The life cycle of bronze age metalwork from the Thames

Abstract

The high proportion of Bronze Age metalwork found in the Thames has aroused interest for many years, but all too little is known of the circumstances in which this material was deposited. Much of it is weaponry, but there are finds of tools as well. This paper examines the material found upstream of Teddington and considers its treatment before it entered the river. A high proportion of the artefacts had been used and some of them deliberately destroyed. There are marked variations in the selection and treatment of these artefacts along different lengths of the river and in different periods of the Bronze Age, but it seems likely that the proportion of fine metalwork that was deliberately damaged before it entered the river increased sharply over time. Recovery methods and documentationMost river metalwork was recovered by dredging, and some was found during the building of locks, bridges and riverside structures or brought to museums as stray finds.

The function of Chalcolithic metalwork in Italy: an assessment based on use-wear analysis

“…Reluctance to evaluate metals by this method can be ascribed to fears that recycling, manipulation, resharpening, and post-depositional corrosion would seriously hinder its interpretive potential. However, several researchers have achieved promising results by analysing prehistoric metal objects from across Europe (Brandherm, in press;Bridgford, 1997;Gutiérrez Sáez and Soriano Llopis, 2008;Kienlin and Ottaway, 1998;Kristiansen, 1978Kristiansen, , 2002Moyler, 2008;O'Flaherty et al, 2008;Quilliec, 2008;Roberts and Ottaway, 2003;Vandkilde, 1996;Wall, 1987;York, 2002). Their work shows that, despite the strong limitations posed by surface oxidisation, questions concerning metalwork technology and function can be positively addressed by use-wear analysis.…”

“…Wall (1987), for example, examined British Early Bronze Age daggers only with the naked eye and did not conduct any experimental work on replicas. Varying analytical methods have also been applied to swords (Bridgford, 1997;Kristiansen, 2002;Mödlinger, in press;Quilliec, 2008), halberds (Brandherm, 2003, in press;O'Flaherty et al, 2008), shields (Uckelmann, in press), and spearheads (Appleby, 2003;York, 2002). Interestingly, all works carried out on swords show that a high percentage of these implements suffered from damage caused by metal-on-metal strokes which presumably occurred in combat.…”

New insights on Late Bronze Age Cu-metallurgy from Coles de Samuel hoard (Central Portugal): A combined multi-analytical approach

“…Since the first studies on hoards, in the second half of the 19th century, this bipolar classification -utilitarian vs. ritual hoards -has given rise to many interpretative problems and prolonged debates and discussions among researchers, proving that this approach is too paradigmatic and schematic to explain an archaeological evidence as complex as prehistoric hoards are: in fact, it is nowadays generally accepted that a hoard can no longer be viewed in terms of utilitarian or votive deposition and new and stimulating alternative perspectives have been adopted (Fontijn, 2002;Gosden and Marshall, 1999;Kopytoff, 1986;Osborne, 2004;Whitley, 2002;York, 2002).…”

Weapons, fighters and combat: spears and swords in Early Bronze Age Scandinavia

“…This fact is reflected in publications concerned with use-wear analysis. The corpus of studies on swords following Kristiansen's (1978Kristiansen's ( , 1984Kristiansen's ( , 2002 works is impressive (Bridgford 1997, York 2002, Quilliec 2008, Bunnefeld and Schwenzer 2011, Colquhoun 2011, Matthews 2011, Molloy 2011. In contrast, papers analysing use-wear on spears are scant (Schauer 1979, Anderson 2011.…”