what is rational (pragmatic, economic) and irrational (‘ritual) action. We may ask ourselves whether such views, including the ‘ritual-profane’ dichotomy that stems from it, are of any help in making sense of depositions.We have seen that the interpretation history of the Voorhout hoard is a case in point: its repeated identiication as a temporary stock of hidden valuables (pragmatic, rational trade) is reached with ‘little doubt’ (Butler 1959; Van den Broeke 2005: 6: 62), whereas this view was never sustained by arguments. Some of the ‘odd’ or ‘irrational’ observations were usually left out of the discussion. The dilemma Voorhout confronts us with is not an empirical but mainly an epistemological one. Approaching hoards In order to overcome the epistemological problems related to using clear-cut rationalist dichotomies like 12 D. Fontijn Traders «Hoards». reviewing the relationship between trade and permanent deposition : the case of the Dutch Voorhout hoard, p. 5-17 ted to the ones from both the southern and the northern Netherlands (Arnoldussen & Fontijn 2006; Fokkens 2005). There are some differences, however, that need to be emphasized. With regard to bronze inds, the coastal region is relatively rich, if we take the low intensity of research into account, especially in the coastal dune area in which the Voorhout hoard was found (Butler 1990 ; Van Heeringen et al. 1998). The provenance of a number of these bronzes suggest that the coastal region was linked up in a somewhat different network of exchange from both the southern and the northern Netherlands. Although a more detailed investigation is badly needed, a scenario for this region as actively participating in coastal seafaring seems likely. It is likely that such voyages brought the items found in the Voorhout hoard to the Dutch coast. In general, the coastal region seems to follow depositional patterns of selective deposition as they have been laid bare in the southern and northern Netherlands and Belgium (Essink & Hielkema 1997/1998; Fontijn 2002; Verlaeckt 1996). Deposition of a single object was the rule, just as elsewhere in Low Countries, and axes are the predominant object that igured in depositional practices. Cultivated areas generally seem to lack bronze items, but bronzes are known from ‘natural’ places including marshes. If deposition was a practice that was governed by widely-shared cultural rules, how then does the Voorhout hoard it into the patterns discussed so far? Voorhout in the light of depositional practices The Voorhout hoard can be considered as an example of the widespread practice of depositing axes into watery places, but it certainly represents a somewhat uncommon one. cutting edges resharpened shortly before they were inally given up, suggesting that this was considered the appropriate way of offering axes (maybe there was a belief in an future use? (Fontijn 2002: 212). The situation of most axes in the Voorhout hoard was much different; we have seen that many were damaged or straightforward scrap. This brings us closer to a theory that the Voorhout items were less valued for a role of implement, but rather as a source of foreignconvertible, recyclable- metal. Thirdly, one of the most surprising recent realizations is the observation that most of the North Welsh palstaves and the lugged chisel in this hoard are by far unknown in the Low Countries, even though hundreds of palstaves have now been recorded. In this way, the ‘alien’ character of the content of the Voorhout hoard recalls the offshore ind of Langdon Bay. Just in front of the coast of Dover (UK), divers found a huge collection of mid-winged axes (59) and other objects, many in a damaged state (Muckelroy 1981). Just like in the case of the Voorhout North Welsh palstaves, these mid-winged axes are foreign (east-French) products that are practically unknown from the British mainland and clearly outside their normal area of distribution. Muckelroy interprets this ind as a scrap assemblage that was traded overseas but accidentally sunk just in front of the British coast (see also Samson 2006). Muckelroy supposes that these items were meant to be remelted and converted into local types when they reached the British shore. This would explain why mid-winged axes were traded into Britain in considerable quantities, but never entered the ground. He argues that bronzes found in other ‘wreck assemblages’ in the Mediterranean like Huelva and Rochelongues also contain objects outside their usual distribution area which must have been traded as scrap intended for local remelting. Confronting ‘trade’ and ‘ritual’ Firstly, this is in view of the large quantity of axes deposited in one event. Deposition of a single axe seems to have been the rule in both the Netherlands, Belgium and the adjacent parts of Germany. There are only a few examples of multiple-axe hoards and they are modest in the numbers of palstaves they contained when compared to the eighteen axes and one chisel that have been deposited in the Voorhout marsh (Butler 1963; Fontijn 2002; Kibbert 1980). Secondly, axes deposited in wet sites in the Low Countries were as a rule used but often have their Whereas a case has now been made to explain the ‘alien’ character of the items in the Voorhout hoard and their damaged condition, it still leaves one crucial question unsolved. If we are dealing here with a collection of scrap shipped across the sea and along the coast for recycling, why then was it buried in a marshy place in the dunes? Although it is now generally accepted that large numbers of bronzes were deliberately deposited in watery places, authors kept on seeing the Voorhout hoard as a temporary cache of objects that only by some whim of fate stayed in 13 Hamon C. & Quilliec B. eds. 2008 - Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages : technical and codiied practices the ground permanently, regardless of the increasing unlikeliness of such an interpretation. Is this because the content of the hoard so strongly evokes an image of trade stock, and that ‘pragmatic’, ‘down-to-earth’ trade is apparently considered as irreconciable to permant ‘ritual’ deposition of valuables? This may well be a problem of our own making. Apparently, we tend to see the massive exchange of bronze items in overseas trade as a process that is completely detached from the ‘ritual’ uses of axes in deposition. But is it? There are also arguments supporting the view that trade or the circulation of commodities cannot exist without a higher level of exchange, where objects become imbued with special values and igure in ‘ritual’ practices. as evidence for an economic attitude in which discarded objects and even tiny pieces of scrap re-entered the melting pot. This is in marked contrast to the situation in, for example, Roman legionary camps in the Netherlands, where it is common to ind thousands of bronze items (Van Enckevort & Zee 1996: 16). An analysis of the Bronze Age metalwork that has been found in the Low Countries shows that the majority thereof entered the archaeological record as deliberate depositions (Fontijn 2002). As set out earlier, they were placed in the landscape in a highly structured, selective way. Estimates of its frequency make clear that this ‘giving-up’ of valuables was exception rather than norm (Fontijn 2002: 214-5). Also, it is clear that only speciic types of objects were deposited in such a way; local types were treated differently from certain imports. Although it can not be proven, it might well be that there were even distinct classes of artefacts that were not selected for such depositions and, as a consequence, had a low chance of ever entering the archaeological record. Let us start by stating what we observe and what can be logically assumed on the circulation of metalwork. The Low Countries are a non-metalliferous region where Bronze Age communities nevertheless had adopted and integrated bronze for the manufacture of speciic categories of implements and items. Some items, axes for example, were indispensable tools that are since c. 2000 B.C. only known in bronze. Many others are new objects like swords or spears or speciic types of ornaments. Bronze did not replace other materials in all categories of implements, but its impact must have been profound (Fontijn 2002: 141-2). From c. 2300 B.C. onwards a thriving local bronze industry came into existence that must entirely have been based on reworking imported bronze. Foreign bronzes, most likely in the form of scrap, was transformed into locally-acceptable styled axes. The Late Bronze Age Drouwen hoard in the northern Netherlands (Butler 1986), consisting of broken objects of types that are completely alien to the Low Countries, underlines that imports of scrap did take place, and so does the Voorhout hoard or- further away- the Langdon Bay assemblage. This is essentially the situation for the entire Bronze Age in the Low Countries and from it we can logically infer that a steady and systematic importation of bronze from abroad was a conditio sine qua non. The Low Countries, just like many other non-metalliferous regions, must have been structurally integrated in widespread long-distance bronze exchange networks. Of all the bronze in circulation, only a small amount will have entered the ground. Large-scale settlement excavations, for example, hardly yield bronzes even if we know that bronze was produced there (e.g. Oss-Horzak: Fontijn 2002, app. 8; Fontijn et al. 2002). We might see this For ‘importing’ communities foreign material must have had some ambiguity, because its creation is beyond control of these communities themselves and denotes their dependency on others (Fontijn 2002: 273-4; Helms 1993: 99; Sørensen 1987). Importing communities therefore may have had procedures of conversion to cope with the ambiguity of this foreign material. After all, it was often to play specialized socio-political and ritual roles in the local community, and in order to achieve this, any foreign material needs some sort of appropriation and recontextualisation. One way in which such conversion of imported material might have been established is by melting it down and shaping it into locally-acceptable forms. The clear emphasis on a distinct local identity, which is for example conspicuous in the ornamentation of socketed axes in the northern Netherlands, underlines the social signiicance such transformations had. The local styles of palstave axes in the southern Netherlands, on the other hand, are more adaptive to styles of foreign Atlantic palstaves which also igured in depositions. It is nevertheless distinguishable as local (Butler & Steegstra 1997/1998; Fontijn 2002: 121-5). Another way in which foreign trade stock is often made acceptable for fulilling specialized roles in a community was discussed in a cross-cultural anthropological study by Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry 14 D. Fontijn Traders «Hoards». reviewing the relationship between trade and permanent deposition : the case of the Dutch Voorhout hoard, p. 5-17 (1989). They show how in every society there are procedures for converting objects acquired by shortterm exchange (commodity exchange, trade) into the long-term transactional order (involving valuables and gift-giving with ancestors and the supernatural). Objects acquired in trade with foreigners are strongly determined by motives of individual gain and proit (Sahlins 1986). Here, the objects are ‘alienable’ commodities, often acquired in signiicant numbers. Still, due to its association with individual purposes and transactions with foreigners, the thus acquired goods can to some extent be seen as ‘polluted’ or immoral material. At any rate: it cannot directly be transformed into objects that are to fulil important social or ritual roles as an –inalienable- valuable in the local community itself. The role of bronze ornaments and implement in burials and depositions shows that once imported (and eventually reshaped), some objects did end their life as such valuables. Bloch and Parry argue that such a transformation of meaning can only come about when what has been acquired in the process of individualistic trade is converted to serve the reproduction of the long-term cycle thus becoming ‘morally positive’. The way in which such a conversion takes place can be highly variable, but essentially involves the inclusion of (a part of) the foreign material in some ritual ( long-term transactional order) after which it is considered as it for fulilling more specialized roles. The donation of wealth to temples by the Romans are a good example. After a small part was burnt in a temple for some time (conceived of as a gift to a God), the entire load could subsequently be used as inance for down-to-earth economic advantage (Needham 2001: 288). tualized) in order to make the entire load of foreign material acceptable for the importing community. This would explain the alien, uncommon character of this material as well as the fact that this clearly, much-travelled, collection of scrap and objects was deliberately deposited in a watery place. An argument against this view is that Voorhout is still a rather unique ind: if such pars pro toto sacriices took place we would expect more examples (there are indications that it was a patterned phenomenon in the last phase of the Late Bronze Age; Fontijn 2002, chapter 13). The value of this hypothesis may at least be heuristic. It calls for a rigorous reconsideration of other hoards that now igure as neat examples of scrap and ‘traders’ hoards’ in other regions. In what context were they deposited? Do they exist of objects outside their normal distribution area (as for example already argued for by Bradley 1990)? And what about the metal composition of ‘local types’? Mixing of scrap from different sources may have led to entirely new metal types, but a more straightforward remelting of British imported material may also lead to local axes made of British metal (cf Butler’s observation that British forms of (Midgdale) axes on the continent were made of continental Singen metal; Butler 1995/1996:172) In this way, and as suggest by the Voorhout assemblage, ‘ritual’deposition may be much closer to ‘down to earth’ trade and the economy of commodity exchange than we usually think. References Back to the Voorhout hoard. Most archaeologists were probably right in seeing this assemblage as traded material brought here from across the sea, even though it was probably more likely as a collection of worn material from different sources intended for remelting rather than a one-type set of inished products. In the light of what is now known on depositional practices, it is much more likely that this hoard represents a deliberate deposition rather than a forgotten store of material. With the above theory on conversion of traded material in mind, it might be argued that we are dealing here with a situation in which traded scrap bronze entered the Dutch coast, where a sample of the material was deliberately deposited (seen as some sort of exchange with gods, ancestors or however concep- ARNOLDUSSEN S. & FONTIJN D. 2006. Towards familiar landscapes? On the nature and origins of Middle Bronze Age landscapes in the Netherlands, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72, 289-317. BLOCH M & PARRY J. 1989. Introduction: money and the morality of exchange, In BLOCH M. & Parry J. (eds), Money & the morality of exchange, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1-31. BRADLEY R. 1990. The Passage of arms. An archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BRIARD J. 1965. Les dépôts Bretons et l’Âge du 15 Hamon C. & Quilliec B. eds. 2008 - Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages : technical and codiied practices in de Nederlandse Bronstijd, In VAN DEN DRIES M.H. & WILLEMS W.J.H. (eds), Innovatie in de Nederlandse Archeologie, Gouda, Drukkerij Van Ketel, 71-83. bronze Atlantique, Rennes (Travaux du Laboratoire d’Anthropologie Préhistorique. Faculté des Sciences de Rennes). BRÜCK J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European Archaeology, European journal of Archaeology 2: 313-344. FONTIJN, D., 2002: Sacriicial Landscapes: cultural biographies of persons, objects and ‘natural’ places in the Bronze Age of the southern Netherlands, c. 2300600 B.C., Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 33/34: 1-392. BUTLER J.J. 1959. Vergeten schatvondsten uit de Bronstijd. In BOGAERS J.E. & CALS J.M.L.Th. (eds), Honderd Eeuwen Nederland ,‘s-Gravenhage, Luctor et Emergo (= Antiquity and Survival II, no. 5-6), 125-142. FONTIJN, D.R., FOKKENS, H. and JANSEN, R., 2002. De gietmal van Oss-Horzak en de inheemse bronsproductie in de Midden-Bronstijd. Enkele voorlopige resultaten, In BUTLER J.J. 1963. Bronze Age connections across the North Sea. A study in prehistoric trade and industrial relations between the British Isles, The Netherlands, North Germany and Scandinavia, c. 1700-700 B.C., Palaeohistoria IX: 1-286. FOKKENS H. & JANSEN R. (eds), 2000 jaar Bewoningsdynamiek. Brons- en ijzertijdbewoning in het Maas-Demer-Scheldegebied, Leiden, Haveka BV, 63-72. BUTLER J.J. 1969. Nederland in de Bronstijd, Bussum: Fibula-Van Dishoeck. HEERINGEN R.M. van, VAN DE VELDE, H. & VAN AMEN, I. 1998. Een tweeschepige huisplattegrond en akkerland uit de Vroege Bronstijd te Noordwijk, prov. Zuid-Holland, Amersfoort: Print X-Press (= Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 55). BUTLER J.J. 1986. Drouwen: end of a Nordic Rainbow?, Palaeohistoria 28: 133-168. BUTLER J.J. 1990. Bronze Age metal and amber in the Netherlands (I), Palaeohistoria 32: 47-110. HELMS M.W. 1993. Craft and the kingly ideal. art, trade, and power, Austin: University of Texas Press. BUTLER J.J. 1995 / 1996. Bronze Age Metal and Amber in the Netherlands (II:1). Catalogue of the Flat Axes, Flanged Axes and Stopridge Axes, Palaeohistoria 37 / 38: 159-243. HOLWERDA J.H. 1908. Bronsdepotvondst bij Voorhout, Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 2: 45-6. BUTLER J.J. & STEEGSTRA H. 1997 / 1998. Bronze Age Metal and Amber in the Netherlands (II:2). Catalogue of the Palstaves, Palaeohistoria 39 / 40: 163-275. KIBBERT K. 1980. Die Äxte und Beile im mittleren Westdeutsland I, München: Beck (= Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX: 10). KOPYTOFF I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditisation as process, In APPADURAI A.(ed.), The Social life of Things, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 64-91. CHILDE V.G. 1930. The Bronze Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ENCKEVORT H.L.H. & ZEE, K., 1996, Het Kops Plateau. Prehistorische grafheuvels en een Romeinse legerplaats te Nijmegen, Abcoude: Uniepers. LANTING J.N. & J. VAN DER PLICHT 2001/2002. De 14C-chronologie van de Nederlandse pre- en protohistorie IV: bronstijd en vroege ijzertijd, Palaeohistoria 43/44: 117-262.. ESSINK M. & HIELKEMA J. 1997 / 1998. Rituele depositie van bronzen voorwerpen in Noord-Nederland, Palaeohistoria 39 / 40: 277-321. LORIÉ J. 1908. Geologische beschouwingen over de vondst der bronzen bij Voorhout, Oudheidkundige FOKKENS H., 2005. De positie van West-Friesland 16 D. Fontijn Traders «Hoards». reviewing the relationship between trade and permanent deposition : the case of the Dutch Voorhout hoard, p. 5-17 Mededeelingen Rijksmuseum te Leiden 2: 46-50. LOUWE KOOIJMANS L.P., VAN DEN BROEKE P., FOKKENS, H. & VAN GIJN, A.L., 2005 The Prehistory of the Netherlands Volume 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. MUCKELROY K., 1981. Middle Bronze Age trade between Britain and Europe: a maritime perspective, posthumously published by Sean Mc Grail, Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 47: 275-297. NEEDHAM S. 2001. When expediency broaches ritual intention: the low of metal between systemic and buried domains, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute incorporating Man 7: 275-298. NORTHOVER P. 1982. The exploration of long-distance movement of bronze in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 19: 45-72. O’CONNOR B. 1980. Cross-Channel relations in the Later Bronze Age. Relations between Britain, NorthEastern France and the Low Countries during the Later Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, with particular reference to the metalwork, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International. Series 91. SAHLINS M. 1986. Stone Age economics. London: Routledge. SAMSON A., 2006, Offshore inds from the Bronze Age in NW Europe – the shipwreck scenario revisited, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 371-388. SCHMIDT P.K. & BURGESS C.B. 1981. The axes of Scotland and northern England (Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX: 7), München: Beck. SØRENSEN M.L.S. 1987. Material order and cultural classiication: the role of bronze objects in the transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age in Scandinavia. In, HODDER I. (ed.), The archaeology of contextual meanings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (New directions in archaeology), 90-101. SPROCKHOFF E. 1941. Niedersachsens Bedeutung für die Bronzezeit Westeuropas. Zur Verankerung einer neuen Kulturprovinz, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommision 31 (II): 1-138. VAN DEN BROEKE P.W. 1991. Nieuwe materialen, groeiende afhankelijkheid, In BLOEMERS & VAN DORP T. (eds), Pre- & Protohistorie van de Lage Landen, Houten, Unieboek Uitgeverij, 237-249. VAN DEN BROEKE P.W. 2005. Gifts to the gods. Rites and cult sites in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, In LOUWE KOOIJMANS L.P., VAN DEN BROEKE P., FOKKENS, H. & VAN GIJN, A.L. (eds), The Prehistory of the Netherlands Volume 2, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 659-677. VERLAECKT K. 1995. Sociale evolutie tijdens de metaaltijden in Denemarken. Analyse en interpretatie van «depotvondsten» als basis voor een modelvorming van de samenleving in de late bronstijd en de vroege ijzertijd (ca. 1000 B.C. - 0), Gent (unpublished Ph.D. thesis University of Gent). VERLAECKT K. 1996. Between river and barrow. A reappraisal of Bronze Age metalwork found in the province of East-Flanders (Belgium), Oxford: Archaeopress (= British Archaeological Reports International Series 632). Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Jay Butler, H. Steegstra and the Groningen Institute of Archaeology for allowing me to use their drawings of the Voorhout axes. Roosje de Leeuwe, Alice Samson and Stijn Arnoldussen (all Leiden University) provided me with much appreciated comments on an earlier draft. Stijn also assisted in the production of the igures. Thanks are also to the editors for inviting me to write this down, and for their admirable patience when awaiting the outcome. Contact David Fontijn Faculty of Archaeology University of Leiden PO Box 9515 2300 RA Leiden the Netherlands D.Fontijn@Arch.LeidenUniv.nl 17