Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:14:35.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Environmental and Social Context of the Isleham Hoard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2010

Tim Malim ,
Steve Boreham ,
David Knight ,
George Nash ,
Richard Preece  and
Jean-Luc Schwenninger
Tim Malim*
Affiliation:
Tim Malim, 24 Station Road, Whitchurch SY13 1RE, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Steve Boreham*
Affiliation:
Steve Boreham, Quaternary Palaeoenvironments Group, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, CambridgeCB2 3EN, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
David Knight*
Affiliation:
David Knight, 1 Taunton Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 6EW, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
George Nash*
Affiliation:
George Nash, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Bristol, 43 Woodlands Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8 1UU, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Richard Preece*
Affiliation:
Richard Preece, University Museum of Zoology, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Jean-Luc Schwenninger*
Affiliation:
Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and Art History, Dysons Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes the rediscovery of the exact location for the Isleham hoard (tl 63197253) and presents the results of related fieldwork; it briefly reviews the metallurgical significance of the hoard, and discusses its local environmental and social context, as well as the distribution of founder's hoards within the Fenland region.

The hoard was found to have been placed in a pit dug into a filled-in Bronze Age boundary ditch, next to a rectangular building, and adjacent to the edge of low-lying wetland bordering a palaeochannel which revealed an environmental sequence stretching from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. This area is also in proximity to a possible ringwork. Mesolithic and Neolithic activity is evidenced by residual flint tools and pottery. By the Bronze Age the tongue of fen next to the hoard had begun to be invaded by ferns and terrestrial vegetation and its latest peat phase was radiocarbon dated to 4045 ± 62 bp. Molluscs within the boundary ditch show an open landscape with a mixture of dryland and wetland taxa, and the presence of Vertigo angustior, a rare British species no longer known from Cambridgeshire, and one indicative of transitional habitats between wet and dry land. This landscape was probably contemporary with the deposition of the hoard.

Current typological and radiocarbon analysis for Wilburton metalwork would suggest a date within the period 1150 to 1000 bc for the hoard, whilst a typological assessment of the pot in which the hoard was found suggests an affinity with Post-Deverel-Rimbury (PDR) Plainware dated currently from around 1150 to 800 bc. OSL dating of a sample of the pot containing the hoard yielded a date of 1460 ± 230 bc at 1 sigma.

The locations of other founder's hoards within the region suggest a clustering in the southern fens and South Cambridgeshire, apparently related to ancient routeways.

Résumé

Cette communication décrit la redécouverte de l’emplacement précis du trésor d’Isleham (tl 63197253) et présente les résultats des travaux sur le terrain qu’y s’y rapportent; il passe brièvement en revue la signification métallurgique du trésor et discute son contexte local environnemental et social, ainsi que la répartition des trésors de fondateurs dans la région du Fenland [plaines marécageuses du Norfolk].

Le trésor avait été découvert placé dans une fosse creusée dans un fossé de bornage datant de l’âge du bronze et comblé par la suite, à côté d’un bâtiment rectangulaire, et adjacent au bord de terres humides en basse altitude elles-mêmes au bord d’un paléo chenal qui révélait une séquence environnementale allant du mésolithique à l’âge du bronze. Cette région est également proche d’un enclos circulaire possible. Des indices de résidus de céramique et d’outils en silex témoignent d’activité mésolithique et néolithique. Dès l’âge du bronze, les fougères et la végétation terrestre avaient commencé à envahir la langue de marécage située à côté du trésor, et sa dernière phase de tourbe a été datée au radiocarbone à 4045 ± 62 bp. La présence de mollusques à l’intérieur du fossé de bornage indique un paysage ouvert avec un mélange de taxons de terres sèches et de terres humides, et la présence de Vertigo angustior, une espèce britannique rare qui n’est plus connue au Cambridgeshire, et qui indique des habitats de transition entre les terres humides et les terres sèches. Ce paysage était probablement contemporain du dépôt du trésor.

L’analyse actuelle, typologique et au radiocarbone, des objets en bronze de la phase Wilburton de l’âge du bronze en Grande-Bretagne nous permet de suggérer une date se situant entre 1150 et 1000 avant J.-C. pour le trésor, alors qu’une analyse typologique du pot dans lequel avait été découvert le trésor suggère un rapport avec la céramique de type plainware Post-Deverel-Rimbury (PDR) datée à l’heure actuelle entre environ 1150 à 800 avant J.-C. La datation OSL d’un échantillon du pot contenant le trésor a donné une date de 1460 ± 230 avant J.-C. à 1 sigma.

