Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:24:24.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chronology and Terminology in the British Bronze Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

C. B. Burgess
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The paper pleads for an end to persistent misuse of the traditional ‘Three Age’ terminology which still governs the Irish British Bronze Age, and for acceptance of work of the past decade which has either been ignored or misunderstood. Uniform terms of reference are needed, fitted to the new attitudes. Hawkes's Scheme of 1960 provides a framework for this, and is summarized. The Early, Middle, and Late divisions now have a techno-typological, rather than cultural, basis.

Traditional cultural and ceramic concepts, based on typology, have resisted changes demanded by a new emphasis on the evidence of associated finds. The various Urn forms and the Deverel—Rimbury complex are particularly relevant here. Associations of Urns, and the few available C14 dates, are examined to demonstrate their existence in the Early Bronze Age, but, because of a remarkable ritual break at c. 1400, not in the Middle Bronze Age, let alone the Late Bronze Age. Similarly, Deverel—Rimbury is now Middle Bronze Age, not Late Bronze Age, its position after c. 1000 uncertain. Since much in our Iron Age is now thought indigenous, already apparent in Deverel—Rimbury, an awkward Late Bronze Age gap is opened up, apparently devoid of settlements and pottery. But much nominally Iron Age material may prove to be Late Bronze Age. There is a need for many more C14 dates to clarify these problems.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 1969 , pp. 22 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 22 note 1 C. F. C. Hawkes, ‘A scheme for the British Bronze Age’, duplicated précis of an address presented to the C.B.A. Bronze Age Conference, London, December 1960.

page 23 note 1 While acknowledging the validity of the recent reassessment of the ‘Deverel-Rimbury’ culture by Calkin, J. B. (Arch. Journ. cxix (1962) 1–65Google Scholar) and ApSimon, A. M. (P.P.S. xxviii (1962), 319–21Google Scholar), the term is used here in its traditional generic sense for the simple reason that no one has as yet proposed any reasonable substitute.

page 23 note 2 Cf. BuʼLock, J. D., T.L.C.A.S. lxxi (1961), 37Google Scholar.

page 23 note 3 It results not from any startling new evidence but from simple reassessment of existing evidence. BuʼLock, ibid., has been one of the few to make any bold statement on the subject, but see also Calkin, op. cit., pp. 1–2; Longworth, I. H., P.P.S. xxvii (1961), 289–90Google Scholar; Burgess, C. B., Trans. Rads. Soc. xxxii (1962), 15–16Google Scholar; and Longworth, I. H., B.M.Q. xxxi (1967), 111–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 23 note 4 Smith, M. A., P.P.S. xxv (1959), 164–7Google Scholar; Eogan, G., J.R.S.A.I. xcii (1962), 45–6Google Scholar; Coles, J. M., P.S.A.S. xcvii (1963–4), 126–8Google Scholar.

page 23 note 5 For socketed axes and swords, Smith, op. cit., pp. 146–50, 182–3; for pegged spearheads, Burgess, C. B., Bronze Age Metalwork in Northern England c. 1000–700 B.C. (1968).Google Scholar

page 23 note 6 Brown, M. A. and Blin-Stoyle, A. E., ‘A Sample Analysis of British Middle and Late Bronze Age Materials Using Optical Spectrometry’, P.P.S. xxv (1959), 188–208Google Scholar.

page 23 note 7 Burgess, C. B., Mon. Ant. i, pt. 2 (1962), 22Google Scholar.

page 24 note 1 Savory, H.N., Arch. Camb. cvii (1958), 28–34Google Scholar; B.B.C.S. xxi (1965), 182–7Google Scholar; Britton, D., Antiquity, xxxiv (1960), 279–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 24 note 2 In Burgess, op. cit., n. 5, p. 23 above.

page 24 note 3 Ibid.

page 24 note 4 Longworth, op. cit., p. 263.

page 24 note 5 Cf. Piggott, S., British Prehistory (1949), pp. 130–4, 140–8Google Scholar.

page 25 note 1 BuʼLock, op. cit.

page 25 note 2 I. H. Longworth, op. cit., pp. 282–90.

page 25 note 3 Smith, I. F. and Simpson, D. D. A., P.P.S. xxxii, (1966), 122–5, 132–4Google Scholar.

page 25 note 4 Radley, J., Arch. Journ. cxxiii (1966), 8–9, 13–15,20–3. fig.Google Scholar

page 25 note 5 e.g. Moot Low, Derbys. (Bateman, T., Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire (1848), p. 51Google Scholar) and Baildon Moor, Yorks. (Bradford Mus.). For the Beaker examples, cf. Piggott, S., Culture and Environment (1963), pp. 73–4Google Scholar.

page 25 note 6 e.g. Crookes, Yorks. (Sheffield Museum, Catalogue of the Bateman Collection (1899), pp. 136–7): this is certainly not a spearhead of Arreton Down type as claimed by BuʼLock, op. cit., pp. 22–3, fig. iv, 1.

page 25 note 7 At Over Darwen, Lanes., BuʼLock, op. cit., p. 21, iv, 2.

page 25 note 8 For general discussions of the associations of developed Collared urns see, inter alia, BuʼLock, op. cit., pp. 4–8, 20–9, and Radley, op. cit., pp. 13, 20–3.

page 25 note 9 P.S.A.S. 1 (1915–16), 302CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 26 note 1 Piggott, S., P.P.S. iv (1938), 851–7Google Scholar; Proudfoot, E. V. W., P.P.S. xxix (1963), 414Google Scholar.

page 26 note 2 Chitty, L. F., Arch. Camb. xcv (1940), 27–30Google Scholar, with figs. 1–2. The stake is lost, but a good drawing of it is included in the Albert Way Manu-scripts in the library of the Society of Antiquaries of London. I am grateful to Miss L. F. Chitty and Dr. J. D. Cowen for drawing these manuscripts to my attention.

page 26 note 3 J.R.S.A.I. lxxi (1941), 140Google Scholar. This pot is usually described as a Cordoned urn, but is, perhaps, really a developed Collared urn.

page 26 note 4 In the National Museum of Antiquities, Edinburgh.

page 26 note 5 For Class IB razors, Piggott, C. M., P.P.S. xii (1946), 122–6Google Scholar, reconsidered by Butler, J. J. and Smith, I. F., U.L.I.A.A.R. xii (1956), 20 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Prendergast, E., J.R.S.A.I. xc (1960), 5–9Google Scholar.

page 26 note 6 Such a razor was included in the Sögel grave group from Drouwen, Drenthe, which must be broadly contemporary with Wessex II (Butler and Smith, op. cit., pp. 22–4, 49; Butler, J. J., Palaeohistoria, ix (1963), 115–17, 238Google Scholar. The association with a trilobate pin and twin-looped flanged axe at Bryn Crug, Caerns. (Wheeler, R. E. M., Prehistoric and Roman Wales (1925), pp. 145–6, fig. 48Google Scholar), and those from Stancomb, Berks. (Archaeologia lxxv (1924–5), 95Google Scholar) and Broughton-in-Craven, Yorks. (T. D. Whitaker, Ducatus Leodiensis (1816), pp. 114–15; Butler and Smith, op. cit., pp. 31, 51) must be broadly contemporary,

page 26 note 7 e.g. Down, near Banff, with barbed and tanged arrowheads, and Mill of Marcus, Forfar, with a segmented faience bead. Cf. Fox, C., Antiq. Journ. vii (1927), 129Google Scholar (National Museum of Antiquities, Edinburgh).

page 26 note 8 Livens, R. G., ‘A Bronze Palstave and Encrusted Urn from Lilliesleaf (Rox.)’, T.G.A.S. xiv (1956), 31–4Google Scholar.

page 26 note 9 Ibid., pp. 31–2, 34.

page 27 note 1 Op. cit., pp. 32–3. Also Smith, I. F., ‘An Essay Towards the Reformation of the British Bronze Age’, Helinium, i (1961), 97 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 27 note 2 Ibid.; also Britton, D., P.P.S. xxix (1963), 275Google Scholar; Inv. Arch., GB. 14, 3rd set (1956), and GB. 26, 5th set (1958).

page 27 note 3 As indeed Butler and Smith recognized, op. cit. Smith, op. cit., esp. pp. 108–9. See also Case, H. J., Oxoniensia, xxix–xxx (1964–5), 19–20Google Scholar.

page 27 note 4 Glasbergen, W., Palaeohistoria ii (1954), 86 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 129. See also Butler and Smith, op. cit., and Smith, op. cit.

page 27 note 5 Arch. Cant. (1874), pp. 16 ff.

page 27 note 6 Stone, J. F. S. and Thomas, L. C., P.P.S. xxii (1956), 58Google Scholar, also Annable, F. K., and Simpson, D. D. A., Guide Catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age Collections in Devizes Museum (1964), p. 29Google Scholar.

page 27 note 7 Cf. Case, op. cit., esp. p. 21.

page 27 note 8 Radley, op. cit., p. 22.

page 28 note 1 Radley, op. cit., p. 22.

page 28 note 2 Case, op. cit., p. 14, 19–21, with fig. 26, 3/3.

page 28 note 3 Butler and Smith, op. cit., pp. 37–48.

page 28 note 4 P.P.S. xxv (1959), 144–59Google Scholar; see also Hawkes, op. cit.

page 28 note 5 Rahtz, P. A., P.P.S. xxviii (1962), 289–90Google Scholar.

page 28 note 6 Hodson, F. R., ‘Cultural Grouping within the British pre-Roman Iron Age’, P.P.S. xxx (1964), 99–110Google Scholar.

page 28 note 7 Burgess, C. B., ‘The Later Bronze Age in the British Isles and North West France’, Arch. Journ. cxxv (1968), forthcomingGoogle Scholar.