The Bronze Age
(c. 2500 – 800 BC)
One of the closing acts of the story of King Arthur and his knights consists of the disposal of the sword Excalibur. As the king lies mortally wounded, his trusted companion Sir Bedevere takes the sword and tosses it into a lake where it is grasped by a mysterious hand rising from the water. Arthur will soon make a similar journey, as he is conveyed to the mysterious Isle of Avalon to await his return at our greatest hour of need. The sword Excalibur, beyond its obvious role as a weapon, can be viewed as an artefact which represents Arthur’s status, strength and kingship. It therefore seems appropriate that it will have no other owner and will instead disappear in magical circumstances. The story of Arthur, as we shall see in a later chapter, is a myth without factual basis. Yet the scene of the disposal of Excalibur in a lake reaches back into prehistory and owes much to religious belief and ritual practice in the Bronze Age.
The system of dividing prehistory into three separate periods, namely the Stone Age (Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic), Bronze Age and Iron Age has been in use since the nineteenth century. Whilst this system is a convenient method of delineating the vast span of prehistory, it has increasingly been viewed as overly simplistic. The boundary between the Neolithic and Bronze Age is particularly problematic in this regard. The developments at Stonehenge, for example, continue through the late Neolithic and into the early Bronze Age, with little to suggest any radical differences between the two eras. It should also be noted that there are significant variations in the archaeological record on a regional basis meaning that some areas could be classed as Neolithic whilst others should, more properly, be considered to show the characteristics of the Bronze Age. Indeed, many archaeologists view the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age as one distinct period. There does seem to be a clear transition around 1500 BC between this early period and the middle and late Bronze Age. The reasons for this will be examined later, but it is clear that there were three elements to this transition.1 The cultivation of land became increasingly concentrated on areas with productive soils, with less useful areas abandoned from an agricultural perspective. The internment of the dead became less visible in the landscape as Bronze Age people ceased to use round barrows as funerary monuments and instead used cremation cemeteries or urnfields. It is also possible that they disposed of their dead using methods which leave no archaeological trace, such as scattering their ashes in lakes, rivers and other watery places. The amount of metal artefacts deposited with the deceased also radically decreased after 1500 BC. Instead, metal artefacts tended to be deliberately deposited in hoards not directly associated with funerary monuments. Whilst acknowledging that the Bronze Age consists of at least two phases, studying the period as a self-contained unit of time allows us to understand the origins of metalworking in Britain and the impact which this had on society, culture and the landscape.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BRONZE
The key difference between the Bronze Age and the preceding periods consists of the use of metals, as opposed to stone, for the creation of tools and weapons. In fact, the earliest use of metals in Britain probably belongs to the late Neolithic. Artefacts made of gold and copper have been dated to between 2700 and 2000 BC. Even this early date is considerably later than the appearance of metalwork in the Near East and Europe, which can be traced back to almost 2000 years before their use in Britain. In some areas of Europe, archaeologists have been able to identify a separate Copper Age, prior to the advent of bronze. From a British perspective, the sole use of copper was probably too short to classify as a specific period in its own right. Copper is a relatively soft metal and does not possess many utilitarian advantages over the earlier stone tools. For this reason, bronze became increasingly important as a resource. Bronze is produced by mixing copper with tin through a ratio of around 8:1. In Britain, lead was often added to the mix as well.
The creation of bronze required a renewed emphasis on mining. Tin was available in sufficient quantities in Cornwall, where it continued to be mined into the modern period. Copper appears to have been mined at a number of sites, the most interesting of which can be found at the Great Orme near Llandudno. The Great Orme mine was one of the largest Bronze Age mines in Europe. Mining at the site continued from around 1800 – 900 BC: an extremely long lifespan for an individual mine, perhaps indicating how important it was in Bronze Age Britain. Copper ore was extracted by heating the rock through the use of fire. It was then rapidly cooled by throwing water upon it leading to cracks being formed. Tools made of bronze, bone and antler were then used to break it down further. The mine consisted of two separate categories of activity. Opencast working on the surface required the removal of around 40,000 cubic metres of material. Below ground, a series of horizontal and vertical shafts run to a depth of 70 m below ground level. The narrow width of some of the tunnels makes it almost certain that children were used as miners. It has been estimated that the Great Orme mine would have produced up to 235 tonnes of copper during its working life. The extent of the workings and the long span of the mine’s existence demonstrate the value which was placed on bronze during this period.2
It should be appreciated that the process of creating metals, from material taken from the ground, and converting it into a useful object can be seen as magical. The skill necessary to perform this task would have given the metalworker considerable status. A good example of this can be found in a barrow (or burial mound) at Upton Lovell in Wiltshire. This barrow dates to between 1900 and 1700 BC. The male individual buried within the mound was surrounded by an array of unusual objects including a cloak decorated with thirty-six boar tusks, axe heads and stone cups. He also possessed a set of hammers for working metals and a collection of polishing stones. It is almost certain that the Upton Lovell burial represents an early metalworker. It has also been suggested that he may have been a shaman, based on some of the other items within his burial assemblage. The magical power which a shaman was believed to possess could easily be ascribed also to his metalworking abilities, which could be seen as a form of alchemy in producing new useful materials from what appeared to be stones. Throughout prehistory and in later periods, the modern distinction between the sacred and secular did not exist. Daily activities were infused with ritual actions and religious belief to maintain a sense of harmony with the deities.3 The extraction and use of metals would also have had deep ritual significance, particularly due to the level of danger and risk associated with these activities.
BEAKER CULTURE
The appearance of metalworking in Britain raises the issue of how such knowledge and skill was transmitted. A number of archaeologists have assumed that the advent of the Bronze Age indicates the arrival in Britain of a migrant population who brought an understanding of metalworking with them. It is noteworthy that across most of Europe the appearance of metalworking is roughly contemporary with a new style of pottery in the forms of finely decorated beakers. Material evidence for metalworking alongside beaker pottery has been identified as signifying a Beaker Culture. Evidence for this Beaker Culture has been found from across Europe from as far east as Hungary to Ireland in the west. Beaker pottery tends to be found in graves from around 2500 – 2200 BC, in other words around the start of the Bronze Age. Beaker Culture is not simply a case of finding beaker pottery. Instead, it seems to be represented by a complex package of artefacts which are repeated across multiple sites. Typical Beaker assemblages contain beaker pottery, copper knives, flint arrowheads and stone wrist-guards, to protect the individual’s wrist and arm during archery. The frequency with which these artefacts are found together indicates that they were of more than practical value. On first glance they perhaps suggest a hunter or warrior identity, but they may also have been symbolic of the values prized by the Beaker Culture rather than demonstrating the attributes of the deceased individual.
Over 2000 sites in Britain and Ireland have produced Beaker pottery. In Britain, evidence for the Beaker Culture is particularly concentrated around Wessex and the Upper Thames Valley, as well as along the eastern coast. A recent scientific project has studied the remains of Beaker people from British graves in order to understand their diet and lifestyle.4 These individuals seem to have had a specific diet, not necessarily linked to their particular environment. Very little evidence for a seafood or marine diet was found, even from individuals found close to the coast. Analysis of dental wear suggests that they did not consume bread made from stone ground flour, although it seems like their diet was high in green vegetables. Pottery analysis has revealed high levels of consumption of a range of dairy products. Overall, these individuals seem to have been of relatively good health. There is far less evidence for personal violence than during the Neolithic period. Analysis of oxygen and strontium isotopes in dental enamel allows scientists to trace the likely region in which an individual was raised as a child, based on the drinking water which they consumed. When this technique is applied to Beaker people in Britain, it suggests a reasonably mobile population. A high proportion of them were not raised in the area in which they were buried. Some certainly had links with the Continent.
Three of the most important burials for understanding Beaker Culture have been found close to Stonehenge at Amesbury and Boscombe Down.5 The grave of the so-called Amesbury Archer contains the largest assemblage of grave-goods ever discovered within a Beaker burial. He was buried with Beaker pots, a wrist-guard, arrowheads, flints, a copper knife and a stone for working metal. Two gold earrings were also placed in the grave. The Archer was between 35 and 45 years old at the time of his death. Radiocarbon dating indicates that he was buried between 2380 – 2290 BC. Analysis of his dental enamel indicates that the Amesbury Archer probably grew up on the Continent, most likely somewhere close to the Alps. Another grave was found close to that of the Archer. This individual, nicknamed the Companion by archaeologists, died between 2350 – 2260 BC. Both the Archer and his Companion possessed the same congenital foot condition indicating a genetic relationship. It seems highly likely that these individuals were father and son. Interestingly, the Companion was raised locally in Wessex but seems to have spent some of his teenage years on the Continent. The third grave, from Boscombe Down, consists of a communal burial of a group named the ‘Boscombe Bowmen’. A group of several adults, teenagers and children were buried together, possibly over a long period of time. The grave has been tentatively dated to 2510 – 2300 BC. It seems highly likely that these individuals were all part of a family group. All of the individuals in the grave were male. Eight Beaker pots were discovered alongside the burials, the largest number known from a single burial. A boar’s tusk and arrowheads were also recovered from the site. Like the Archer, scientific analysis indicates that these individuals were not raised locally. We cannot be sure where they come from exactly, although the Lake District or Wales are possibilities. Some archaeologists have argued that they could have originated in mainland Europe.
The burials at Amesbury and Boscombe Down indicate a surprising degree of mobility during the early Bronze Age. Only the Companion was raised locally and he had spent a considerable amount of time in mainland Europe during his youth. There is clear evidence in these burials of prolonged and sustained contact with the mainland. It is noteworthy that the analysis of strontium and oxygen isotopes in dental enamel can only trace movements during the youth of an individual. Journeys made during adulthood cannot be traced. It is evident that the Beaker people were at least a semi-mobile population with considerable social links across Britain and Europe. The journey which the teenage Companion made to Europe would have entailed crossing the English Channel and a number of different territories. The fact that such an itinerary was possible demonstrates the existence of complex social networks connecting Beaker individuals across Britain and mainland Europe. Not all of the Beaker people were of Continental origin. It seems likely that there was an initial arrival of a small number of individuals who carried knowledge of metal working with them. The Amesbury Archer was potentially one of these first arrivals. They assimilated into the local population but their descendants maintained their traditions and status markers through the artefacts with which they were buried. The Beaker people also maintained their semi-mobile lifestyles which included, in some instances at least, travel across and beyond Britain.
Contact with mainland Europe flourished throughout the Bronze Age. In part, this was due to the demand for bronze and other metal objects. Trading networks between Britain and the Continent became increasingly sophisticated to serve this demand. Although it is difficult to trace the mechanics of this early trading system, it should not be viewed as one-way traffic. Cornish tin would have been of particular demand on the Continent as a necessary part of the bronze production process. Similarities are apparent in the archaeological record on both sides of the Channel in terms of material culture and settlement types, indicating widespread and prolonged interaction between communities. Artefacts recovered through underwater archaeology provide an insight into the scale of trade taking place across the Channel. Such finds often come from presumed shipwrecks, although others could be a product of deliberate deposition at sea as a ritual act. One find at Langdon Bay off Dover consisted of around 360 bronze tools and weapons dating to around 1300 – 1150 BC. It is likely that these objects were being transported to Britain for resmelting. Recycling is not a new concept, particularly where metals are concerned. A number of shipwrecks have been discovered in Salcombe estuary in Devon. One boat carried 259 copper ingots and twenty-seven tin ingots, along with a sword and gold bracelets. This particular find has been dated to 900 BC, close to the end of the Bronze Age. The presence of copper and tin ingots strongly suggests that this was a shipment of raw materials quarried in Britain being transported to the Continent to be converted into bronze.6
BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPES
The Bronze Age had a profound impact on the British landscape, particularly through agriculture. Whilst the Neolithic witnessed deliberate attempts to impose monuments upon the landscape, the Bronze Age saw the first successful attempts to control the landscape through dividing it for agricultural use in a managed process. Bronze Age settlements consisted of roundhouses, usually in groups of between two and ten. Roundhouses, despite their appearance, had a sophisticated design.7 They could possess up to 100 m2 of floor space. Doorways tended to face south, to maximise the amount of daylight entering the dwelling. The roofs were thatched with rushes or turf. Contrary to popular depictions, chimney holes were not provided in the thatch. Experimental archaeology has demonstrated that chimney holes are a safety hazard as they encourage sparks to fly up to the thatch. Instead, the smoke would have gently dissipated through the thatch. Meat and fish may have been hung in the rafters to be smoked. Some roundhouses also had purpose built gullies outside to catch and channel rainwater pouring from the thatch. Roundhouses tended to be accompanied by outhouses and sheds for holding livestock.