Les emplacements d’autres trésors de fondateurs dans cette région suggèrent un groupe dans le sud des plaines marécageuses et dans le sud du Cambridgeshire, apparemment associé à d’anciennes voies de communication.

Zusammenfassung

Der Artikel beschreibt eine Wiederentdeckung der exakten Fundstelle des Depotfunds von Isleham (Rasterbezugspunkt tl 63197253), und legt die Resultate der Geländearbeiten vor. Es bespricht die metallurgische Bedeutung des Depots und das lokale Umfeld und der soziale Kontext werden diskutiert, sowie die Verteilung von Rohmetalldepots in der Fenland Region. Das Depot befand sich in einer Grube, innerhalb eines verschlammten bronzezeitlichen Grenzgrabens, neben einem rechteckigem Gebäude und am Rand eines niedrigen Feuchtgebietes. Umweltfunde aus dem angrenzenden Flußbett spannen vom Mesolithikum bis in die Bronzezeit. Die Fundstelle befindet sich auch in der Nähe eines kreisförmigen Erdwerkes. Überreste von Feuersteinwerkzeugen und Keramiken bezeugen mesolithische und neolithische Siedlung. In der Bronzezeit begann der Ausläufer dieses Teils des Moores mit Farnen und terrestrischer Vegetation zu überwachsen und die letzte Torfphase wurde auf 4045±62 bp datiert. Molluskenfunde innerhalb des Grenzgrabens weisen auf eine offene Landschaft hin, mit einer Mischung aus Land- und Moortaxen und das Vorkommen von Vertigo angustior, eine seltene Britische Gattung, die in der Grafschaft Cambridgeshire nicht mehr vorkommt, weist darauf hin, daß es sich um einen Übergangshabitat zwischen feuchtem und trockenem Land handelte. Diese Landschaft existierte warscheinlich zu der Zeit in dem das Depot hinterlegt wurde.

Laufende typologische Analysen und Radiocarbondatierungen der Metallarbeiten von Wilburton deuten darauf hin, daß das Depot zwischen 1150 und 1000 vor Chr. datiert werden kann. Die typologische Berurteilung eines Keramikfunds aus dem Depot deuten auf eine Affinität mit der Post-Deverel-Rimbury Plainware Keramik hat, die zur Zeit auf 1150 bis 800 vor Chr. datiert wird. Optisch Induzierte Lumineszenz (OSL) Datierung einer Probe des Keramikgefäßes, in dem das Depot verwahrt wurde, ergab ein Datum von 1460±230 vor Chr. bei einer statistischen Fehlerbreite von 1 sigma.

Die Fundstellen von anderen Rohstoffdepots innerhalb der Region häufen sich in den südlichen Niedermooren und Südcambridgeshire, anscheinend an alten Reiserouten entlang.

Type
Articles
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 90 , September 2010 , pp. 73 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 2010

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, J 2001. The Effects of Agriculture on Selected Archaeological Sites within the Cambridgeshire County Farms Estate. MAFF/OAU research project, Archaeol Rep 196, Cambridge: Cambridgeshire County CouncilGoogle Scholar
Adamiec, G Aitken, M J 1998. ‘Dose rate conversion factors: new data’, Ancient TL, 16, 37–50Google Scholar
Allen, C S M 2008. ‘The Bronze Age pottery and stone bowl’, in Monument, Memory and Myth: use and re-use of three Bronze Age barrows at Cossington, Leicestershire (ed J Thomas), 27–37, Leicester: University of Leicester Archaeological ServicesGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J C 1980. ‘The pottery of the later Bronze Age in Lowland England’, Proc Prehist Soc, 46, 297–31 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, D, Murray, A S, Bøtter-Jensen, L Lang, A 2001. ‘Equivalent dose estimation using a single aliquot of polymineral fine grains’, Radiation Measurements, 33, 73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, M 2003. Bronze and the Bronze Age: metalwork and society in Britain c 2500–800 BC, Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R 1988. ‘Hoarding, recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork: technological change in western Europe’, World Archaeol, 20(2), 249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R 2007. The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Museum Publications 1975. Flint Implements – an account of Stone Age techniques and cultures, London: British MuseumGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R, Lobb, S, Richards, J Robinson, M 1980. ‘Two Late Bronze Age settlements on the Kennet gravels; excavations at Aldermaston Wharf and Burghfield, Berkshire’, Proc Prehist Soc, 46, 217–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, D 1960. ‘The Isleham Hoard, Cambridgeshire’, Antiquity, 34, 279–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, N 1988. ‘A Later Bronze Age enclosure at Loft’s Farm, Essex’, Proc Prehist Soc, 54, 249–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, N 1996. ‘The archaeology of Essex 1500–500 BC’, in The Archaeology of Essex: Proceedings of the 1993 Writtle Conference (ed O Bedwin), 26–37, Chelmsford: Essex County CouncilGoogle Scholar
Brück, J 2001. ‘Body metaphors and technologies of transformation in the English Middle and Late Bronze Age’, in Bronze Age Landscapes: tradition and transformation (ed J Brück), 149–160, Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Childe, G 1930. The Bronze Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Clark, J G D Fell, C I 1954. ‘The Early Iron Age site at Micklemoor Hill, West Harling, Norfolk, and its pottery’, Proc Prehist Soc, 19(1), 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B W 1968. ‘Early pre-Roman Iron Age communities in Eastern England’, Antiq J, 48, 175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B W 2005. Iron Age Communities in Britain, London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Davey, P J 1973. ‘Bronze Age metalwork from Lincolnshire’, Archaeologia, 104, 51–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunkin, D 2001. ‘Metalwork, burnt mounds and settlement on the West Sussex coastal plain: a contextual study’, Antiquity, 75, 261–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwardson, A R nd. Late Bronze Age Founders Hoard; Found 12th December, 1959, Isleham, Cambridgeshire, Bury St Edmunds: Moyses Hall Museum CatalogueGoogle Scholar
Edwardson, A R 1970. Bronze Age Metal Work in the Moyses Hall Museum, Suffolk, Bury St Edmunds: Moyses Hall Museum CatalogueGoogle Scholar
Elsdon, S 1982. ‘Late Bronze Age pottery from Farnham, a reappraisal’, Surrey Archaeol Soc, 73, 128–139Google Scholar
Evans, C R Knight, M 1997. The Barleycroft Paddocks Excavations Cambridgeshire, CAU Rep 218, Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological UnitGoogle Scholar
Evans, J 1881. The Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain and Ireland, London: LongmansGoogle Scholar
Everson, P Stocker, D 2001. ‘ “Coming from Bardney”: the landscape context of the causeways and finds groups of the Witham Valley’, in Time and Tide: the archaeology of the Witham Valley (eds S Catney and D Start), Sleaford: Witham Valley Archaeology Research CommitteeGoogle Scholar
Fokkens, H 2003. ‘The longhouse as a central element in Bronze Age daily life’, in Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe (eds J Bourgeois, I Bourgeois and B Cherretté), 9–38, Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van BelgiëGoogle Scholar
Fox, C 1923. The Archaeology of the Cambridge Region, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Fox, C 1934. ‘The distribution of man in East Anglia c 2300 BC–50 AD’, Proc Prehist Soc East Anglia, 7, 149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gdaniec, K, Edmonds, M Wiltshire, P 2007. A Line Across Land: fieldwork on the Isleham to Ely pipeline 1993–4, EAA Rep 121, Cambridge: East Anglian ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Geophysical Surveys of Bradford 1994. Isleham, GSB Report 93/139, Bradford: Geophysical Surveys of BradfordGoogle Scholar
Guttmann, E B A Last, J 2000. ‘A Late Bronze Age landscape at South Hornchurch, Essex’, Proc Prehist Soc, 66, 319–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D N 1996. ‘The Fenland Project Number 10: Cambridgeshire Survey, Isle of Ely and Wisbech’, EAA Rep 79, Cambridge: East Anglian ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Hall, D N Coles, J 1994. Fenland Survey: an essay in landscape and persistence, EH Archaeol Rep 1, London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R Mederos Martin, A 2000. ‘Patronage and clientship; a model for the Atlantic Final Bronze Age in the Iberian Peninsula’, in Metals Make the World Go Round: the supply and circulation of metals in Bronze Age Europe (ed C F E Pare), 133–150, Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, J Hawkes, C 1943. Prehistoric Britain, Harmondsworth: PenguinGoogle Scholar
Hill, J D 1999. ‘Later prehistoric pottery’, in C Evans, ‘The Lingwood Wells: waterlogged remains from a first millennium BC settlement at Cottenham, Cambridgeshire’, Proc Cambridge Antiq Soc, 87, 11–30Google Scholar
Kerney, M P 1999. Atlas of the Land and Freshwater Molluscs of Britain and Ireland, Colchester: Harley BooksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, D 2002. ‘A regional ceramic sequence: pottery of the first millennium BC between the Humber and the Nene’, in Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis (eds A Woodward and J D Hill), 119–142, Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Lethbridge, T C 1934. ‘Investigation of the ancient causeway in the Fen between Fordy and Little Thetford, Cambridgeshire’, Proc Cambridge Antiq Soc, 35, 85–89Google Scholar
Longworth, I 1984. Collared Urns of the Bronze Age in Great Britain and Ireland, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Malim, T 1990. Archaeology on the Cambridgeshire County Farms Estate, Cambridge: Cambridgeshire County Council and English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Malim, T 2000. ‘Prehistoric trackways’, in An Atlas of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire History (eds A Kirby and S Oosthuizen), Cambridge: Centre for Regional Studies, Anglia Polytechnic UniversityGoogle Scholar
Martin, E 1993. ‘Settlements on hill-tops: seven prehistoric sites in Suffolk’, East Anglian Archaeology, 65, 51–56Google Scholar
Murray, A S Wintle, A G 2000. ‘Luminescence of dating of quartz using an improved single-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol’, Radiation Measurements, 32, 57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, S 1988. ‘Selective deposition in the British Early Bronze Age’, World Archaeol, 20(2), 229–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, S 1990. The Petters Late Bronze Age Metalwork: an analytical study of Thames Valley metalworking in its settlement context, BM Occas Pap 70, London: British MuseumGoogle Scholar
Needham, S 2007. ‘800 BC: the great divide’, in The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the Near Continent (eds C Haselgrove and R Pope), 39–64, Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Needham, S Bowman, S 2005. ‘Flesh-hooks, technological complexity and the Atlantic Bronze Age feasting complex’, European J Archaeol, 8(2), 93–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, S, Ramsey, C B, Coombs, D, Cartwright, C Pettitt, P 1997. ‘An independent chronology for British Bronze Age metalwork: the results of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Programme’, Archaeol J, 154, 55–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northover, P 1982. ‘The metallurgy of the Wilburton Hoards’, Oxford J Archaeol, 1, 69–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northover, P 1995. ‘Late Bronze Age drawplates in the Isleham Hoard’, in Trans Europam: Beiträge zur Bronze- und Eisenzeit zwischen Atlantik und Altai: Festschrift für Margarita Primas (eds B Schmid-Sikim and P della Casa), 15–22, Bonn: Dr Rudolf HabeltGoogle Scholar
Pendleton, C F 1999. Bronze Age Metalwork in Northern East Anglia: a study of its distribution and interpretation, BAR Brit Ser 279, Oxford: ArchaeopressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, S forthcoming. ‘The prehistoric pottery’, in R Mortimer, Prehistoric and Romano-British Occupation along the Fordham Bypass, Fordham, Cambridgeshire 2004, Cambridge: East Anglian ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group 1997. The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication, PCRG Occas Pap 1 and 2, Salisbury: Prehistoric Ceramic Research GroupGoogle Scholar
Prescott, J R Hutton, J T 1994. ‘Cosmic ray contributions to dose rates for luminescence and ESR dating: large depths and long-term time variations’, Radiation Measurements, 23, 497–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, F M M Cranstone, D A L 1978. ‘An interim report on excavations at Fengate, Peterborough, 1975–7’, Northamptonshire Archaeol, 13, 9–27Google Scholar
Rohl, B Needham, S 1998. The Circulation of Metal in the British Bronze Age: the application of lead isotope analysis, BM Occas Pap 102, London: British MuseumGoogle Scholar
Tylecote, R F 1979. ‘The effect of soil conditions on the long-term corrosion of buried tin-bronzes and copper’, J Archaeol Sci, 6, 346–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltshire, P E J 1997. ‘Snail Channel, Fordham, Cambridgeshire’, in Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: datelist 24 (eds R E M Hedges, P B Pettitt, C Bronk Ramsey and G J van Klinken), 449–450, Oxford: Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford UniversityGoogle Scholar
Wymer, J J 1977. Gazetteer of Mesolithic Sites in England and Wales, CBA Res Rep 22, London: Council for British ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Yates, D T 2007. Land, Power and Prestige: Bronze Age field systems in southern England, Oxford: Oxbow BooksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D W 1971. ‘Thermoluminescent dating using fine grains from pottery’, Archaeometry, 13, 29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar