DOCSLIB.ORG

Weapons, Warfare and Society in Britain I 250-750BC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Weapons, Warfare and Society in Britain I 250-750BC Weapons, Warfare and Society in Britain I 250-750BC VolUBle I Susan Deirdre Bridgford University of Sheffield Department of Archaeology and Prehistory September 2000 This thesis was submitted as part fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Acknowledgments My thanks must first go to my supervisor, Dr Barbara Ottaway, for the enormous care she has taken in bringing this project to fruition. Her encouragement, understanding and great patience have been invaluable to me. I am grateful, on many counts, to Dr Peter Northover, who has been unstinting in giving metallurgical advice and access both to his samples and his unpublished data. His provision of enthusiasm, moral support and hospitality have also been much appreCiated. The University of Sheffield provided the financial support, via the Hossein Farmy Scholarship award, which enabled the undertaking of this project. Many members of the University staff assisted me during its progress. I would particularly like to thank Brian Keeley, for his many efforts on my behalf, and Kathryn Goldsack, for her practical help and imperturbable good humour, over the years . This project would not have been possible without access to the weapons, for which I would like to thank Dr Stuart Needham, at the British Museum, Trevor Cowie, at the National Museum of Scotland, Dr Christopher Chippindale, at the Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Dr Euan MacKie, at the Hunterian Museum, Dr Jon Cotton at the Museum of London, Dr Brian Gilmour at the Royal Armouries, Dr Francis Pryor at Flag Fen and Dr Andrew Rogerson, at Norfolk Landscape Archaeology. The first three also allowed me to sample weapons in their collections, for which my gratitude is unbounded. In the course of the project I received co-operation and assistance from a great many staff both within the museums I visited and from those, all over the country, who completed my questionnaire, often providing additional information. I am most grateful to them all. I have received advice and access to pre-publication literature from many sources. My thanks for both are due to Dr Stuart Needham, Trevor COwie, Dr David Coombs, Dr Christopher Chippindale, Richard Osgood, Simon O'Faolaln, Dr Barbara Ottaway, Emma Wager, Kate Welham and Dr Paul BUdd. Others, for whose advice, assistance and discussion I am grateful, include Dr Andrew Sherratt, Henry Blyth, Dr John Carman, Dr Roger Doonan, Dr David Dungworth and Jenny Moore. Dr Geoff Dyer provided advice on chemistry and KT Barratt provided statistical assistance along with moral support in all crises. My wonderful parents, Bill and Billie Robinson, deserve medals for their forbearance in putting up with me for so many years, particularly these last few, and Steve Dyer, who has kept me going throughout, and who now knows rather more than he wanted to about the Bronze Age, has been superb. Above alii would like to thank Robert Seaton who did so much hard work during the experimental phase for no other reason than that 'it sounded interesting'. I hope he feels the same way about the results. ii Weapons, Warfare and Society in Britain 1250-750BC S D Bridgford Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology and Prehistory University of Sheffield Abstract This research project was designed as a large scale detailed study of British swords and spearheads, of the period from approximately 1250-750BC. 202 small metallurgical samples and 4 large sword cross sections were examined metallographically. Chemical compositions were ascertained. Sections of 'sword edge' were prepared and impacted experimentally to reproduce combat damage and the results used to help assess the 499 swords and 485 spearheads, which were measured and examined visually. The results were analysed statistically according to regional and typological groupings. The distribution of manufacturing characteristics showed significant regional and typological variations and indicate a hierarchy of technical proficiency. Metallographic examinations also revealed a number of weapons which had been bumt. The compositional analyses showed metal being recycled and mixed, although alloys used were similar. Aspects of typological classification were quantified and regional patterns of distribution were assessed. Patterns of damage confirmed that that the majority of the weapons had probably been used in combat before deposition. There were significant regional and chronological differences in the proportions so used. Patterns of non-combat damage, breakage and depositional context showed that despite evident similarities some highly significant regional, chronological and typological differences existed. The weapons indicate that warfare was endemic but probably sporadic and low level. Communities appear to have exercised some form of social sanctioning over warriors, in part by incorporating weapons and the concept of war symbolically within their ceremonials. Deposition practices varied with time and locality but many do appear to have been ritual. There were also distinct regional and chronological traditions in the deSign, manufacturing and pre-depositional combat use of weapons. The evidence pOints to an escalation in long distance travel and exchange of goods and ideas, increasing contacts between regions, where people adapted the new to their own society. iii Contents Page Volume I Acknowledgements ii Abstract iii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Aims 1 1.1.1 The Research Programme 2 1.1.2 Interpretation 3 1.1.3 Warfare, Weapons and Social Context 5 1.1.4 Regionality 6 1.2 Weapon Typology and Chronology 9 1.2.1 Sword Typology 9 1.2.2 Spearhead Typology 13 1.2.3 Chronology 15 1.3 Literature Review 17 1.3.1 War 18 1.3.2 Death 19 1.3.3 Sites 20 1.3.4 Mining 22 1.3.5 Movement of Materials and Artefacts 24 1.3.6 Deposition 25 1.4 Artefact Research Review 27 1.4.1 LBA Weapons 28 1.4.2 Wear Studies 30 1.5 Metallurgical Studies 33 1.6 British LBA Weapons in Museum Collections 40 1.6.1 Data Collection 41 1.6.2 Estimation of Sword Population 42 1.6.3 Estimation of Spearhead Population 43 2 Microstructural and Compositional Analyses 45 2.1 Sampling Criteria 45 2.2 Method 48 2.3 Microstructural Characteristics 51 2.3.1 Porosity 52 2.3.2 Distortion of InclUSions 54 2.3.3 Corrosion 56 2.3.4 High Tin Phases 57 2.3.5 COring & Recrystallisation 59 2.3.6 Distortion of Grains 61 2.3.7 Grain Size 62 2.3.8 Hardness 64 2.4 Metallographlc Examinations of Small Samples - Summary 68 2.5 Cross Sectional Microstructures 72 iv 2.5.1 Blackmoor Hoard, Sample BM20, Sword 1891 5·1435 72 2.5.2 Gilmonby Hoard, Sample Gil 76 73 2.5.3 Gilmonby Hoard, Sample Gil 81 74 2.5.4 Royal Armouries, G06 74 2.5.5 Manufacturing Processes 75 2.6 Composition 77 2.6.1 Trace Elements 77 2.6.1.1 Total Trace Elements 78 2.6.1.2 Compositional Groups 79 2.6.1.3 Trace Elements - Summary 83 2.6.2 Alloying Elements 84 2.6.2.1 Tin 84 2.6.2.2 Lead 86 2.6.2.3 Alloying Elements - Summary 88 2.6.3 Compositional Comparisons 89 3 Experimental Replication of Edge Damage 92 3.1 Experimental Blade Manufacture 92 3.1.1 Edge Finishing· First Session: Sword Section 1. 94 3.1.2 Edge Finishing - Second Session: Sword Sections 2, 3 and 4. 97 3.1.3 Edge Finishing - Third Session: Sword Sections 5 and 6. 99 3.1.4 Blade Edge Finishing - Summary 101 3.2 Replication of Edge Damage 102 3.2.1 Blade on Blade Impacts 103 3.2.2 Further Impact Modes 103 3.3 Results 104 3.4 Impact Damage from Actual Sword Fighting 108 4 Physical Characteristics of Weapons 109 4.1 Methodological Considerations 109 4.1.1 Typology 109 4.1.2 Design 111 4.1.3 Manufacture 112 4.1.4 Use 116 4.2 Swords 117 4.2.1 Sword Typology 117 4.2.2 Sword Design Characteristics 119 4.2.3 SWord Manufacturing Characteristics 122 4.2.4 Sword Use Characteristics 124 4;2.5 Swords - Summary 128 4.3 Spearheads 131 4.3.1 Spearhead Typology 131 4.3.1.1 Definitions of characteristics 132 4.3.1.2 Analyses of characteristics 134 4.3.1.3 Spearhead groups 137 4.3.1.4 Dimensional analyses 138 4.3.1.5 Spearhead Typology - Summary 141 v 4.3.2 Spearhead Design 142 4.3.3 Spearhead Manufacture 144 4.3.4 Spearhead Use 145 4.3.5 Spearheads - Summary 148 5 Warfare, Weapon Deposition and Social Contexts 151 5.1 Conflict and Warfare 151 5.1.1 Varieties of Warfare and their Characteristics 151 5.1.2 Modes of Combat in LBA Britain 155 5.2 Weapon Deposition 160 5.2.1 Weapon Deposition and Hoard Contents 160 5.2.2 Deposition Contexts 161 5.2.3 State of Completeness of Deposited Weapons 165 5.2.3. 1 State of Completeness of Swords 169 5.2.3.2 State of Completeness of Spearheads 170 5.2.4 Interaction between Deposition Context and Completeness of Weapons 172 5.2.4.1 Swords - Completeness and Context 173 5.2.4.2 Spearheads - Completeness and Context 174 5.2.5 Deposition Patterns - Summary 175 5.3 Social Contexts 178 6 Regionality 187 6.1 Raw materials - Metal Production and Circulation 187 6.2 Weapon Production - Workshops and Weapon Makers 192 6.2.1 Metal Working Sites 192 6.2.2 Manufacturing Techniques and Practitioners 196 6.3 Weapon Use and Warfare Patterns 201 6.3.1 Combat Damage 201 6.3.2 Weapon Design 203 6.3.3 Topography, Travel, Land Use, Settlement and Warfare 206 6.4 Weapon Deposition - Regional Variations 211 7 Summary and Conclusions 213 7.1 Metallurgical Analysis - Weapon Production and Weapon Makers 214 7.2 Experimental Impacts - Combat Damage 219 7.3 Weapon Design, Use, Decommissioning and Deposition 220 7.4 Weapons, Warfare and Warriors in their Social Context 224 7.5 Weapons, Warfare and Society - Regional Differentiation within Britain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bronze Age and Iron Age
    Bronze Age and Iron Age Protohistory, (2200 to 52 BC) is the period which sits between the Neolithic era and Antiquity. It is divided into two main ages: ‐ The Bronze Age (2200 to 800 BC) is characterised by the metal industry of bronze (copper and tin alloy ) which quickly became widespread among all societies. ‐ TheIronAge(800to52BC)beganwhenIronmadeitsappearanceandsoonbecamethe dominant metal. The rapid transfer of knowledge and technology followed the long distance exchange trade networks that were developed in Europe during and before this period. © B. Cunliffe Areas of Metal production The search for copper and tin needed to produce bronze resulted in the establishment of new maritime routes in the European Atlantic area. Metal production spread quickly and natural resources such as minerals, lithics and even amber are widely exploited throughout Europe. As an example, bronze daggers enhanced by Spanish arsenic have been found in the Tumulus of the Carnoet Forrest in Brittany (France). Bourbriac Lunula, Brittany (France) Common cultural connections can be seen across the region in the form of comparable similar weapon typology of weapons the giving of gifts between social groups (e.g. Jewels such as lunulae), and even through shared burial traditions (e.g. Tumulus belonging to the Wessex culture that can be found on both sides of the English Channel). © J. Briard and A. Coffyn © J. Briard and A. Coffyn Swords with pistiliform blade (Bronze Age) and how it spread throughout Atlantic Europe. During the early Iron Age (800 to 450 BC) and at the beginning of the Middle Iron Age (450 to 100 BC.), there is continuity in the characteristic of the exchanges.