Buildings of increasing complexity begin to appear in the late Bronze Age in the form of the so-called ring forts, which were built c. 1000 – 800 BC.8 These were large circular structures containing one or more timber buildings, surrounded by concentric ditches. Some appear to have possessed timber palisades. Impressive examples have been excavated at Thwing in Yorkshire and Mucking in Essex. The purpose and function of the ring forts is a matter of continuing debate. Some archaeologists dislike the term ring forts, for its martial undertones, and prefer to describe them as ring works. Regardless of the term used, they were clearly imposing structures which involved a form of display. It is possible that they were elite residences with a defensive function. On the other hand, they do bear a marked resemblance to Neolithic henges. Indeed, some ring forts have been previously misidentified as henges. They could have had similar functions, as communal places for public ceremonies.
Bronze Age farmers began a deliberate process of creating field systems to divide the land between them. To a certain extent, this laid the foundations for the field systems still in use in the British countryside today. Deliberate woodland clearance had been undertaken during the Neolithic. Indeed, there is evidence of burning being used to clear areas at Star Carr during the Mesolithic. However, the early Bronze Age saw acceleration in the pace of woodland clearance across Britain, particularly in upland areas. For example, the lowlands of Cumbria were cleared of forest by 1700 BC and much of the Pennine uplands by 1200 BC.9 This deliberate programme of woodland clearance from 2500 BC represents a clear attempt to increase the amount of land available for agricultural use through the cultivation of crops or raising of livestock.
One of the best examples for understanding Bronze Age field systems can be found on Dartmoor in Devon. Woodland clearance on Dartmoor began around 4000 BC and was completed by 1500 BC. The landscape of Dartmoor visible today owes much to the actions of Bronze Age farmers. The clearances consisted not just of removing trees and bushes, but also stones and rock which were strewn across the landscape, requiring a considerable amount of labour and organisation. Removing these rocks not only eased ploughing, but also increased the area available to vegetation and provided building materials. Bronze Age Dartmoor was characterized by the regular layout of fields over large areas. Farmers grew cereal crops and raised livestock, mainly sheep and cattle. The process of dividing Dartmoor into individual fields shows clear evidence of careful management, whether through the control of a single leader or the collaborative activities of a group of farmers.10 In total, around 10,000 hectares of land were enclosed. Dartmoor was divided into five major territories, subdivided into large strips of land. In some cases, these were then divided into even smaller fields. The earliest field boundaries were probably built of timber. However, this would become increasingly scarce as the clearances progressed. Later boundaries consisted of ‘reaves’ or low straight stone barriers holding an earth bank. A hedge probably ran along the bank which, through careful management and regular pruning would prove a formidable obstacle for wandering livestock. Settlements were usually located within or close to the fields, indicating a sense of ownership over individual parcels of farmland. There is some evidence to suggest that monuments to the dead, in the form of burial cairns, were usually found close to the boundaries between different farming territories. This suggests that the role of the ancestors in watching over and protecting agricultural land, which seems to have been a prevalent belief during the Neolithic, was of continuing importance during the Bronze Age as well. Most of the settlements on Dartmoor seem to have been abandoned by around 1200 BC. This was not an isolated event, as most of the British uplands seem to have been abandoned by Bronze Age farming communities by 1000 BC at the latest. Farmers seem to have returned to the lowlands and not repeated their attempt to exploit upland areas for agricultural purposes. The abandonment of the uplands may have had an ecological cause. These areas were unsuitable for long term grazing or crop cultivation due to poor soil conditions. It is therefore possible that they were abandoned as they were no longer productive or efficient to farm. On the other hand, climate change may also have played a role in encouraging farmers to abandon their land. It has been calculated that there was a significant drop in temperature in Britain sometime around 1000 BC.11 This climatic change would have made upland farming increasingly difficult, particularly during the winter months. It seems likely that poor soil conditions combined with an increasingly harsh climate forced Bronze Age farmers to return to the lowlands.12
Lowland farms were not without their own problems. The Fenlands of East Anglia, for example, were prone to flooding during the winter months. A long standing research project has studied the Bronze Age landscape around Fengate near Peterborough. Farms tended to be located on the higher land to prevent them from being flooded. The field system was defined by boundary ditches. Droveways, for facilitating the movement of livestock to summer pastures, were located every 200m or so across the landscape. These droveways were clearly marked through ditches and banks.13
An insight into the religious beliefs of these early Fenland farming communities is provided by the site of Flag Fen. This site would have been a shallow lake during winter months, although it probably dried out somewhat during the summer.14 Excavations have revealed a timber trackway which connected dry ground at Fengate to an island at Whittlesey, a distance of just over 1 km. This trackway was not a light undertaking. Over 60,000 timber posts were used in its construction, requiring the felling of over 20,000 trees. Given the local environment, this timber must have been transported a considerable distance to the site. The trackway was probably at least partly submerged during the winter, meaning that it would have been in use during the summer, when sand and gravel were spread along it to prevent slippages. Dendrochronological dating of the timbers indicates that it was in use from 1300 – 924 BC.
Excavations at Flag Fen revealed far more than the timber causeway. Over 300 separate finds of Bronze Age metalwork were recovered from the site, including swords, daggers, spearheads and metal working implements. Shale bracelets and a surprising quantity of dog bones were also discovered. These objects had been deliberately thrown into the water from the timber trackway. The dog bones indicate that these animals were sacrificed at the site. Many of the objects had been deliberately broken or put beyond use prior to being deposited in the water. Some of the spearheads, for example, had been partially melted down. The range of finds recovered from the site indicates that deliberate depositions were taking place at Flag Fen for almost 1300 years. This was clearly a site of great ritual significance.
What was going on at Flag Fen? We started this chapter by considering the disposal of the sword Excalibur in a lake, in circumstances which are remarkably similar to Bronze Age rituals at Flag Fen. It is possible that a similar mindset was held by the local Bronze Age population. Weapons and tools are markers of status and social identity, as is evidenced by the arrowheads interred with the Amesbury Archer and Boscombe Bowmen. They can represent the strength, martial prowess and authority of the individual, or the values of a particular society. The deliberate vandalism of these objects was perhaps designed to prevent them being used by humans again. It could be that a warrior would dedicate his weapons to a deity on the completion of his fighting career (in a way similar to the story of King Arthur) or in fulfilment of a vow after a victory. It could be that these objects were dedicated because of their intrinsic value as objects fit for the gods, rather than for the personal history of the individual concerned.
The deliberate deposition of artefacts in the ground as hoards is particularly common in the Bronze Age and beyond. Although it was once believed that these objects had been hidden for later retrieval, it is now almost certain that these hoards represent deliberate ritual activity. It is possible that the demand for trade with the Continent was encouraged through the removal of metal from circulation to be interred in hoards. Although hoards were also buried on dry land, watery sites were a particular focus for ritual depositions.15 Bronze Age artefacts have been recovered from a number of rivers in Britain, including the Thames and Trent, indicating that this was not a localised phenomenon. The concept of liminality is important for understanding the ritual significance of watery places in the Bronze Age. The term ‘liminal’ refers to a place, person, event or object which sits at the boundary between two worlds or domains. Halloween is a liminal event, as it is the time when the boundary between the living and the dead is believed to be permeable. Likewise, a shaman is a liminal individual as he or she is believed to possess the ability to travel to the divine realm. Watery places can be identified as liminal locations, in that they appear to represent the boundary between this world and that of the supernatural. It is impossible to understand exactly what a Bronze Age community may have believed about a specific location, but it is likely that the concept of liminality explains why they deposited objects in the water at Flag Fen. They were literally sending it to the gods. It is interesting to note that we are essentially echoing this behaviour whenever we throw coins into a wishing well.
SEAHENGE
The most enigmatic Bronze Age site in Britain has been erroneously nicknamed Seahenge, although it is certainly not a henge. Seahenge consists of a series of oak posts which were discovered on a beach near Holme-next-the-Sea (Fig 2). In the Bronze Age, this site was situated close to the sea, on an area of mudflats protected from the fury of the waves by sand and gravel banks. The posts were arranged in a rough circle or ellipse with a diameter of around 6.5 m. A total of fifty-five different timbers formed the perimeter. These posts would probably have risen 3 – 4 m into the air. In contrast to the timber circles of the Neolithic, these were not designed to surround a public area. The surrounding timbers form a solid wall with a narrow entrance formed only by a forked timber post. This entrance faces the south west which, perhaps deliberately, is the direction of the midwinter sunset. The activity conducted within was clearly not meant for public consumption. Each of the timber posts had been carefully debarked. Around fifty separate axes were used in felling and shaping the timbers. In the centre of the ellipse was an oak trunk which was deliberately placed upside down, with its root system in the air. This tree was 167 years old when it was felled. Clearly the decision to invert this trunk was of central significance for the meaning of the site. Dendrochronological dating indicates that the trees were felled between April and June of 2049 BC.
Understanding the meaning of Seahenge is difficult.16 The location of the site by the sea strongly suggests that it was understood as a liminal location, in other words a boundary between two worlds. It has been suggested that the site could have functioned as an excarnation enclosure. Some communities in Bronze Age Britain did practice excarnation, which consists of leaving bodies to be defleshed by scavengers so that the bones can be removed later for burial. In this theory, the body could have been placed in the roots of the inverted trunk at the centre of the site. The concept of inverting a tree trunk is known from European folklore, where it was believed to grow in the other world. Another way to understand the site may be to consider the theory that wood was used in prehistoric religion to symbolise life, as opposed to stone which represented death.17 In this case, Seahenge would be the focus for ceremonies and rituals concerning the living rather than the deceased.
The people of Bronze Age Britain seem tantalisingly close to us and yet, at the same time, remarkably alien. Looking at their farms and field systems, it is easy to recognise that they would have shared many of the problems experienced by modern farmers: the climate, flooding and soil conditions. Their connections with European communities and, in some instances, their mobility may also seem familiar. However, many of their beliefs defy our attempts to understand them through their complexity and sophistication. Our interpretations often rely heavily on comparative material from other periods and locations, which are not necessarily sound indicators of religious practice in prehistory. What is clear is that the population of Bronze Age Britain had a profound impact upon our landscape. Their activities do not reflect a break with those of their Neolithic ancestors, but instead represent a continuing development of the agricultural practices and belief systems of earlier prehistory. The attempted shift to upland farming, even though ultimately unsuccessful in the long term, indicates a desire to maximise the amount of land under agricultural exploitation. This, in turn, would lead to a greater agricultural surplus which could provide for a more diversified society. There are glimpses of status and rank in the Bronze Age, through the ring forts and the weapons deposited in hoards or burials. The more stratified and hierarchical societies of the Iron Age and beyond would be fed by an agricultural surplus created by the innovative developments in farming begun during the Bronze Age.