You are on page 1of 13

Hoarding, Recycling and the Consumption of Prehistoric Metalwork: Technological Change in

Western Europe
Author(s): Richard Bradley
Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 20, No. 2, Hoards and Hoarding (Oct., 1988), pp. 249-260
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124473
Accessed: 30/09/2009 06:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

such material could rarely be recovered. whilst others may have been temporary stores whose recovery was prevented. in particular in Scandinavia where a large proportion of the hoards assigned to both groups come from bogs. based on a close examination of the metalwork and the ways in which it had Hoards and Hoarding Volume 20 No. Often the latter interpretation envisages stores of scrap metal or finished objects deposited by smiths. important contrasts will be described between the sequence in that area and metal finds from both northern and central Europe. although we shall also be considering material from rivers. bogs and other wet locations. The emphasis on hoards in European prehistory is explained by the need to build a chronology from groups of associated material. we soon discover that the only feature that unites these different deposits is that for some reason they were never recovered. At their simplest these stress two major aspects of this material. recycling of prehistoric metalwork: in western Europe change consumption technological Richard Bradley Introduction This paper considers the interpretation of a series of distinctive deposits of metalwork dating from the first millennium BC. It is worth elaborating on this distinction. Janet Levy's study of finds from Denmark makes a broad distinction between 'ritual hoards' and 'non-ritual hoards'. Once deposited. 2 ? Routledge 1988 0043-8243/88/2002/249 $1.and the Hoarding. but in other respects they played quite different roles. and occasionally their positions seem to have been marked. were usually deposited in places from which they could be retrieved. Although it is concerned mainly with developments in western Europe. If we study them as a phenomenon of interest in its own right. Groups of both kinds may help to establish a chronology. The deposits in question are often described as hoards.50/1 World Archaeology . It is essentially the difference between those deposits whose contents imply a close link with metalworking and others which contain objects that had apparently been discarded intentionally: the classic examples of the latter type are the accumulations of fine metalwork in rivers or other wet places (Torbrugge 1971). Outside western Europe the situation is often less clearcut. but this does not mean that all these collections were formed for similar reasons. Such deposits are explained in a variety of ways (for the general review of the question see Coles and Harding 1979). Utilitarian hoards. in conventional terms the Later Bronze and Iron Ages. on the other hand. Some collections of metalwork are interpreted as votive deposits and were not meant to be used again.

250 Richard Bradley been treated on its deposition (Levy 1982). Bradley 1987). and it is a problem why finds of elaborate metalwork in western and northern Europe should become so much more frequent in 'votive deposits' after that time. By contrast some. This was particularly true during the Later Bronze Age when weapons whose precursors had been used as grave goods were increasingly deposited in watery locations in western Europe. the most convincing evidence of 'ritual' or 'votive' deposits is provided by river finds rather than hoards. Rather it uses the results of existing analyses to work out the relationship between the practices identified by specialists in this field. Fine objects seem to have been deposited intentionally from the Neolithic period onwards: in fact there may well have been a continuous tradition of deposition in watery places extending into. In an earlier paper I considered the implications of different types of deposit for our understanding of Bronze Age exchange systems (Bradley 1985). The idea of 'ritual hoards' or 'votive deposits' is particularly tenacious and is by no means limited to finds of metalwork. and even in some areas throughout. Aner 1956. Some of the artefacts discovered in rivers or 'ritual hoards' are of types which were used as grave goods in other phases or in other areas (e. Current interpretations We must now say rather more about current interpretations of these different types of deposit. These are a particular feature of the Earlier Bronze Age. In western Europe. In western Europe another important group of metal finds occurs in burials. To a large extent this is because so many different aspects of hoards and hoarding have been studied in isolation. What is needed now is an attempt to consider the relationship between these different types of deposit over a lengthy sequence. The rivers with the main deposits of metalwork are mapped in Figure 1. elaborate metalwork can still be found with burials in central Europe (Harding 1983). Although this scheme is sometimes difficult to apply. however. This paper does not present any new empirical data. In his opinion the provision of votive offerings may be a 'cheaper' form of consumption than the deposition . who suggests that the change may be related to the supply of exotic metalwork (1984:93). The Scandinavian evidence has been discussed by Kristiansen. Torbrfigge 1971). This contrast between grave finds and river finds runs right through the Later Bronze Age. but this is a resource which has yet to realise its full potential.g. A further complication concerns the relationship of these collections to the objects found in graves. for ease of reference the same basic distinction will be followed here. yet the distributions of the two types of deposit show a broad continuity. At the same time the archaeological record shows less emphasis on conspicuous burials. the first millennium AD (Torbriigge 1971. so that the same types of artefact could be deposited in different contexts in these two areas. This account complements that analysis by studying the relationship between these enigmatic collections and the sequence of technological change. The 'ritual hoards' and river finds have provided much of the most elaborate metalwork to survive from later prehistory.

Whilst the provision of elaborate offerings may have been obligatory at funerals. So striking are the distributions of river finds and 'ritual hoards' that it seems as if the presence of exotic material was a necessary feature of such deposits. of grave goods. Although Kristiansen's interpretation can be questioned.Hoarding. the frequency of votive deposits could have been influenced more directly by the supply of imported metalwork. the metalwork placed in contemporary burials . recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 251 Figure1 The complementarydistributionsof metal sources (after Coles and Harding1979) and riverscontainingelaborateartefacts(data from Torbriigge1971). If so. he is surely correct to emphasise the problems of maintaining a supply of metal in areas well away from its natural sources. This applies mainly to the raw material but can also refer to artefacts of foreign origin: we should remember that large parts of western Europe were without local sources of copper or tin (Fig. he suggests. difficulties in obtaining sufficient metalwork may account for this change of practice. At the same time. 1).

Still less do they account for the relationship between these different collections. Some problems in current interpretations The interpretations summarised above do little to explain the sheer variety of metalwork deposits. there is no reason to suppose that the provision of such material was any 'cheaper' than the deposition of grave goods per se: in fact some of the ritual hoards in Scandinavia seem to contain several sets of personal equipment. but in other cases it may be an indication of the difficulty of sustaining the flow of raw material. Moreover we shall see that in western Europe the chronological distribution of Later Bronze Age votive deposits sometimes reveals an increasing rate of deposition. This depends on how we understand the recycling of metalwork. Hlere the prevailing view. but it is worth questioning whether this is the right reading of this evidence. Northover 1982). This interpretation only emphasises the practical difficulties of maintaining an adequate supply of bronze outside the source areas. This question has been treated too lightly. Of particular relevance is a recent study of the place of recycling in the economy of pre-industrial England (Woodward 1985). In such cases the empirical evidence appears to reverse Kristiansen's proposition. and for the most part the literature gives the impression that the metal industry was both flexible and productive (cf. Many hoards belonging to the later years of the Bronze Age are considered to be made up of scrap metal brought together for recycling. There are also indications of increased alloying at this time. far fewer are seen as stores of personal possessions. We can best approach these issues by investigating some of the assumptions that lie behind the interpretations considered so far. Is recycling to be seen as a sign of buoyancy at all? We can consider some information from other periods. Sometimes this must have improved the mechanical properties of particular objects. This would mean that some of this material was deposited during rites of passage. This may appear efficient. the votive deposits in western Europe taking on the role of grave offerings once cremation was widely practised (Torbriigge 1971). If so. This points in precisely the opposite direction to the orthodoxy in Bronze Age .252 Richard Bradley in central Europe could be made from more local materials. rather than the single set that might accompany a body into the ground (Levy 1982: 69-84). even laudable. The second problem concerns the interpretation of the 'non-ritual' hoards as evidence that the metal industry was able to meet the demands being placed upon it. It is sometimes suggested that such deposits were broadly equivalent to one another. The interpretation of 'non-ritual' hoards has proceeded along very different lines. which is supported by metal analysis. suggesting that the switch from grave goods to other deposits actually allowed a significant expansion in the consumption of metalwork. is that many of these deposits are connected with the management of the bronze supply. At the outset we can question Kristiansen's suggestion that votive offerings were adopted as a 'cheaper' form of consumption than the provision of grave goods. from a modern western viewpoint. This contrast must not be overemphasised but it does raise the possibility that rather different systems may have operated in these two areas.

including ornaments and pieces of weaponry. There were also changes in the sources of raw material that were used in western Europe. A more directly archaeological example may be relevant at this point. We can also consider the difficult problems raised by the adoption of iron in western Europe. It is a comparison that provides food for thought. there is some evidence that in western Europe an increasing proportion of the metal supply was diverted into the votive sphere. A greater variety of bronze tools were also being made. Harding offers a striking example of this process in his account of hoards in central Europe where the number of separate types could increase between two and four times over (1984:142). in this case silver. Three general tendencies are worth taking into account. when communities in northern Europe were again dependent on a supply of metal from outside. Such changes in Northover's 'metal circulation zones' may mean that the industry was in difficulties. Lastly.Hoarding. we can then attempt to work out its implications for the use of metalwork over a longer period. Hardh 1976. this issue). Towards a new interpretation The change of perspective suggested by this brief discussion opens the way to a rather wider review of the forces affecting the deposition of Bronze Age material. Here there is abundant evidence for the recycling of metal artefacts imported from a distance and. By this stage such material might even include types of artefact that are more commonly discovered in votive deposits. recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 253 studies. Secondly. although it is difficult to measure the supply of imported silver. Of particular interest is the increasing use of Atlantic metal sources at the end of the Bronze Age.g. At this stage we need to broaden our discussion to take into account some additional characteristics of Later Bronze Age metalworking. including the recycling of metals. but there are indications that more complex arrangements were now being made for the accumulation and re-use of scrap metal. we have seen that there is compelling evidence for the widespread recycling of metals. Graham-Campbell 1982. in preference to the central European ores which had provided so much raw material (Northover 1982). there can be little doubt that the Later Bronze Age was a period of agricultural expansion. A useful comparison can be made between the scrap hoards of the Bronze Age and the hoards of Viking hacksilver which have been so thoroughly documented in Scandinavia (e. This was certainly not confined to the Later Bronze Age. it is possible to identify the major sources of this material through the presence of foreign coins. This is reflected by a considerable increase in the use of metal for everyday tasks and by a corresponding decrease in the production of flint artefacts. see also Thurborg. for a partial analogy to the Bronze Age situation is found in the Viking Age. Normally these items would have received such summary treatment outside the areas in which they appeared in more specialised contexts (Bradley 1985). For Woodward recycling. cf. may well be an indication of poverty and chronic shortage. This is difficult to quantify since we . First. Having suggested a rather different framework for analysis.

Kristiansen 1984). reaching a peak during the Later Bronze Age. Kristiansen has investigated this question through wear analysis. attempting to work out how long different objects circulated before their deposition. but when the two are combined we discover that the rate of consumption in different areas rose sharply between Hallstatt A and B3. where the distributions of river finds and grave finds overlap (Erbach-Schonberg 1985). exactly the same pattern is evident if we consider single finds of weapons from dry land. and only in Scandinavia have attempts beeanmade to work out how long different types of artefact circulated before they entered the archaeological record (cf. Because all the . His study shows that the rate of deposition rose sharply from the Neolithic period onwards.254 Richard Bradley know all too little about the rate at which the natural ores were being extracted. An alternative is found in Upper Austria. At the same time. Consequently we cannot compare the amounts of metalwork from one region to another. 2 and 4. documented by Wegner (1976). The simplest pattern can be illustrated by finds of weapons from the Paris Basin (Mohen 1977). which reached a peak during the period that saw the greatest deposition of swords in the rivers. before regaining its former level. but we can consider the chronological distribution of the finds from any one river. however. In none of these cases is there any indication of the relationship between the changing levels of consumption and the total amount of metalwork in circulation. but in Late Bronze Age 3 it fell by nearly 60 per cent. Needham and Burgess (1980) have drawn attention to the way in which this fall in the number of river finds was matched by a sudden peak in dry-land deposits from the same area. The number of hoards with similar material showed an equivalent increase over this period. however. but this increased threefold during Hallstatt B3. The rate of deposition seems to been roughly the same during Late Bronze Age 1. The chronological distributions of the swords in these deposits are to some extent complementary. before it fell away almost completely. but in each case they emphasise the close relationship between the consumption of fine metalwork in rivers and the chronology of 'non-ritual' hoards in their hinterland. A second process can be illustrated by the river finds from Mainz. the decrease in weapon deposits at the end of the Bronze Age corresponded precisely with a peak of apparently utilitarian hoards in the same region (Gaucher 1981). show an approximately even rate of deposition between Bronze D and Hallstatt BI. we can gain some impression of changes in the rate of deposition over time. Some of these contained weapon fragments and what is interpreted as scrap metal. This evidence shows a number of processes at work. By relating this evidence to the likely duration of the periods represented. In Scandinavia. Again there seems to be a close relationship between this evidence and the evidence of dry-land hoards. A different case is presented by the Lower Thames. In particular our knowledge of river finds depends very largely on the extent of dredging in different areas. where a high level of consumption seems to be evidenced by Late Bronze Age river finds (Needham and Burgess 1980). where the rate of deposition seems to have increased nearly four times over between Bronze Moyen and Bronze Final 2. Nor do we know what proportion of the material originally deposited has been recovered and documented by archaeologists. In other areas the chronological relationship between these two types of deposit is less straightforward. before it fell sharply during Bronze Final 3. Finds of dated swords.

As more and more objects were deposited in contexts from which they could not be recovered. Both systems no doubt possessed a competitive aspect. There is only limited evidence for the careful collection of scrap metal in Scandinavia. but this need not mean that the distinctive practices seen in western Europe lacked an equally important role. In western Europe this seems to have run in parallel with a major period of reorganisation in the domestic economy. 1). In western Europe. he can use these estimates to identify fluctuations in the supply of bronzes. In western Europe it seems as if the consumption of fine metalwork in 'ritual hoards' or watery locations took over from the deposition of this material mainly in graves. Perhaps the bronze industry was differently organised in the latter area and social distinctions were indicated by the style of metal artefacts. He suggests that the main influx of metalwork was during Period II and that after that time the supply decreased. In Appadurai's useful term fine metalwork may have been deposited during 'tournaments of value' (1986:21). Since the objects consumed in . We must now address the more difficult task of bringing these observations together in a single interpretation. but to some extent they contrast with developments in central Europe where metalwork could still be deposited with the dead. Far from being a 'cheaper' form of consumption. we can suggest that there was a systematic relationship between the level of consumption of fine metalwork and the frequency of utilitarian hoards.Hoarding. For the most part this presents a different picture from Levy's analysis of the Danish 'ritual hoards'. Perhaps the most important point to emphasise is the chronological and geographical distribution of grave goods and votive deposits.possessed an exotic character (Fig. To that extent bronze may have been so important in the votive sphere precisely because it was of foreign origin. By contrast more of the objects deposited as grave goods in central Europe could have been made locally. This may be the implication of the increasing number of votive deposits in the Later Bronze Age sequence. more emphasis could have fallen on the long-distance links that attended their acquisition. but this could have expressed itself in very different ways. Parker Pearson 1982). on the other hand. 13). The reasons for this change remain in doubt. although there were lesser peaks around the end of Period III and during Period V (Kristiansen 1984: fig. recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 255 metalwork had to be imported. It seems as if the use of fine metalwork in the votive sphere was most obvious in areas in which the metal itself . Gregory (1980) has shown how gifts to the supernatural can provide an effective medium for competitive consumption. The main patterns traced in this section contain a common thread. It seems as if the rate of consumption actually increased at a time when the amount of imported metalwork was falling. It is often suggested that the provision of rich graves plays a part in maintaining the social order (cf. It seems clear that this must have made growing demands on the metal supply for the production of everyday tools. whose rate of deposition was lowest in Perod III and considerably higher in periods IV and V (Levy 1982). Only in Period VI when the metal supply reached its lowest point was the rate of deposition curtailed.and sometimes the styles in which it was worked . the squandering of weapons and ornaments in votive deposits could have taken place at a quickening pace during the Later Bronze Age. increasingly concerted attempts may have been made to reuse what remained in circulation. but in all the other cases.

We have already seen that there can be a close chronological relationship between the rate of consumption of river metalwork and the distribution of utilitarian hoards. We have suggested how the metal supply may have come under pressure. but three basic patterns can perhaps be recognised. First. there are areas in which iron artefacts. These arguments suggest that by the earlier first millennium BC the Bronze Age system could have been reaching the limits to which it could expand. This duality in the treatment of fine objects is a particular feature of the scrap hoards. One sign of the strains that resulted is when types of object which were usually deposited in water were accumulated as scrap metal. whether aesthetic or economic' (1986:26). perhaps. In this case it seems likely that the initial change was accomplished fairly simply and that the production of iron weapons . and in particular must have posed problems for the domestic economy where the same material was used for ordinary tools. In this case the most likely interpretation is that these changes precipitated an economic crisis. The increasing rate at which exotic objects were taken out of circulation may have created difficulties in obtaining fresh material. especially weapons. we must return to the question of sequence. This transition took different forms in different areas. Another possibility is that a shortage of metal may have resulted from the growing demands for raw material among communities in the Mediterranean (Rowlands 1980).256 Richard Bradley such quantity in the votive sphere tended to be made of imported materials. such 'diversion of commodities from specified paths is always a sign of creativity or crisis. seem to have taken over from bronzes as prestige objects. As the intensity of consumption in the votive deposits increased. This view is hardly novel. we have seen that there were more obvious attempts to recycle what metalwork remained. recycling and the consumption of metalwork may have become increasingly closely linked as the demands of the votive sphere brought it into conflict with the need for metal for everyday activities. is the suggestion that it might have been caused by strains originating within the local system. since such a shortage has already been suggested as one of the major factors influencing the adoption of iron in western Europe. What is less familiar. The two interpretations are not necessarily in conflict. As Appadurai has commented. it is hardly surprising that the period is also marked by efforts to conserve metal through the accumulation and re-use of scrap. The processes of hoarding. We have seen that there is some evidence for chronological development. Both may be indications of a general shortage of metal. and it is then that in some areas we see a diminution in the consumption of river metalwork. These were generally deposited in graves. The consumption of metalwork and technological change So far we have argued that in western Europe the later years of the Bronze Age could have seen a growing shortage of metal. matched by a peak of recycling evidenced in the scrap hoards. but we have still to account for the distinctive character of the transition from bronze to iron in different parts of Europe. If we are to say more about how these processes were connected. but is unusual in the ethnographic record.

communities seem to have continued to deposit bronze weapons in the rivers of western Europe. Few swords are recorded as single finds from dry land. Hoards are very infrequent and far fewer weapons are found in votive deposits. A second kind of transition can be identified in northern Europe. 102). these observations also emphasise the links between the use of different materials and ways in which they entered the archaeological record. the character of the archaeological record is transformed. Although some of this patterning must be due to chronological factors. but all the river finds in his catalogue were made of bronze. where stone and bone tools were still in use (Levinson 1983). Moreover it seems likely that bronzes were used so extensively in the votive sphere because of their generally exotic character. and the iron swords were preferred in graves. As iron weapons were adopted more generally. Instead some of the latest deposits of bronze artefacts are made up of ornaments. Rather than adopt iron weaponry on any scale once it first became available in central Europe. Although the latter type had a more restricted distribution.2. In other cases the number of metal finds decreases altogether. Gerdsen (1986) has studied the swords from twenty-nine regions of Europe. Collis 1984:74). again suggesting that the choice of metal might have been significant. for example in the British Isles. Its contemporary. however. It was only in western Europe that the transition from bronze to iron would have been particularly traumatic. In Scandinavia a substantial part of the metal supply had been devoted to the ritual sphere. where burials with grave goods are largely . largely in the west. the mode of deposition could change so that now they were buried with the dead. A graphic illustration of this point is provided by the swords made during this crucial period. These were found in fifteen of the regions studied. less familiar one. many of the difficulties suggested for western Europe would have been less severe. The Gundlingen sword was made of bronze and may belong to either a central or a western European tradition (Cohen 1967. Pleiner 1981). but in eleven of these iron swords were preferred as grave goods. but maintained the regional contrast between grave finds and river deposits. It seems to be this pattern that is found in central Europe (cf. 11. recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 257 continued a long-established tradition and merely substituted one locally available material for another. was a central European development and was made in both bronze and iron. It may be for this reason that the adoption of ironworking was somewhat retarded in this area. where the practice of ritual hoarding continued on a significant scale after it had largely lapsed in other areas (Larsson 1986: fig.IHoarding. the contexts of this material are revealing. for here bronze played a central role in both the votive and the domestic spheres. apparently devoted to the supernatural (Levy 1982. Where bronze and iron were both deposited in the same areas. There may have been fewer pressures on the metal supply and there is less evidence of scrap hoards in this region. After this transitional phase. Schauer 1972). Here. In twenty-three of these areas iron swords dominated the burial record. whilst the bronze swords were deposited in rivers. It was distributed throughout both areas. The spread of ironwork seems to have been less rapid in the area with a long tradition of votive deposits of this kind (Pleiner 1980: fig. but in this area metal seems to have played a less important role in the domestic economy. but bronze weapons predominated in those areas with a significant quantity of river finds. Larsson 1986). the Mindelheim sword. this contrast was still maintained.

where so much fine metalwork was deposited in rivers. 1987 Department of Archaeology University of Reading . Parker Pearson 1984:75). when iron weapons were sufficiently widely available. such material simply changed its character. and essentially votive deposits of fine artefacts which were never meant to be recovered. generally in La Tene C/D (Torbriigge 1971). this practice then continued unabated around and outside the frontiers of the Roman Empire. and in western Europe. 1. In the light of our earlier arguments. Perhaps the middle years of the first millennium BC saw a crisis in the supply of metal to the votive sphere that transcended the conventional division between the Bronze and Iron Ages. We have already seen how they reached a peak in the later years of the Bronze Age before their numbers diminished sharply. however. In some areas. 27. The importance of such changes can be overemphasised unless they are studied as part of a longer sequence of development. when it seems to embrace at least two quite different concepts: utilitarian deposits often connected with the management of the metal supply.viii. This is strongly suggested by the chronology of the river finds. It is worth observing that this practice seems to have resumed over very much the same areas during the later part of the Iron Age. Conclusions This paper began by emphasising the difficulty of working with the traditional category of 'hoard'. the demands of the utilitarian and non-utilitarian spheres may have come into conflict as each made increasing claims on the metal supply. it may be no accident that it was only at this stage that the industrial production of iron is widely evidenced in western Europe (Collis 1984:151). During this hiatus the number of river and bog finds was much reduced. for instance deposits of food and agricultural equipment are recorded in southern Scandinavia (cf. It may have been because bronze smiths could not meet these demands that a less exotic material came into favour. Acknowledgement I am very grateful to Frances Raymond for preparing Fig. the practice of votive deposition was renewed. It seems possible that fine metalwork was still in short supply. The relationships between these two groups are extremely complicated.258 Richard Bradley absent. It is to that peculiar practice of sacrificing valuables in watery locations that we owe some of the most impressive material in the archaeological record. Despite changes in the nature of the artefacts employed. In these terms the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition in western Europe may mask a broader fluctuation in the consumption of metal artefacts.

Umea: University of Umea. E. 1983. A. The Bronze Age in Central and Eastern Europe: advances and prospects. M. 1984. 1985. Harding. Ideology and material culture: an archaeological perspective. 1981. J. J. Kuml (1982-3): 153-68. Collis. British Series No. M-C. 139-45. Gregory. G. recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 259 References Aner. Parker Pearson. society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study. Chichester: Phillimore. Viking silver hoards: an introduction.the structure of bronze artefact distributions. 1984. K. 2 (eds F. In The Social Life of Things (ed. Hodder). 1980. The Bronze Age Metalwork in Southern Sweden: Aspects of Social and Spatial Organisation 1800-500 BC. 1982. London: Batsford. 32-42. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. R. Parker Pearson. Archiologisches Korrespondenzblatt. 1983. pp. Coles. J. pp. Lund: CWK Gleerup. R. The exploration of the long-distance movement of bronze in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe. C. Bulletin of the London University Institute of Archaeology. R. Gaucher. Wikingerzeitliche Depotfunde aus Siidschweden. 1986. Man. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. In European Social Evolution (ed. In Symbolic and StructuralArchaeology (ed. S. 1982. vol. Close). 15: 31-42. pp. 1984. 15: 163-78. A. 20: 692-704. 1-50. Spriggs). L'dge du Bronze dans la region de Paris. Bradley). In Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology (ed. Cohen. pp. The Later Bronze Age in the lower Thames valley: the metalwork evidence. 1980. H. Bemerkungen zur urnenfelderzeitlichen Deponierungen Ober6sterreich. Gifts to men and gifts to god: gift exchange and capital accumulation in contemporary Papua. Needham. Sites et cultures de l'dge du Bronze dans le bassin Parisien. 99-113. Appadurai). 1956. A. Levinson. Erbach-Schonberg. Mohen. and Burgess. Graham-Campbell. Man. in Gerdsen. Grab und Hort. Cambridge University Press. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 1986. 1984. 1967. Studien zu den Schwertgraben der Alteren Hallstattzeit. Mortuary practices. Commodities and the politics of value. 1982. K. Paris: CNRS. 15: 626-52. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Farrell). 72-100. J-P. Bradford: University of Bradford. 1977. Department of Archaeology. B. Exchange and social distance . M. Cambridge University Press. Bintliff). 1985. In The Vikings (ed. Jernets introduktion i Danmark. Harding. 19: 45-72. 83. T. 1979. A. Social and Religious Organisation in Bronze Age Denmark: An Analysis of Ritual Hoard Finds. New York: Academic Press. Stages in the chronological development of hoards and votive deposits. Barrett and R. In Advances in World Archaeology.Hoarding. 3-63. 1976. Paris: Editions des Mus6es Nationaux. pp. and Harding. J. 1982. Appadurai. J. 1987. J. pp. T. pp. 53: 351-62. The Bronze Age in Europe. The European Iron Age. Levy. P. Aspects of social evolution in the Bronze Age. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age (eds J. Kristiansen. I. A. D. Larsson. Bradley. Offa. Economic and ideological change: cyclical growth in the pre-state . Wendorf and A. Bradley. International Series No. The Hallstatt sword of bronze: on the Continent and in Britain. 437-69. 124. C. Cambridge University Press. M. Mainz: Von Zabern. 33: 377-454. London: Methuen. 1986. Northover. Hardh.

115-28. P. Vor. In Ideology. Bericht der romischgermanischen Kommission. 40: 1-146. It seems likely that fine bronzes were being sacrificed at an increasing rate during this period. Since the metal was rarely of local origin. Power and Prehistory (eds D. Richard Hoarding. pp. New Haven: Yale University Press. British Series No. Torbriigge. pp. Die vorgeschichtlichen Flussfunde aus dem Main und aus dem Rhein bei Mainz. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age (eds J. Wertime and J. Kallmunz: Michael Lassleben.260 Richard Bradley societies of Jutland. Ultimately these conflicting claims resulted in a general shortage of metal and encouraged the adoption of ironworking in western Europe. 375-415. Barrett and R. Pleiner. and the 'non-ritual' hoards found on dry land. Zu Herkunft der bronzenen Hallstatt Schwerter. Pleiner. 69-92. . In Friihes Eisen in Europa (ed. 1980. 1980. 'Swords into ploughshares': recycling in pre-industrial England. D. Miller and C. 1972. Woodward. R. 1976. the supply of bronze came under strain and more material had to be recycled to meet the need for everyday artefacts. 38: 175-91.und Friihgeschichtliche Fliissfunde. Muhly). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. W. R. which sometimes contain scrap metal. Tilley). R. Bradley). 1985. recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork: technological change in western Europe This paper discusses the relationship between two types of metal deposit dating from the first millennium BC: finds of elaborate artefacts in rivers and similar locations. pp. 83. alliance and exchange in the Later Bronze Age. 1971. M. Cambridge University Press. W. Early iron metallurgy in Europe. 2: 261-70. Schauer. pp. Abstract Bradley. Die Wege des Eisens nach Europa. Schaffshausen: Peter Meili. Archdologisches Korrespondenzblatt. Economic History Review. Rowlands. 1981. In The Coming of the Age of Iron (eds T. Kinship. Wegner. Pleiner). 15-55.