Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:14:16.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Middle Bronze Age Ceremonial Weapons: New Finds from Oxborough, Norfolk and Essex/Kent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2011

Extract

Two new finds (see Exhibits at Ballots, p. 461) of Middle Bronze Age weapons help document a tradition of ceremonial weapons in Britain and neighbouring parts of the Continent. Two distinct though small groups are represented, one—the Caistor St Edmunds-Melle series—being named for the first time. It is suggested that both series emerged during the Acton Park stage (1500–1350 BC), the Plougrescant-Ommerschans type having been elaborated from the already deviant Kimberley-type dirks, whilst the Caistor St Edmunds-Melle series were merely modifications of standard dirk and rapier types. Reasons for the emergence of explicit ceremonial forms are seen to lie in changing ritual needs and these are presented against a longer history of the ceremonial and ritual uses of metalwork. The ceremonial types under detailed consideration ceased during the Taunton stage (1350–1200), a late example of the phenomenon being represented by an exaggerated spearhead.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1990

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

Briard, J. 1965. Les Depots Bretons et l'Age du Bronze Atlantique, RennesGoogle Scholar
Burgess, C. B. and Gerloff, S, 1981. The Dirks and Rapiers of Great Britain and Ireland, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IV.7 (Munich)Google Scholar
Butler, J. J. and Barker, J. A. 1961. A forgotten Middle Bronze Age hoard with a Sicilian razor from Ommerschans (Overijssel), Helinium, I, 193210Google Scholar
Butler, J. J. and Sarfatij, M. 19701971. Another bronze ceremonial sword by the Plougrescant- Ommerschans smith, Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Outheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, 20–1, 301–9Google Scholar
Coleman, I. J. 18991901. Note on a bronze spearhead exhibited, Proc. Soc. Ant., 18, 352–3Google Scholar
Colquhoun, I. and Burgess, C. B. 1988. The swords of Britain, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IV.5 (Munich)Google Scholar
Coombs, D. 1975. Bronze Age weapon hoards in Britain, Archaeologia Atlantica, 1, 4981Google Scholar
De Mortillet, G. and A. 1881. Musée Préhistorique, ParisGoogle Scholar
Gallay, G. 1988. Die mittel und spätbronze- sowie ältereisenzeitlichen Bronzedolche in Frankreich und auf den britischen Kanalinseln, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, VI.7 (Munich)Google Scholar
Greenwell, W. 1902. On some rare forms of Bronze weapons and implements, Archaeologia, 58, 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwell, W. and Brewis, W. P. 1909. The origin, evolution and classification of the bronze spearhead in Great Britain and Ireland, Archaeologia, 61, 439–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, C. F. C. 1955. Grave-groups and hoards of the British Bronze Age, Inventaria Archaeologica, GB 18 (London)Google Scholar
Jockenhövel, A. 1980. Die Rasiermesser in Westeuropa, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, VIII. 3 (Munich)Google Scholar
Needham, S. P. 1982. The Ambleside hoard: a discovery in the Royal Collections, Brit. Mus. Occ. Pap., 39 (London)Google Scholar
Northover, J. P. 1980. Bronze in the British Bronze Age, in Aspects of Early Metallurgy (ed. Oddy, W. A.), Brit. Mus. Occ. Pap., 17, 6370Google Scholar
Orsi, P. 1913. Le necropoli sicule di Pantalica e M. Dessueri, Monumenti Antichi, 21, 301408Google Scholar
Rowlands, M. J. 1976. The production and distribution of metalwork in the Middle Bronze Age in southern Britain, Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Brit. Ser., 31, 2 vols (Oxford)Google Scholar
Schauer, P. 1972. Ein westeuropäisches Bronzeschwert aus dem Main bei Frankfurt-Höchst, Germania, 50, 1629Google Scholar
Warmenbol, E. 1986. British rapiers with trapezoidal butt found in Belgium, Proc. Prehist. Soc., 52, 153–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar