Objects of the
Past in the Past
Investigating the significance of
earlier artefacts in later contexts
Edited by
Access Archaeology
Matthew G. Knight, Dot Boughton
and Rachel E. Wilkinson
eop
cha r
y
olog Ar
Acces
ess
A
s Archae
Archaeopress Publishing Ltd
Summertown Pavilion
18-24 Middle Way
Summertown
Oxford OX2 7LG
www.archaeopress.com
ISBN 978-1-78969-248-8
ISBN 978-1-78969-249-5 (e-Pdf)
© the individual authors and Archaeopress 2019
Cover image: The Hammer of St Martin (image courtesy of Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht / Ruben de Heer)
Back cover image: Impression of a medieval silver signet ring, incorporating a Roman carnelian intaglio, from the
Evesham Abbey Gardens hoard (Cuming 1876: 116)
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
the copyright owners.
Contents
Contributors����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ix
Chapter 1� Objects of the Past in the Past��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1
Matthew G. Knight, Dot Boughton and Rachel E. Wilkinson
Chapter 2� Doubtful associations?
Assessing Bronze Age ‘multi-period’ hoards from northern England, Scotland and Wales ��������19
Matthew G. Knight
Chapter 3� Connecting with the past:
Earliest Iron Age multi-period hoards in Wessex �������������������������������������������������������������������������42
Dot Boughton
Chapter 4� The Devil or the Divine?
Supernatural objects and multi-period hoards in later prehistory ����������������������������������������������60
Alex Davies
Chapter 5� Iron Age antiques:
Assessing the functions of old objects in Britain from 400 BC to AD 100 �������������������������������������77
Helen Chittock
Chapter 6� The Antique Antique? ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������98
Mark Lewis
Chapter 7� Rethinking heirlooms in early medieval graves ��������������������������������������������������������115
Brian Costello and Howard Williams
Chapter 8� Medieval engagements with the material past:
Some evidence from European coin hoards, AD c. 1000–1500 ����������������������������������������������������131
Murray Andrews
Chapter 9� Deep Time in the ruins of a Tudor Palace?
Fossils from the Palace of Placentia, Greenwich �������������������������������������������������������������������������142
Peter J. Leeming
Chapter 10� A shifting chronology of combat damage:
Reassessing the evidence for use and reuse on Irish Bronze Age swords�����������������������������������152
David R. Bell
i
Chapter 2
Doubtful associations? Assessing Bronze Age ‘multi-period’
hoards from northern England, Scotland and Wales
Matthew G. Knight
The deposition of earlier Bronze Age objects in Late Bronze Age contexts has been recently recognised and recorded for southern
England, but the phenomenon is not confined to that region. This paper expands the corpus of such hoards by including a
further 11 case studies from northern England, Scotland and Wales. Some associations represent heavily-used or worn material
that had been in extended circulation. Other associations contribute to better understanding the prolonged typologies of certain
objects and the importance of certain places in the Bronze Age landscape. Overall, this paper suggests we should consider the
possibility that some multi-period hoards are genuine, rather than doubtful, associations.
Keywords: Bronze Age, deposition, hoards, metalwork, out-of-time
Introduction
Bronze Age metalwork hoards containing artefacts dating to multiple periods (i.e. ‘multi-period hoards’)
have frequently been noted in past surveys but such associations are generally considered doubtful (e.g.
Coles 1962: 134; Davis 2012: 52; Rowlands 1976: 70). A recent survey of hoards from southern England
identified 41 certain or possible multi-period hoards (Knight forthcoming) and during research for that
survey, it became apparent that this phenomenon was not confined to southern England. In this paper,
I identify a further 11 multi-period hoards from Scotland, northern England1 and Wales, and provide
an analysis of these ‘out-of-time’ objects and their contexts. This offers the opportunity to enhance our
understanding of Bronze Age metalwork typologies as well as the contexts and associations of multiperiod hoards; the paper concludes with a comparison of multi-period hoards from northern England,
Scotland and Wales with those from southern England.
Objects of the past in prehistory
It is now widely recognised that prehistoric societies engaged with aspects of their own pasts (e.g.
Bradley 2002; Chadwick and Gibson 2013; Jones 2007; Lillios and Tsamis 2010). The enduring nature
of material culture, including both monuments and portable artefacts, allows us to interrogate how
the past may have been understood by past communities. This has often been investigated through
studies of monuments and landscapes that were repeatedly revisited over long periods of time (e.g.
Bradley 2002; Gosden and Lock 1998) and there is an increasing appreciation that objects too may have
been in circulation or use for extended durations (Davies forthcoming; McLaren 2017; Woodward 2002),
or were otherwise rediscovered and reappropriated in later periods (Ferris 2012: 77–93; Hingley 2009;
Knight forthcoming). Woodward has convincingly argued that various grave goods in Beaker and Early
Bronze Age burials, including beaker pottery, amber beads and other ornaments, show signs of use,
wear and curation that mean they may be considered heirlooms passed down over multiple generations
(Woodward 2000: 58–60; 2002; Woodward and Hunter 2015: 472ff.). As heirlooms, such objects may have
had a mnemonic function, evoking remembrance and establishing links with the past (Lillios 1999;
Woodward 2002). By contrast, the various Bronze Age implements found in Iron Age features at the
Northern England is defined here as the present English counties north of the River Humber (Lancashire, Greater Manchester,
East, West, North and South Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumberland, Co. Durham and Tyne and Wear).
1
19
Objects Of the Past in the Past
hillforts at Breiddin (Powys) and Cadbury Castle (Somerset) are more likely to represent rediscovered
deposits that were incorporated into later features given the evidence for multiple re-occupations of
these sites (Hingley 2009: 163; Knight forthcoming). In such situations, the re-deposition of the object
in certain locations is significant: such depositions may have served to respect (and invisibly mark)
ancestral links with the land or commemorate certain locations (Hingley 2009; Knight forthcoming).
A Middle Bronze Age palstave was modified with silver adhesions added to the object before it was
wrapped in cloth and buried in a Late Iron Age tumulus at Lexden, Colchester (Essex), suggesting
this object had been re-appropriated and manipulated a thousand years after its initial production
(Foster 1986: 78–80; Hingley 2009: 150, 163). It was buried alongside numerous other ‘rich’ grave goods,
including copper alloy anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, a silver Augustus medallion, and
pieces of furniture (Foster 1986: 53ff.); the treasured status of the palstave is evidenced by its inclusion
alongside other high-status objects. In the Roman period, there is evidence that Neolithic and Bronze
Age objects were found, collected and deposited in significant locations, such as temples, perhaps as
votive offerings (Adkins and Adkins 1985; Ferris 2012: 77–93). From the above examples, it is clear that
old objects in prehistory might be considered in terms of links with the immediate past, such as in
the case of heirlooms, or a more distant ‘ancestral’ past, as with rediscovered objects (cf. Caple 2010).
These objects may thus have the potential to evoke memories or a sense of time (Rowlands 1993), or
alternatively a sense of the mythical and mysterious (Ferris 2012: 84ff.).
Given the temporal depth of many landscapes and sites, representing repeated episodes of occupation,
interaction and engagement with a wide variety of spaces and places (Gosden and Lock 1998; Ingold
1993), it is inevitable that residual material should be encountered, and it is not suggested here that all
old or ancient objects in prehistory should be seen as significant. However, it is the critical appraisal of
the treatment of this material and the nature of its redeposition that allows us to infer significance. In
other words, interpretations of already old objects in prehistory rely on understanding and appraisal
of: firstly, their context referring both to the immediate context (e.g. a pit, a ditch, a burial), and the
wider setting (e.g. the overall site or broader landscape); and secondly their condition, pre-depositional
treatment and overall potential history of an object (cf. Knight forthcoming). These are crucial aspects
to consider when investigating multi-period hoards.
Recognising ‘out-of-time’ objects in hoards
In his study of Bronze Age metalwork found in Iron Age contexts, Hingley referred to already old objects
as ‘out of their time’ (2009: 143), abbreviated here to ‘out-of-time’ objects (following Knight forthcoming).
This terminology avoids the loaded implications that more functional attributions such as ‘heirloom’
might imply and allows a neutral starting point (see Knight et al. this volume). The methodology for
recognising out-of-time objects in later hoards has been largely maintained here following my original
study of southern England to enable comparison between the two studies. This approach relies on the
known relative typologies of Bronze Age metal objects, with ‘out-of-time’ objects primarily defined as:
any object identified in a context that is two or more metalworking phases later than the expected
relative typological sequence
Knight forthcoming
Established Bronze Age metalwork typo-chronologies have been developed for many of the main
objects types, including axeheads (Needham 2018; Schmidt and Burgess 1981), spearheads (Davis 2012;
2015), and dirks, rapiers and swords (Burgess and Gerloff 1981; Colquhoun and Burgess 1988). Now
increasingly underpinned by absolute dating techniques (e.g. Needham 2015), it is possible for these
artefact types (and others) to be assigned a relative date with some precision. This overall methodology
allowed potential case studies to be identified that could then be further interrogated for authenticity.
20
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
The importance of source criticism in this process cannot be overstated (cf. Bradley 1986), with
objects studied first-hand where possible and original documentation consulted. A scale of likelihood,
comprising Certain, Probable or Possible, was utilised based on:
the security of the context and association, influenced by the accuracy of the records kept at the
time of discovery; the known object history post-recovery; and the likelihood that incomplete
objects definitely represent an older artefact
Knight forthcoming
This method allowed 45 possible or certain case studies to be recognised and analysed from southern
England, 41 of which were considered to be multi-period hoards. Sources consulted included museum
catalogues, published corpora, excavation reports and online databases to ensure as many possible
instances were recognised. This overall process has been followed here for the regions of northern
England, Scotland and Wales, resulting in the identification of multi-period hoards. Key catalogues and
corpora from the relevant areas included volumes of the Prähistoriche Bronzefunde (e.g. Davis 2012;
2015; Schmidt and Burgess 1981); Burgess’ (1968) survey of metalwork from northern Britain; Coles’
(1962; 1966; 1971) papers cataloguing Scottish Bronze Age metalwork; museum records at the National
Museum of Scotland; and unpublished treasure reports at Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales.
However, the identification process has been adapted here to incorporate some multi-period associations that
may have only been one metalworking phase apart or may represent the extended use of older objects. This
approach provided a better understanding of typo-chronological aspects and the nature of the association, as
well as recognising objects with a prolonged circulation, as will be discussed later in the paper. An advantage
of this extended survey is that we can also begin to identify broader trends in object associations. In turn, this
might strengthen the possibility that some ‘doubtful’ associations are in fact genuine.
The case studies
Two certain instances, two probable, and seven possible multi-period hoards were identified during
this study (Table 2.1). Multi-period hoards that were deemed too uncertain were largely excluded here,
though one example from Greyfriars Church (Dumfries and Galloway), has been noted at the end of the
appendix. All multi-period hoards presented here comprise only one or two out-of-time objects alongside
a variety of later objects. The out-of-time objects are represented mostly by axeheads, spearheads and
dirks or rapiers; other artefact types do occur but they are the exception (Figure 2.1). Most date to
the Middle Bronze Age, having been found alongside Late Bronze Age objects, predominantly socketed
axeheads. A notable exception is the possible association from Islay which contains an Early Bronze Age
halberd alongside Middle and Late Bronze Age objects, typologically spanning the whole Bronze Age.
Details of the case studies are presented in the appendix, but aspects of the depositional contexts and
condition of the objects are presented here.
Distribution and deposition
The associations were recovered from a variety of areas across Scotland, Wales and northern England
(Figure 2.2). However, as many of the finds derive from nineteenth-century discoveries, details of the
exact findspots are scarce. The findspots from Duddingston Loch (Midlothian), Corsbie Moss (Scottish
Borders), Wester Galcantray (Highland), Penllyn (Vale of Glamorgan), and Mawr Community (Swansea)
can be located, whilst approximate locations can be posited for the Fell Lane (Cumbria), Smalley
Bight (West Yorkshire), Callander (Stirling) and Four Mile Bridge (Anglesey) hoards. The remaining
findspot locations can only be estimated. Nonetheless the findspot information available allows us to
comprehend certain features of depositional location for each association.
21
Site
Out-of-Time
Object(s)
(1) Kincardine, Gr.IV dirk
Abernethy,
Highland
Relative date of
Associated objects
OoT object(s)
MBA
c. 1275–1150 BC
Likely date of
deposition
2 socketed
LBA
axeheads, Types
c. 1150–800 BC
Highfield & Gillespie
Context
Likelihood
Key References
Found together under a
granite boulder.
Certain
O’Connor and Cowie 1995:
355–357
22
(2) Mawr
Community,
Swansea
Gr.IV rapier frag MBA
c. 1275–1150 BC
2 axehead
fragments & 2
casting jets
LBA
c. 1150–1020 BC
Found while metaldetecting.
Certain
Knight and Gwilt 2017
(3) Callander,
Stirling
Gr.III rapier
Gr.IV rapier
Type 7C
side-looped
spearhead
MBA
c. 1400–1150 BC
Socketed axehead,
Type Portree
LBA
c. 1150–1020 BC
Found together in the
Callander area between
1790 and 1820. No further
details.
Probable (UA)
Burgess 1968: 22, 38–39; Davis
2012: 114, No. 693; Museum
Records; Schmidt and Burgess
1981: 186, No. 1064
(4)
Duddingston
Loch,
Midlothian
Rapier fragment MBA
c. 1400–1150 BC
c.44 objects incl.
broken swords,
spearheads and a
vessel ring handle
LBA
c. 920–800 BC
Found while dredging
Duddingston Loch in 1778.
Probable (UA)
Callander 1923: 360–364
(5) Corsbie
Moss, Scottish
Borders
Type 3A
side-looped
spearhead
MBA
c. 1500–1400 BC
Type Wilburton
sword & sword
chape (destroyed)
LBA
c. 1150–1020 BC
Found at around the same
time during drainage
operations in a peat bog.
Possible (UA)
Davis 2012: 47, No 77;
Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 1921: 17
(6) Fell Lane,
Penrith,
Cumbria
Type 6E
side-looped
spearhead
MBA
c. 1500-1275 BC
Socketed axehead,
Type Yorkshire
LBA
c. 1020–800 BC
Apparently found together
while building a house
1883–1893. The socketed
axe is now missing.
Possible (UA)
Bronze Age Card Index; Burgess
1968: 19; Clough 1969: 14
(7) Four
Mile Bridge,
Anglesey,
Gwynedd
Type 9A
basal-looped
spearhead
MBA
c. 1400–1150 BC
Type 11A pegged
spearhead
LBA
c. 1150–1020 BC
Found three metres apart
on two separate occasions.
Possible (UA)
Lynch 1991: 236
EBA
c. 2300–2150 BC
MBA
c. 1500–1275 BC
2 socketed
axeheads, 1 Type
Meldreth
LBA
c. 1020–800 BC
Reportedly a hoard. No
further details.
Possible (UA; IC) Coles 1962: 134; Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 1882: 409
(8) Islay, Argyll Halberd
and Bute
Palstave-adze
Type 6B
side-looped
spearhead
Objects Of the Past in the Past
Table 2.1: A summary of the multi-period hoards from northern England, Scotland and Wales. Key: E/M/LBA = Early/Middle/Late Bronze Age. IC = Insecure
Context referring to lack of discovery detail; UA = Uncertain Association referring to dubious recovery circumstances.
Possible (UA; IC) Clark et al. 2017: 27, 36, 51;
Walker 1972: 117–118.
Supposedly found together
in a garden. See details in
appendix.
LBA
c. 1000–800 BC
MBA
c. 1400–1275 BC
Type Lissett
short-flanged
axehead
(11) Wester
Galcantray,
Highland
2 socketed
axeheads, 1 Type
Portree
Schmidt and Burgess 1981: 136;
Varley 1977; Walker 1939: 15
Possible
Hoard of axeheads
recovered during dredging
operations from River
Calder.
LBA
c. 920–800 BC)
MBA
c. 1400–1150 BC
2 axeheads
(short-flanged
axehead and
palstave)
(10) Smalley
Bight, Stanley
Ferry, West
Yorkshire
8 socketed
axeheads, Types
Everthorpe and
Yorkshire
Gwilt et al. 2015
M–LBA
c. 1275–1020 BC
Poss. MBA
Knife or rapier
frag
(9) Penllyn,
Vale of
Glamorgan
2 palstave butt
fragments,
spearhead frag &
plate frag
Found in the same field
Possible
while metal-detecting in
December 2013 and January
2014.
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
Figure 2.1: Frequency of different out-of-time object types found in Late Bronze Age
multi-period hoards from northern England, Scotland and Wales.
The Four Mile Bridge spearheads, for instance, were found near
the coast of Holy Island, Anglesey. The Mawr Community hoard,
meanwhile, was found overlooking a river valley (Knight and Gwilt
2017), whilst the Wester Galcantray association was recovered
from low-lying ground in the Nairn river valley and the Callander
hoard likely came from the River Teith valley. Although the exact
find location of the Kincardine hoard cannot be identified, it is
worth highlighting its deposition under a boulder, close to the
River Spey on the northern edge of the Cairngorms, specifically
Creag Mheadhonach. The link with multiple natural features was
likely significant.
Three of the multi-period hoards are from wetland locations: the
three objects from Corsbie Moss were recovered from a peat bog;
the Duddingston Loch assemblage was recovered from a loch at
the base of Arthur’s Seat, the peak of an extinct volcano system,
in Edinburgh; and the Smalley Bight hoard was dredged from the
gravel beds of the River Calder. The association of finds with rivers,
bogs and lakes is well-known in prehistory (Bradley 1998; 2000: 47–
63) and the significance of certain places is explored further below.
The condition of the objects
In as many cases as possible, the completeness and condition of
the out-of-time and associated objects was assessed, with evidence
of use-wear and pre- and post-depositional damage recorded.
Although this varies, overall most hoards either contained complete
or fragmentary out-of-time objects—that is either the objects were
23
Objects Of the Past in the Past
undamaged or were represented
only by fragments (i.e. where less
than 25% of the object survives).
The hoards from Penllyn, Mawr
Community and Duddingston
Loch, for instance, all contained
fragments of rapiers alongside
other broken and fragmentary
later metalwork. Likewise, the
two rapiers in the Callander
hoard are broken, though about
50% of these objects survives,
alongside a complete socketed
axehead and spearhead (Figure
2.3). The objects in the Islay
hoard show varying degrees
of damage, some of which was
probably deliberate, but are all
largely complete. The earliest
object in this association (a
halberd) is also one of the most
complete. Much of the Fell Lane
spearhead survives with a worn
blade and broken side-loops,
alongside a complete but worn
socketed axehead. Similarly, the
dirk from Kincardine (Figure
2.4), the earlier axeheads
from Smalley Bight, and the
spearheads from Corsbie Moss
and Four Mile Bridge are both
complete
alongside
other
complete objects.
Figure 2.2: A map of Britain and Ireland showing the distribution of the
case studies described in this paper (numbers correlate with Table 2.1 and
the appendix). Case studies are plotted according to the likelihood of truly
representing an out-of-time deposition. The locations of multi-period hoards
from southern England are also plotted for comparison (information from
Knight forthcoming).
The Corsbie Moss spearhead and sword were cleaned post-recovery making the interpretation of
use-wear problematic, but both appear to have been prepared for use; in the case of the sword this is
reinforced by the presence of a chape (lost after recovery), implying deposition in a scabbard (Figure
2.5). Hilt marks are preserved in the patina of the Callander rapiers, suggesting they were hilted
at the time of deposition, while chips and nicks along the blades could be linked to their use; the
socketed axehead in the same hoard also shows some signs of use-wear. The socketed axeheads in the
Kincardine hoard bear evidence of working and sharpening and would certainly have been functional
prior to deposition, whilst the earlier dirk in the same hoard is very worn, which could be use-related
(O’Connor and Cowie 1995: 355ff.). The Fell Lane spearhead and the older of the two Four Mile Bridge
spearheads were seemingly subjected to extensive resharpening and wear over a long period of time
(British Museum Card Index; Lynch 1991: 236), apparently having had a long use-life. From the available
illustrations and images, it is not possible to determine the extent of use-wear present on the Middle
Bronze Age axeheads from Smalley Bight, but at least two of the Late Bronze Age socketed axeheads
show signs of sharpening striations, hammering and blunting of the cutting edge, suggesting this was
also a hoard of used objects from different periods or accumulated over time.
24
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
Figure 2.3: The Callander hoard. Illustration: Alan Braby © National Museums Scotland
25
Objects Of the Past in the Past
Figure 2.4: The Kincardine hoard. Photo: M. Knight, courtesy of the Highland Folk Museum
The rapier fragments from Mawr Community and Duddingston Loch are too incomplete and worn
to definitively identify indicators of preparation or use. In both cases, the rapiers broke in antiquity
and were deposited alongside other broken and worn-out material (Figure 2.6). Some swords and
spearheads in the Duddingston Loch assemblage show evidence of use-related damage, as well as
evidence of deliberate burning, bending and breaking prior to deposition. By contrast, the halberd
from Islay is possibly unfinished, but has bowed and torn edges and a bent tip; it was deposited
alongside other damaged objects, including a spearhead and two socketed axeheads. Although this
damage is complicated by post-depositional actions such as cleaning, when the hoard was first
reported it was recorded that all the objects were ‘much injured’ (Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 1882: 409) and it seems that at least some of the damage was deliberately
inflicted prior to deposition.
The multi-period hoards presented here thus represent complex accumulations of objects, treated in a
variety of ways and incorporated into a variety of depositional practices. Having recognised this, we can
now consider several key aspects that enhance the interpretation of these deposits.
26
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
Figure 2.5: The Corsbie Moss spearhead and sword.
Photo: M. Knight © National Museums Scotland
Figure 2.6: A selection of worn and fragmentary blades from Duddingston Loch. The Middle Bronze Age rapier is
illustrated bottom right. Illustration: Marion O’Neil © National Museums Scotland
27
Objects Of the Past in the Past
Multi-period hoards as typological aids
Hansen (2016: 194–197) has recently emphasised the importance of recognising the temporal depths
of European Bronze Age hoards. He stresses the possibility that metalwork deposits were accumulated
over long periods of time and that interpreting the deposition of hoards as a single action in a moment
of time is not necessarily accurate (cf. Needham 2007). The Piller hoard (Austria), for instance, contains
objects spanning 300 years, as indicated by the relative typologies and the use-wear seen on some
objects (Hansen 2016: 195). Obviously, this has bearing on relying on the typology of objects as a method
for dating the deposition of hoards and is emphasised by the fact that authors have tended to doubt
multi-period associations or regard typological anomalies in hoards as ‘scrap’ (e.g. Britton 1963: 270;
Eogan 1983: 188–189, No. 17; Grinsell 1970: 32). This should not be taken as a call to revise typologies (cf.
Hingley 2009: 148f.), but rather as a need for caution when considering multi-period hoards. As Hansen
puts it:
the [traditional] dating of hoards stands tendentiously in a circuitous argument around the
duration of certain types of bronzes, which in turn is determined by the time of the hoard’s
emplacement as defined by these types
Hansen 2016: 196–197
Whilst for some hoards there can be little argument that such anomalous objects occur from a distinctly
earlier chronological period, this becomes less certain where hoards contain objects that have a long
duration of production or circulation. For instance, there are multiple Ewart Park phase hoards (920–
800 BC) that contain objects from the preceding Wilburton to Blackmoor phases (c. 1150–920 BC).
Could these hoards assist us in identifying objects that are late Wilburton–Blackmoor/early Ewart Park
developments? This question is particularly highlighted by a recent hoard from Llancarfan, Vale of
Glamorgan, Wales. In this hoard a fragment of a St Nazaire sword dating to the Blackmoor phase (c.
1020–920 BC) was associated with material more typical of the succeeding Ewart Park phase, potentially
indicating that the fragment may have been quite old when deposited (Gwilt 2006). In this case, however,
there has been debate about whether this typologically earlier sword fragment may in fact be used to
date the hoard to the earlier metalworking phase and refine our dating of objects conventionally placed
in a later metalworking phase (Brandherm and Moskal del-Hoyo 2014: 21–22, footnote 45; Gwilt 2006).
The possibility that some multi-period hoards might in fact assist with our understanding of typologies
is rarely considered explicitly though.
Indeed, some multi-period hoards have been discounted as a result of typological anomalies that are
less common. The Callander hoard, comprising two rapiers, a spearhead and a socketed axehead, has
previously been considered a doubtful association of objects, due to the lack of additional contextual
information and the long typo-chronological span of the objects (c. 300 years) (Coles 1962: 34, 134;
though see O’Connor and Cowie 1995: 362, note 5). However, all four objects have a consistent patina
and were specifically claimed to have been found together, whilst other finds acquired from Callander
at the same time were noted as single finds (see Appendix; Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 1958: 463). The two rapiers in the hoard date to the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1400–1150 BC), whilst
the socketed axehead is a type that was produced and used throughout the Late Bronze Age (c. 1150–
800 BC) (Burgess and Gerloff 1981; Schmidt and Burgess 1981: 186–187). Axeheads like the Callander
example have been found in metalwork hoards dating to c. 1150–1020 BC, and indeed Schmidt and
Burgess suggest that the Callander hoard could be a genuine association, representing the origins of this
type of axehead around 1150 BC (1981: 186–187). Moreover, the Kincardine hoard also includes earlier
forms of socketed axeheads alongside a typologically late dirk, which O’Connor and Cowie (1995: 361)
use as evidence for the extended use of dirks and rapiers, as well as the earlier production of certain
socketed axeheads (Figure 2.7; see also Needham 2017: Appendix 1). This strengthens the likelihood
28
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
Figure 2.7: The expected typological durations of the objects in the Kincardine and Callander hoards (following information in
Burgess and Gerloff 1981; Davis 2012; Schmidt and Burgess 1981)
Table 2.2: A list of multi-period hoards from Britain containing dirks and rapiers
Site
No of rapiers/
dirks
Associated objects
Brading Road, Brighton, East Sussex
1
1 Late-type palstave
Callander, Stirling
2
1 MBA spearhead and 2 LBA socketed axeheads
Duddingston Loch, Midlothian
1 fragment
Blackmoor/Ewart hoard of 44 objects
Gorleston-on-Sea, Great Yarmouth,
Norfolk
2 fragments
1 MBA palstave fragment & Ewart Park hoard of 122 objects
Kincardine, Abernethy, Highland
1
2 socketed axeheads
Lanherne, St. Mawgan, Cornwall
1
1 MBA palstave and LBA hoard of unknown number of
objects, mostly socketed axeheads
Mawr Community, Swansea
1 fragment
2 axehead fragment and 2 casting jets
that Callander does indeed represent a genuine association and it is possible that the Kincardine and
Callander hoards represent associations of old styles of objects with new forms deposited around 1150–
1100 BC.
Across Britain, there are seven instances of dirks or rapiers in Late Bronze Age contexts (Table 2.2).
Whilst some of these must inevitably be considered residual fragments (e.g. Duddingston Loch and
Mawr Community), others represent situations like Callander. In particular, the fragmentary Middle
Bronze Age rapier found with a Late Bronze Age palstave at Brading Road, East Sussex (Curwen 1954:
216f., No. 17) probably represents the extended circulation of the rapier into the Late Bronze Age.
To reiterate, this is not a call to redefine established typologies for certain object types, but rather I
wish to emphasise that some multi-period hoards might in fact open the possibility for identifying early
and late developments in specific object forms, as well as allowing the opportunity to recognise some
objects that were in circulation for longer than typical and the reasons for this. Indeed, Needham (2017:
151) suggests that the reason the Callander and Kincardine hoards contain anachronistic objects may be
linked with a reduced supply of materials and thus the functional need to keep older objects for longer.
This is further likely when we consider that there is limited evidence for the widespread development
and adoption of swords in Scotland in the earlier part of the Late Bronze Age; Coles (1966: 114) and
Burgess (1968: 23) have both argued that dirks and rapiers may in fact have a prolonged tradition in
Scotland compared with southern Britain. It is usual to automatically dismiss collections of objects like
Callander based on preconceived notions of typological chronologies, but with a consistent condition
of objects and an appreciation of flexibility within these chronologies, we can enhance how we might
29
Objects Of the Past in the Past
interpret some multi-period associations and their implications for the social structures that were in
place. Of course, this typological flexibility means that Callander and Kincardine actually represent
contemporary associations and are not in the truest sense ‘multi-period’.
Out-of-time but not out of place
We know that some locations held significance to Bronze Age communities for depositing objects.
Depositional practices have been linked with certain landscapes and functioning as a socio-political
action for managing the inhabited world (e.g. Bradley 1998; 2017; Fontijn 2002; Levy 2010; Needham
1988; 2007). I have previously suggested that the deposition of multi-period hoards in high locations
and in or near watery locations may have been part of a method for communities to structure the
landscape and establish or legitimise claims to a place (Knight forthcoming). The multi-period hoards
presented in this paper follow a similar pattern. Depositions in rivers and river valleys, bogs, lakes, and
islands all fit within expected Bronze Age practices.
Concentrations of metalwork depositions along river valleys in Britain have been noted in southeast Wales (Gwilt 2004: 121f.), the Thames (York 2002), south-east England (Yates and Bradley 2010a),
the eastern England Fenland (Yates and Bradley 2010b), and north-east England (Poyer 2015). The
multi-period hoards from Mawr Community (Swansea), Wester Galcantray (Highland), Penllyn (Vale
of Glamorgan), Smalley Bight (West Yorkshire), and possibly Callander (Stirling) are thus located in
areas one would expect to find hoards and conform to expected depositional practices. Moreover, older
objects were being incorporated into contemporary ideologies. Depositions in these locations may have
been part of the process for legitimising place, as is often seen in Middle–Late Bronze Age settlements
with deposits in liminal locations including doorways and boundary ditches (Brück 2006: 298f.). The
inclusion of already old objects in hoards may have assisted in legitimising place as symbols of ancestral
claims to the land (cf. Hingley 2009; Knight forthcoming).
The same could be argued for the Kincardine dirk and socketed axeheads. The deliberate deposition
under a boulder on or near the slopes of the Cairngorms mountain range near a river suggests a place to
which significance could have been attributed. Indeed, the depositional location marked by a boulder
raises the possibility that this site could potentially be revisited and later objects may have been added.
It thus follows that it is important to recognise that hoards and associations may not have been static
occasions of deposition, rather they represent accumulations over time (cf. Hansen 2016; Needham
2007: 280–281; see below). This explanation has been proffered for the Corsbie Moss association; whilst
some authors have accepted it as genuine (Colquhoun and Burgess 1988: 53)—and indeed the original
account suggests the objects were found together or at least at the same time—Davis argued this actually
represents a revisited area of deposition (2012: 52). This may be supported by the recovery of an Earliest
Iron Age socketed axehead over a decade later from the same area. Meanwhile, all the axeheads in the
Smalley Bight hoard reportedly came up at the same time, but as it was dredged from the River Calder, it
has tended not to be considered a genuine association (Schmidt and Burgess 1981: 136). This scepticism
may result from dredging activity elsewhere that has produced numerous objects from several periods,
and from well-known locations that were revisited for depositional activities, such as bogs and rivers.
Nonetheless, the multi-period accumulations infer the long-lived importance of places to the societies
depositing metalwork, no doubt part of a wider set of beliefs and practices. Places of deposition and the
objects deposited may have been remembered and repeatedly or intermittently revisited resulting in
the multi-period associations we find today.
The earlier rapier in the Duddingston Loch assemblage appears to have less to do with establishing
claims to land and more to do with the accumulation of objects over time and ongoing contemporary
practices in a significant landscape. This hoard has recently been interpreted as part of a wider practice
30
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
of sacrificing of weapons in watery locations (Mörtz 2018); therefore, the role of the out-of-time object
could be linked to the function of the rapier as a weapon. The antiquated rapier in the Duddingston
Loch assemblage was no doubt recognised as a weapon of a bygone era, typologically dating to the
Middle Bronze Age (c. 1275–1150 BC), and the multiple styles of weapons spanning the Late Bronze
Age (c. 1150–800 BC) suggest an accumulation of weapons over an extended period prior to deposition.
This need not necessarily have been a conscious process of active collecting, but it is likely each object
had been in circulation for variable amounts of time and these were not all the result of a single
production event. Thus, each object had its own biography and was individually significant, as well as
being significant as part of the overall assemblage. A note of caution must be applied, however, as the
collection of metalwork from Duddingston Loch was dispersed upon recovery with some pieces thought
to have been given to King George III, and only an unknown proportion of the original collection now
survives (Cowie and O’Connor 2007: 319). The seemingly complete condition of some of the objects
recorded in drawings, but now mostly lost, led Cowie and O’Connor (2007: 319) to suggest that what
may be represented by the assemblage are multiple episodes of deposition in the loch. Nonetheless,
the deposition of deliberately destroyed metalwork in Duddingston Loch at the base of Arthur’s Seat is
significant, especially as two complete Late Bronze Age swords were deposited on the slopes of Arthur’s
Seat itself (Coles 1962: 116). Moreover, at Grosvenor Crescent, about two and a half miles away, a hoard
comprising fourteen or fifteen swords, a socketed axe, a ring, a mount and a pin was excavated in
1869, whilst a sword and chape were recovered at Gogarburn, also in Edinburgh (Coles 1962: 118f.). This
suggests the Edinburgh landscape may have been an area in which it was significant to deposit martial
equipment in a variety of ways and if the out-of-time rapier represents a genuine association it was
incorporated into these later practices.
Objects past with objects present
The possibly extended circulation of the Duddingston rapier raises important questions about how we
might recognise the length of time an object was in use and, by extension, the nature of the relationship
between the object and its owner(s). In the multi-period hoards, such insights can be gained by analysing
the condition of some of the out-of-time objects, and inferring aspects of the potential biographies of
those objects.
The worn nature of the Fell Lane and Four Mile Bridge spearheads emphasises that these were
utilitarian objects that were used and reused over long periods of time. By the time of deposition, a
substantial portion of each blade had worn away through use and resharpening, and, in the case of the
Fell Lane spearhead, the loops had broken. Other Middle Bronze Age spearheads are known to have
received similarly extensive use-lives, such as an example from Merton, Oxfordshire (O’Connor 1979;
see also Davis 2012: Pl.36), and at Shrubsoles, Kent, surviving haft remains indicate a Middle Bronze Age
spearhead may have been repeatedly re-hafted over several hundred years prior to burial (Taylor 2003:
42–43). If these spearheads were used over long periods of time, for whatever purpose(s), they were
likely cared for and curated; in this sense they may have become inalienable objects (Weiner 1992),
intrinsically linked with an owner or community, and passed down over time as a treasured object.
The eventual deposition of the Fell Lane and Four Mile Bridge spearheads alongside later objects and in
revisited landscapes may thus reflect the end of each spearhead’s perceived usefulness or mnemonic
role.
It is further interesting that the objects associated with each spearhead seem to also have had an
extended period of use before deposition. Both the later Four Mile Bridge spearhead and Fell Lane
socketed axehead are worn. The same is true of the Kincardine dirk and socketed axeheads. Likewise,
in the groups of fragmentary objects from Duddingston Loch and Mawr Community, the out-of-time
objects are in a worn-out and broken condition that matches the other objects with which they were
31
Objects Of the Past in the Past
deposited. All of the objects in the Islay hoard show some signs of deliberate damage, including plastic
deformation (bending and crushing), breaking, and edge damage, suggesting that if this does represent a
genuine hoard, the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age artefacts were all decommissioned, perhaps as part
of one event. Where there is no obvious differentiation in the treatment of older objects or later objects,
this may infer that, although older, the out-of-time objects warranted no alternative treatment and had
been incorporated into contemporary customs and practices. Certainly, in the cases of spearheads and
axeheads, the function of these objects probably would have been recognised and even if they were
known to be objects with a past, there was no need to treat them differently. This was not always the
case though. The hoard from Callander contains a mix of complete later objects and broken out-of-time
objects; elsewhere at Yattendon (Berkshire), Shoebury (Essex), and Stoke Ferry (Norfolk), the out-of-time
objects were the most complete, suggesting a level of care that was not afforded to typologically later
implements which were deliberately broken before deposition (Hawkes 1954: GB.8; Knight forthcoming).
Inevitably, that we have been able to recover these hoards archaeologically, means all the objects were
eventually deposited and removed from circulation, indicating either that their significance was no longer
recognised or that their removal was important for another social strategy.
Comparisons with out-of-time objects and multi-period hoards from southern England
Finally, it is appropriate to directly compare this survey with the previous survey of out-of-time objects
from southern England. Forty-five certain, probable, and possible instances of earlier bronze objects
found in later Bronze Age contexts were identified predominantly composed of multi-period hoards,
but also four from settlement contexts (Knight forthcoming). The present survey thus brings the
overall total of sites for Britain up to 56.2 The most immediate observation is the contrast in numbers of
associations involved (see Figure 2.2). Almost four times as many instances of multi-period hoards and
out-of-time objects were identifiable in southern England. This is in part skewed by the larger number
of hoards from southern England, and particularly those of the carp’s tongue complex in south-east
England, which have a greater number of older worn-out objects than the rest of the country (Knight
forthcoming). In almost all cases the multi-period hoards comprise only one or two out-of-time objects,
and only two periods of time (Davies this volume).
Across Britain overall there is a concentration of Bronze Age multi-period hoards in river valleys, which
reflects trends in depositional practices generally. None of the hoards from southern England were
recovered from lakes or bogs, whereas in Scotland there is at least one from each (Duddingston Loch
and Corsbie Moss respectively).3 In southern England, two out-of-time depositions were identified in
structured deposits on the Late Bronze Age settlements at Shrubsoles Hill and Iwade, both Kent (Knight
forthcoming). The latter is known to have been an island during the Bronze Age and it was posited that
the proximity of these two deposits may have been linked to commonly held ideas within an area. With
the possible hoard from Four Mile Bridge we might also speculate about the importance of a multiperiod deposit on an island.4 Islands may have been significant places in the Bronze Age (Bradley 2000)
and the accumulation of old and new material may have been part of the process of revisiting certain
places and areas over time.
A similarity across Britain is the predominance of Middle Bronze Age objects alongside Late Bronze Age
material. As has been posited in this paper, some of these could represent extensions of the traditional
typological span, but this is less clear for those in southern England. The predominance of Middle
It is important to recognise though that no attempt has been made in the present paper to identify occupation sites with outof-time objects from northern England, Scotland and Wales, though such sites exist in these regions. One example is a possible
Middle Bronze Age gold fragment found in a Late Bronze Age pit at Llanmaes (Vale of Glamorgan, Wales) (Gwilt et al. 2016: 302).
3
Admittedly, this observation in part simply reflects the geography of each region.
4
To this we might also add the Islay hoard, though we must accept that given the size of the island coupled with the lack of
details surrounding its recovery, the objects may have come from any number of topographical locations.
2
32
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
Bronze Age artefacts as out-of-time objects no doubt reflects the increased production and deposition of
metal objects during that period, increasing the chances that material would either circulate for longer
periods or have a higher chance of rediscovery. In the present study, only the Islay hoard contained an
Early Bronze Age object, though this association cannot be considered certain. It may be strengthened,
however, by the Stoke Ferry hoard, Norfolk, which contained an Early Bronze Age copper halberd
alongside broken Late Bronze Age swords and spearheads (Hawkes 1954: GB.8; Lawson 2018: 37–38). If
this is a legitimate association, the Stoke Ferry halberd likely represents a rediscovered object and may
have been recognised for its age; the Islay halberd could be a similar situation.
In southern England it was possible to pick out certain instances where the deposition of out-of-time
objects may have been linked to memory creation or, alternatively, forgetting. The destruction and
deposition of the Milsoms Corner shield, Somerset, for instance, was linked to ending the ‘life’ of the
object and the associations it held with the local community through its age (Knight forthcoming). In
northern England, Scotland and Wales such instances could not be conclusively identified and thus the
theme of memory has not been explored in this paper. However, it is possible to argue that certain objects,
such as the rapier fragments from Mawr Community and Duddingston Loch or the spearheads from Four
Mile Bridge and Fell Lane, may represent the retention of some objects over long periods, even to the
point that they cease to be functional (e.g. the edge is so worn it can no longer be resharpened). I hesitate
to refer to them as heirlooms, as their condition does not suggest the care and veneration expected of
heirloom objects (cf. Lillios 1999). However, that such things may have been important to Late Bronze
Age communities can be derived from the Earliest Iron Age hoard from Poolewe, where a Late Bronze Age
ornament was seemingly retained and worn out over several generations of circulation before deposition
with later axeheads (Knight 2019: 13). For the worn and used out-of-time objects in the multi-period hoards
under discussion here, we may speculate that these objects acquired certain inalienable qualities that
were linked with a known past, accrued over an extended period of possession, circulation and use; in this
way depositing objects and hoards may have been mnemonic practices for managing social strategies (cf.
Levy 2010: 131ff.). Furthermore, the potential that Smalley Bight, Four Mile Bridge and Corsbie Moss are
not true associations, but are instead revisited depositional sites, implies that the locations of deposition
were remembered, and material was added over time.
Final thoughts
So where does this leave us concerning Bronze Age multi-period hoards? A number of case studies
previously considered ‘doubtful’ have been highlighted, expanding the known corpus of possible,
probable or certain multi-period hoards containing Bronze Age out-of-time metal objects to 52. It
should be clear by now that although not a frequent occurrence, such hoards are widely distributed
and occurred in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons that fit within the known Bronze Age
hoarding practices. This is not intended to be the final word on the topic, but by illustrating that
former assumptions require interrogation, it is hoped that more thorough source criticism will be
undertaken in the future to at least explore the possibility that the association of objects that do not
fit expected typo-chronological frameworks may in fact be genuine, or at least plausible. The Bronze
Age multi-period hoards now known from Britain offer the opportunity to explore theoretical themes,
such as mnemonic practices, and can also be used to enhance our understanding of typologies and the
relationships between people, objects and the landscapes in which they were deposited.
Acknowledgements
This paper expands on work I began during my Masters in 2014 on multi-period hoards in southern
England and submitted for publication in 2015 (Knight forthcoming). The present paper is the result
of numerous fruitful conversations with many colleagues and friends that continue to stimulate my
33
Objects Of the Past in the Past
thoughts on this topic. I would like to particularly thank my co-editors for their firm but fair editing
that brought this paper down to an (almost) manageable size, as well as Catriona Gibson for offering
comments on what she endearingly calls ‘Out-of-Time Objects 2.0’, and Robyn Raxworthy for her
continued patience listening to me talk about this topic. Thanks are also due to Rachel Chisholm at
the Highland Folk Museum for accommodating my visit to see the Kincardine hoard, to Adam Gwilt
for his help with the Welsh hoards, and to Katherine Baxter at Leeds Museums and Galleries and Dave
Evans at Wakefield Museums & Castles for providing valuable information on the Smalley Bight hoard.
Finally, Trevor Cowie has, as always, been a mine of information relating to the Scottish material and
this paper is much stronger for his input and thought-provoking comments. Any remaining errors
are my own.
Appendix
This appendix presents details of the 11 multi-period hoards identified during this research from
northern England, Scotland and Wales (summarised in Table 2.1). The importance of source criticism
was highlighted in text and this is emphasised by the thorough historiographies of some of the hoards
outlined here. The likelihood that each hoard is indeed ‘multi-period’ is presented on a scale of Certain,
Probable and Possible and the hoards are listed alphabetically within each certainty. The distribution
is presented in Figure 2.2.
Certain multi-period hoards
(1) Kincardine, Abernethy, Highland (Inverness-shire), SCOTLAND5
Around 1873, a Middle Bronze Age dirk and two Late Bronze Age socketed axeheads were found under a
granite boulder at Kincardine, Abernethy (O’Connor and Cowie 1995: 355). Kincardine (or Kinchardine)
was a parish in the west of what is now Abernethy and can be identified on OS maps until 1874, though
is now known as West Croftmore; the exact findspot location cannot be identified but it was likely in
the vicinity. The objects were donated to Am Fasgadh in 1951 and now reside in the Highland Folk
Museum, Kingussie (O’Connor and Cowie 1995: 355). The dirk is Burgess and Gerloff’s (1981) Group IV
type, broadly dating to the Penard metalworking phase of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1275–1150 BC),
whilst the socketed axeheads are of a type datable to the Wilburton phase (c. 1150–1020 BC). Although
this group has traditionally been considered to not be associated based on the typological disparity of
the objects (e.g. Coles 1966: 15; Schmidt and Burgess 1981: Nos 1025 and 1141), they are now considered
to represent a legitimate association (Needham 2017: Appendix 1; O’Connor and Cowie 1995: 357).
(2) Mawr Community, Swansea, WALES
Two socketed axehead fragments, two casting jets and a rapier fragment were found while metaldetecting in the Community of Mawr, Swansea, in 2015 (Knight and Gwilt 2017). These objects were
dispersed over an area of about three square metres but are considered to be a certain association
(Knight and Gwilt 2017). The axeheads and the casting jets date to the Late Bronze Age, whilst the rapier
fragment is more typical of the Middle Bronze Age.
The modern local authorities for the Scottish sites are given here with historic counties in brackets where appropriate to
allow cross-referencing with older sources.
5
34
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
Probable multi-period hoards
(3) Callander, Stirling (Perthshire), SCOTLAND
Two rapiers, a socketed axehead and a spearhead with asymmetrical side-loops were supposedly found
together in the Callander area prior to 1830 and were purchased by what was then the National Museum of
Scotland in 1955 (National Museums Scotland Acc. Nos X.DQ 321–324; Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland 1958: 473, fig.7). Museum records note that the artefacts were purchased from George Willis, the
founder of Basingstoke Museum, and prior to this, the finds were in the possession of Captain James Richard
Hill MacFarlane of Lochhouses, Prestonkirk, and were found between 1790 and 1820. Three other bronze
artefacts from Callander were acquired at the same time, but were noted as single finds, including a flanged
axehead, a socketed axehead and a spearhead (National Museums Scotland Acc. Nos X.DC 134, X.DE 124 and
X.DG 105). This paper argues it is probable the original four objects were found together.
(4) Duddingston Loch, Edinburgh, Midlothian, SCOTLAND
The group of objects from Duddingston Loch was recovered in 1778 while dredging for shell marl
(Callander 1923: 360–364). This assemblage contains in the region of 50 metal objects, though the exact
number is unknown, including swords, spearheads, a bucket ring handle and a rapier fragment. Most of
the material can be dated to the Wilburton to Ewart Park metalworking phases of the Late Bronze Age
(1150–800 BC), including Wilburton swords and spearheads as well as Ewart Park counterparts, though
the rapier fragment broadly dates to the Middle Bronze Age, probably towards c. 1100 BC and thus would
have been a century old or more at the time of deposition. Assuming a deposition date for the hoard in
the early Ewart Park date (c. 900 BC), some of the Wilburton phase metalwork could also have been old
when deposited. However, as this was a dredged discovery, it cannot be considered absolutely certain
that the rapier does not represent an earlier deposit in Duddingston Loch. Its similarity in condition to
the other weapons recovered strengthens the idea that this is a genuine association.
Possible multi-period hoards
(5) Corsbie Moss, Scottish Borders (Berwickshire), SCOTLAND
A spearhead, sword and sword chape were recovered at the same time during drainage operations
in a peat bog some time before 1854 (Coles 1962: 24, 107–108, fig.1; Proceedings of the Society of the
Antiquaries of London 1856: 121). They were a foot or two below the surface (Colquhoun and Burgess
1988: 51). The chape was destroyed during recovery but was apparently metal. The surviving spearhead
dates to the early part of the Middle Bronze Age (following Davis 2012), whilst the sword can be dated
to the Wilburton metalworking phase (c. 1150–1020 BC). In 1866, an Earliest Iron Age socketed axehead
was recovered from the same area (National Museums Scotland records; Schmidt and Burgess 1981:
242, No. 1589, recorded as ‘Corsbie Tower’), post-dating the sword by 200–400 years and the spearhead
by potentially a millennium. Whilst it is possible the spearhead, sword and sword chape were once
associated, the later axehead raises the alternative possibility that this was a place where multiple
depositions were made over time (cf. Davis 2012: 52). All objects were donated at the same time in 1920
along with two other finds from Corsbie Moss: a Neolithic flint arrowhead and a stone spindle whorl
(Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 1921: 14, 16–17, 19). There is no indication that
any of these were associated.
(6) Fell Lane, Penrith, Cumbria, ENGLAND
At Fell Lane, a Middle Bronze Age spearhead and a Late Bronze Age socketed axehead were supposedly
found together, but Clough has since cast doubt on this association as he was informed that they may
35
Objects Of the Past in the Past
have been found in the River Lowther in 1931–32 (1969: 14). The Bronze Age Card Index at the British
Museum records that the spearhead and axehead were found together while building a house in 1883–
1893; these records are dated to 1923, thus predating the supposed discovery in the River Lowther.
Moreover, the private collection in which the objects were held was documented as Lowther Street
in Penrith, which may explain why it was suspected these objects came from the River Lowther.
Unfortunately, the socketed axehead is now missing and the confusion surrounding the object history
has been enough for subsequent authors to doubt the authenticity of the find (e.g. Davis 2012: 101); this
association must remain only a possibility.
(7) Four Mile Bridge, Anglesey, Gwynedd, WALES
A Middle Bronze Age basal-looped spearhead and a Late Bronze Age pegged spearhead were found within
three metres of each other, but on two separate occasions (Lynch 1991: 236). The earlier spearhead
predates the later one by up to 400 years.
(8) Islay, Argyll and Bute, SCOTLAND
A group of five objects from Islay in the Inner Hebrides, including an Early Bronze Age halberd, a Middle
Bronze Age spearhead and flanged chisel and two Late Bronze Age socketed axeheads, was acquired
by National Museums Scotland in 1882 (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 1882:
409). However, no details of the circumstances of discovery are preserved. The typologically diverse
nature of this hoard, spanning up to 1000 years, led Coles to suggest this probably represented a modern
‘collector’s hoard’ (1966: 117), rather than a genuine association. However, it remains possible these
objects were indeed found together due to similarities in patina and condition.
(9) Penllyn, Vale of Glamorgan, WALES
This hoard comprises fragments of two Late-type palstaves, a spearhead, an uncertain ‘plate’ object and
a possible knife or rapier fragment (Gwilt et al. 2015). It was found while metal-detecting in the same
field on two occasions in December 2013 and January 2014. Much of the hoard indicates a depositional
date early in the Late Bronze Age, probably during the Wilburton metalworking phase at the end of the
second millennium BC (c. 1150–1020 BC), but the possible rapier fragment could indicate the inclusion of
earlier material in a later hoard (Gwilt et al. 2015). Although the association is secure, the identification
of the objects is not.
(10) Smalley Bight, Stanley Ferry, West Yorkshire, ENGLAND
A group of eleven bronze implements was recovered together while dredging the River Calder just below
Smalley Bight farm near Stanley Ferry and presented to Leeds City Museum in 1914 (Walker 1939: 15).
This hoard appears to have included Middle Bronze Age flanged axeheads and palstaves alongside Late
Bronze Age socketed axeheads, but there is some confusion in the history of the objects post-recovery.
Despite reporting eleven implements, Walker only lists ten, which includes ‘seven bronze looped celts…
a winged celt without a stop-ridge… a looped palstave… and a bronze object with a bearded man’s head
delineated upon it’ (Walker 1939: 15). Of these, he illustrates two: a socketed axehead and a palstave.
Later, Varley (1977: 53–54) recorded that part of the hoard had been destroyed when Leeds City
Museum was bombed during World War II and lists only six surviving axeheads, including four socketed
axeheads, a Middle Bronze Age flanged axehead, and a palstave. However, none of these objects are the
two illustrated by Walker. The hoard has now been traced to Wakefield Museums and Castles, where
eight axeheads currently survive with the provenance ‘Smalley Bight’, including six Late Bronze Age
socketed axeheads and a Middle Bronze Age flanged axehead and a Middle Bronze Age palstave. The
surviving objects include the socketed axehead and palstave illustrated by Walker, but not the palstave
36
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
presented by Varley. A ninth fake socketed axehead is currently held at Wakefield Museums and Castles
with the provenance of ‘Smalley Bight’, but it is unclear whether this is a replica of an original axehead,
or simply a misattribution. Regardless, the Middle Bronze Age flanged axehead and palstave predate the
socketed axeheads by several centuries and seem to have been part of the original group as described
by Walker. Both the surviving flanged axehead and the palstave are types that can be broadly dated to
the Taunton metalworking phase (c. 1400–1275 BC), whilst the socketed axeheads are more typical of
the Ewart Park phase (c. 920–800 BC) (following Schmidt and Burgess 1981).
(11) Wester Galcantray, Highland (Nairnshire), SCOTLAND
A particularly convoluted case study concerns three axeheads from Wester Galcantray (repeatedly
misspelled as ‘Golcantry’), Highland (National Museums Scotland Acc. Nos X.DC 25, X.DE 114, X.DE 115);
it is worth briefly indulging here to emphasise the necessity and benefit of a thorough analysis of object
historiographies. In 1939, Alexander Keiller presented two Late Bronze Age socketed axeheads and an
Early–Middle Bronze Age flanged axe to the National Museum of Scotland claiming that they were
‘found at Wester Golcantry ‘in the Tailor’s Garden,’ in 1887’ (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland 1940: 149). Later Walker reported that all objects came from Miss May Davidson of Clava and
Cantray (1972: 117f.). It is still possible to locate the Tailor’s House (now known as Auld Hoose) in Wester
Galcantray and the Historic Environment Record records a site visit in 1964 made by the Ordnance
Survey during map revision work, during which the owner confirmed that the objects were found in the
front garden of that house (Canmore ID 150696). The flanged axehead predates the socketed axeheads
by several centuries and this has meant the association has been considered doubtful or not portrayed
as an association at all (Clark et al. 2017: 27, 51; Coles 1962: 134). This doubt has been furthered by
confusion around the recording of the axeheads in various papers. Whilst Walker is ‘almost certain’ that
the axeheads were found together, he lists the wrong flanged axehead (1972: 117). Meanwhile, in his
article on Middle Bronze Age metalwork Coles does not refer to any palstave from ‘Wester Golcantry’
but records a flanged axe as ‘Probably nr Clava or Cantray’ (1966: 135), presumably referring to Miss
Davidson’s address. The museum registration number provided by Coles is DC 125, which is recorded
by the National Museum of Scotland as coming from ‘Wester Golcantry’ so is probably the same axe.
The same axehead is recorded as ‘Near Cantray’ in Schmidt and Burgess (1981: 101, No 613), whilst
two socketed axes are recorded as ‘Wester Golcantry’ which are possibly associated with a different
flanged axehead (Schmidt and Burgess 1981: No 409). This latter axehead has the museum registration
number DC 128, and there has clearly been some confusion over which of the axeheads were truly
associated. This confusion can be cleared up as the flanged axehead DC 125 and the possibly associated
two socketed axeheads are all marked with a consistent numbering scheme: 1939.1024–1026, and a
printed note inside one of the socketed axeheads reads:
‘FLINTS, BRONZE PALSTAVE AND SOCKETED AXE-HEADS PROBABLY FROM INVERNESS-SHIRE.
Alexander Keiller, 1939.’
Unfortunately, as the artefacts came up in 1887 but did not arrive in the National Museum until 1939,
nor do the flanged axehead and the socketed axeheads possess a consistent patina, this association
cannot be considered certain.
Uncertain hoards
The surviving information for several ‘multi-period’ hoards was deemed too uncertain to include here.
Of note, however, is the Greyfriars Church hoard from Dumfries and Galloway, which it was possible to
investigate during the course of researching this paper and warrants describing here.
6
Record last accessed 30th September 2018 via: https://www.canmore.org.uk/site/15069/wester-galcantray.
37
Objects Of the Past in the Past
(no number) Greyfriars Church, Dumfries, Dumfries and Galloway (Dumfries-shire), SCOTLAND
This Middle Bronze Age hoard was found in 1866 when excavating the foundations of a church.
Originally it contained a spearhead and two axeheads, though was transferred without provenance
information from the Crichton Royal Institute to Dumfries Museum. In addition to the Greyfriars
hoard, Dumfries Museum received an additional two axeheads and one spearhead also with minimal
provenance (Schmidt and Burgess 1981: 92–94, No 529). All six objects have been attributed Greyfriars
Church as the original findspot, but it is unclear which three objects constitute the original discovery.
The collection of objects now includes an Early Bronze Age spearhead and axehead, as well as a Middle
Bronze Age spearhead and three palstaves. Davis (2012: 40–41) argued that the Greyfriars Early Bronze
Age spearhead is unlikely to have come from the area. Furthermore, of the three Middle Bronze Age
palstaves, one is a South-Western type, which was probably originally from the Welsh Marches (Schmidt
and Burgess 1981: 142) and another is an Irish type (Schmidt and Burgess 1981: 168); neither form is
common in Scotland. Due to the confusion surrounding the provenance and the eclectic nature of the
objects in question, it cannot be guaranteed that the original hoard was indeed multi-period.
Bibliography
Adkins, L. and R.A. Adkins 1985. Neolithic axes from Roman sites in Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology
4(1): 69–75.
Bradley, R. 1986. Neolithic axes in Roman Britain: An exercise in archaeological source criticism. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 5(1): 119–120.
Bradley, R. 1998 [1990]. The Passage of Arms 2nd Ed. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. 2017. A Geography of Offerings. Deposits of Valuables in the Landscapes of Ancient Europe. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Brandherm, D. and M. Moskal-del Hoyo 2014. Both sides now: The Carp’s Tongue complex revisited. The
Antiquaries Journal 94: 1–47.
Britton, D. 1963. Traditions of metal-working in the later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Britain: Part
1. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 10: 258–325.
Brück, J. 2006. Fragmentation, personhood, and the social construction of technology in the Middle and
Late Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16: 297–315.
Burgess, C.B. 1968. Bronze Age Metalwork in Northern England c.1000 to 700 B.C. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Oriel
Press Limited.
Burgess, C.B. and Gerloff, S. 1981. The Dirks and Rapiers of Great Britain and Ireland. Prähistorische
Bronzefunde IV, 7. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Callander, J.G. 1923. Three Bronze Age hoards recently added to the National Collection, with notes on the
hoard from Duddingston Loch. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 56 (1921–22): 351–364.
Caple, C. 2010. Ancestor artefacts – ancestor materials. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29(3): 305–318.
Chadwick, A.M. and C.D. Gibson (eds) 2013. Memory, Myth and Long-term Landscape Inhabitation. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Clark, G., T. Cowie and S. Kruse 2017. Feats of Clay. Bronze Age Metalworking around the Moray Firth. Inverness:
North Kessock and District Local History Society.
Clough, T.H.M. 1969. Bronze Age metalwork from Cumbria. Transactions of Cumberland and Westmorland
Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 69: 1–39.
Coles, J.M. 1962. Scottish Late Bronze Age metalwork: Typology, distributions and chronology. Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 93 (1959–60): 16–134.
Coles, J.M. 1966. Scottish Middle Bronze Age metalwork. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
97 (1963–64): 82–156.
38
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
Coles, J.M. 1971. Scottish Early Bronze Age metalwork. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
101 (1968–69): 1–110.
Colquhoun, I. and C.B. Burgess 1988. The Swords of Britain. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 5. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Cowie, T. and B. O’Connor 2007. Late Bronze Age swords from Scotland: Some finds old and new, in C.
Burgess, P. Topping and F. Lynch (eds) Beyond Stonehenge. Essays on the Bronze Age in Honour of Colin
Burgess: 316–334. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Curwen, E.C. 1954. The Archaeology of Sussex. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.
Davies, A. forthcoming. Forgetting and remembering in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age of southern
Britain: Personhood, identity and ancestors, in C. Gibson, D. Brown, and J. Pyzel (eds) Making and
Unmaking Memories. Mundane Mnemonics, Artificial Amnesia and Transformed Traditions. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Davis, R. 2012. The Early and Middle Bronze Age Spearheads of Britain. Prähistorische Bronzefunde V, 5.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Davis, R. 2015. The Late Bronze Age Spearheads of Britain. Prähistorische Bronzefunde V, 7. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag.
Eogan, G. 1983. Hoards of the Irish Later Bronze Age. Dublin: University College Dublin.
Ferris, I. 2012. Roman Britain Through its Objects. Stroud: Amberley Publishing.
Fontijn, D.R. 2002. Sacrificial landscapes: cultural biographies of persons, objects and ‘natural’ places
in the Bronze Age of the Southern Netherlands, c.2300–600 BC. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 33/34.
University of Leiden.
Foster, J. 1986. The Lexden Tumulus: A Reappraisal of an Iron Age Burial from Colchester, Essex (British
Archaeological Reports British Series 156). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Gosden, C. and G. Lock 1998. Prehistoric Histories. World Archaeology 30(1): 2–12.
Grinsell, L.V. 1970. The Archaeology of Exmoor. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.
Gwilt, A. 2004. Late Bronze Age Societies (1150–600 BC); Tools and Weapons, in M. Aldhouse-Green and
R. Howell (eds) The Gwent County History Volume I; Gwent in Prehistory and Early History: 111–139. Cardiff:
University of Wales Press.
Gwilt, A. 2006. Llancarfan, Vale of Glamorgan: Late Bronze Age hoard (05.15). Treasure Annual Report
2005/6. London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport: 221.
Gwilt, A., M. Lodwick and M. Davis 2015. Treasure Act 1996 (Case 14.09 Wales). A probable Late Bronze
Age hoard from Penllyn, Vale of Glamorgan. Unpublished Treasure Report.
Gwilt, A., M. Lodwick, J. Deacon, N. Wells, R. Madgwick and T. Young 2016. Ephemeral Abundance at
Llanmaes: Exploring the residues and resonances of an Earliest Iron Age midden and its associated
archaeological context in the Vale of Glamorgan, in J.T. Koch and B. Cunliffe (eds) Celtic from the West
3: Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages: Questions of Shared Language: 293–332. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Hansen, S. 2016. A short history of fragments in hoards of the Bronze Age, in H. Baitinger (ed.)
Materielle Kultur und Identitätim Spannungsfeld Zwischenmediterraner Weltund Mitteleuropa: 185–205.
Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum.
Hawkes, C.F.C. 1954. Inventaria Archaeologica 1st Set. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Hingley, R. 2009. Esoteric knowledge? Ancient bronze artefacts from Iron Age contexts. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 75: 143–165.
Ingold, T. 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25(2): 152–174.
Jones, A.M. 2007. Memory and Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knight, M.G. 2019. A radiocarbon date for a Llyn Fawr phase hoard from Scotland. PAST. The Newsletter
of the Prehistoric Society 91: 13–14.
Knight, M.G. forthcoming. Putting ‘out-of-time’ metalwork in its place: commemorating and forgetting
traditions through the Bronze Age metalwork of Southern Britain, in C. Gibson, D. Brown, and J.
Pyzel (eds) Making and Unmaking Memories. Mundane Mnemonics, Artificial Amnesia and Transformed
Traditions. Oxford: Archaeopress.
39
Objects Of the Past in the Past
Knight, M.G. and A. Gwilt 2017. Treasure Act 1996 (Case 16.14 Wales) A Late Bronze Age hoard from
Mawr Community, Swansea. Unpublished Treasure Report.
Lawson, A.J. 2018. Late Bronze Age Hoards: New Light on Old Finds (East Anglian Archaeology 166). Dereham:
Historic Environment Service.
Levy, J.E. 2010. Memory, landscape and body in Bronze Age Denmark, in K.T. Lillios and V. Tsamis (eds)
Material Mnemonics. Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe: 123–146. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Lillios, K.T. 1999. Objects of memory: The ethnography and archaeology of heirlooms. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 6(3): 235–262.
Lillios, K.T. and V. Tsamis (eds) 2010. Material Mnemonics. Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Lynch, F. 1991. Prehistoric Anglesey 2nd Ed. Llangefni: The Anglesey Antiquarian Society.
McLaren, D. 2016. The provision of amulets and heirlooms in Early Bronze Age children’s burials in
Scotland, in F. Hunter and A. Sheridan (eds) Ancient Lives. Object, People and Place in Early Scotland.
Essays for David V Clarke on his 70th Birthday: 245–261. Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Mörtz, T. 2018. Violence and ritual in Late Bronze Age Britain: Weapon depositions and their
interpretation, in C. Horn and K. Kristiansen (eds) Warfare in Bronze Age Society: 168–188. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Needham, S.P. 1988. Selective deposition in the British Early Bronze Age. World Archaeology 20(2): 229–
248.
Needham, S.P. 2007. Bronze makes a Bronze Age? Considering the systemic of Bronze Age metal use
and the implications of selective deposition, in C. Burgess, P. Topping and F. Lynch (eds) Beyond
Stonehenge: Essays on the Bronze Age in Honour of Colin Burgess: 278–287. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Needham, S.P. 2015. Appendix 1: A revised classification and chronology for daggers and knives, in A.
Woodward and J. Hunter 2015. Ritual in Early Bronze Age Grave Goods. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Needham, S.P. 2017. Assemblage, structure and meaning in bronze metalwork studies: An analysis of
the British Penard assemblage. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 36(2): 111–156.
Needham, S.P. 2018. The Classification of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Metal Axe-heads from Southern
Britain. Oxford: Archaeopress.
O’Connor, B. 1979. A Middle Bronze Age spearhead from Merton. Oxoniensia 44: 92–93.
O’Connor, B. and T. Cowie 1995. Middle Bronze Age dirks and rapiers from Scotland: Some finds old and
new. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 125 (1995): 345–367.
Poyer, A.J. 2015. The Topographic Setting of Bronze Age Metalwork Deposits in North East England.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield.
Proceedings of the Society of the Antiquaries of London. 1856. Proceedings Thursday November 23rd,
1854. Proceedings of the Society of the Antiquaries of London 3 (1853–1856): 121.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1882. Donations to the museum. Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 16 (1881–1882): 401–418.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1921. Donations to the museum. Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 5th Ser. 7 (1920–21): 10–24.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1940. Donations to and purchases for the museum
1939–40. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 74 (1939–40): 147–151.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1958. Donations to and purchases for the museum
1955–6. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 89 (1955–56): 458–463.
Rowlands, M. 1976. The Organisation of Middle Bronze Age Metalworking (British Archaeological Report
British Series 31). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Rowlands, M.J. 1993. The role of memory in the transmission of culture. World Archaeology 25(2): 141–151.
Schmidt, P.K. and C.B. Burgess 1981. The Axes of Scotland and Northern England. Prähistoriche Bronzefunde
IX, 7. Munich: C.H. Beck.
40
Matthew G. KniGht: DOubtful assOciatiOns? assessinG bROnze aGe ‘Multi-PeRiOD’ hOaRDs
Taylor, R.J. 2003. The spearhead, in S. Coles, S. Hammond, J. Pine, S. Preston and A. Taylor (eds) Bronze
Age, Roman and Saxon Sites on Shrubsoles Hill, Sheppey and at Wises Lane, Borden, Kent: 42–43. Reading:
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd. Monograph 4.
Varley, R. 1977. Bronze axes from Calderdale. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 49: 51–56.
Walker, I.C. 1972. The counties of Nairnshire, Moray and Banffshire in the Bronze Age, Part II. Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 104 (1971–1972): 71–120.
Walker, J.W. 1939. Wakefield. Its History and People 2nd Ed. Wakefield: The West Yorkshire Printing
Company.
Weiner, A.B. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-while-Giving. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Woodward, A. 2000. The prehistoric pottery, in G. Hughes The Lockington Gold Hoard. An Early Bronze Age
barrow cemetery at Lockington, Leicestershire: 48–61. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Woodward, A. 2002. Beads and Beakers: Heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze Age. Antiquity
76(294): 1040–1047.
Woodward, A. and J. Hunter 2015. Ritual in Early Bronze Age Grave Goods. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Yates, D. and R. Bradley 2010a. Still water, hidden depths: The deposition of Bronze Age metalwork in
the English Fenland. Antiquity 84: 405–415.
Yates, D. and R. Bradley 2010b. The siting of metalwork hoards in the Bronze Age of South-East England.
The Antiquaries Journal 90: 41–72.
York, J. 2002. The life cycle of Bronze Age metalwork from the Thames. Oxford Journal of Archaeology
21(1): 77–92.
41