    [Show full text]
  • The Classification of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Copper and Bronze Axe-Heads from Southern Britain
    The Classification of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Copper and Bronze Axe-heads from Southern Britain Stuart Needham Access Archaeology aeopr ch es r s A A y c g c e o l s o s e A a r c Ah About Access Archaeology Access Archaeology offers a different publishing model for specialist academic material that might traditionally prove commercially unviable, perhaps due to its sheer extent or volume of colour content, or simply due to its relatively niche field of interest. All Access Archaeology publications are available in open-access e-pdf format and in (on-demand) print format. The open-access model supports dissemination in areas of the world where budgets are more severely limited, and also allows individual academics from all over the world the chance to access the material privately, rather than relying solely on their university or public library. Print copies, nevertheless, remain available to individuals and institutions who need or prefer them. The material is professionally refereed, but not peer reviewed. Copy-editing takes place prior to submission of the work for publication and is the responsibility of the author. Academics who are able to supply print- ready material are not charged any fee to publish (including making the material available in open-access). In some instances the material is type-set in-house and in these cases a small charge is passed on for layout work. This model works for us as a publisher because we are able to publish specialist work with relatively little editorial investment. Our core effort goes into promoting the material, both in open-access and print, where Access Archaeology books get the same level of attention as our core peer-reviewed imprint by being included in marketing e-alerts, print catalogues, displays at academic conferences and more, supported by professional distribution worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas Prehistory Across Borders
    1 AEGAEUM 27 Annales d'archeologie egeenne de l'Universite de Liege et UT-PASP BETWEEN THE AEGEAN AND BALTIC SEAS PREHISTORY ACROSS BORDERS Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe University of Zagreb, 11-14 April 2005 Edited by loanna GALANAKI, Helena TOMAS, Yannis GALANAKIS and Robert LAFFINEUR Universite de Liege Histoire de l'art et archeologie de la Grece antique University of Texas at Austin Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory AMBER BETWEEN THE BALTIC AND THE AEGEAN IN THE THIRD AND SECOND MILLENNIA BC (AN OUTLINE OF MAJOR ISSUES)* Interest in the archaeological amber industry goes back a long time and has produced a wealth of literature, as is demonstrated by extensive bibliographies.1 I refer those interested in specific issues to these. In this paper I shall focus on a brief presentation of several questions. Most attention is devoted to the question of the beginning of amber's world career, in particular its Central European origins. They call for a broader treatment, especially when one considers readers who focus on the Mediterranean. In addition, I shall discuss in general terms the synchronisation of chronologies between Central Europe and the Aegean, as well as the routes of north-south circulation of amber. Central European origins I shall begin with a commonplace: the archaeological artefacts that we study form only a minor fraction of the objects that were in circulation in prehistoric times. In the case of amber, however, there is an exceptional degree of underestimation.
    [Show full text]
  • Setting the Stonehenge in Scene
    Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 3-14 Setting the Scene: Stonehenge in the Round COLIN RENFREW Introduction THE SYMPOSIUM ‘Science and Stonehenge’, following fast upon the publication of the impor- tant volume Stonehenge in its Landscape (Cleal, Walker and Montague 1995) offered an unrivalled opportunity for a reassessment of our country’s greatest monument. My intro- ductory remarks will deal less with the natural sciences than with the broader field of knowl- edge and understanding: scientiu. For the conference, organised jointly by the Royal Society and the British Academy (in conjunction with English Heritage) sought to bridge the gulf which sometimes separates the natural sciences and the humanities, and to take a broader view of Stonehenge, in the round as it were, in its national and international context. It aspired to the view that interpretation and understanding as well as detailed analysis is the proper work for rational scholars. I am asserting therefore that Wissenschuft goes beyond Nutunuissenschuf, and that the historical sciences need not be inimical to the natural sciences. What I am seeking to assert here is not merely a play upon words: some aspects of contemporary archaeology are, in a number of ways, seeking to diminish the chasm which often seems to yawn between ‘The Two Cultures’. For while some segments of the archae- ological community seem to reject the world of the hard sciences, in seeking to attain their aim of a more humanistic approach, others today are following a research strategy which deals in a systematic way with human cognition and the use of symbols within an integrated framework, where the sciences and imaginative interpretation are not neces- sarily set in opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity and Autonomy in Bronze Age Europe: Assessing Cultural Developments in Eastern Hungary
    COMPLEXITY AND AUTONOMY IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE: ASSESSING CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS IN EASTERN HUNGARY by Paul R. Duffy A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Anthropology) in The University of Michigan 2010 Doctoral Committee: Professor John M. O’Shea, Chair Professor Daniel G. Brown Professor Robert E. Whallon Jr. Professor Henry T. Wright © Paul R. Duffy 2010 For my Mother and Father ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My interest in comparative anthropology was ignited during my undergraduate degree while taking classes with Bruce Trigger at McGill University. Although I found the comparison of states fascinating, my interest centered on the long developmental sequences that led to their formation. When I arrived in Ann Arbor in 2001, I wanted to compare the prehistoric trajectories of complex societies, and explain why they diverged. It was fortuitous that Joyce Marcus suggested I spend a summer in Hungary on Bill Parkinson’s NSF funded project in 2002. Meeting with Bill and Attila Gyucha, his Hungarian colleague, would set in motion close collaborative friendships that would allow the study of the eastern Hungarian Bronze Age contained within these pages. My debt to them and countless others is enormous. Many people facilitated my entry into Hungary. Pál Raczky generously provided input on my project when I was first becoming acquainted with the Hungarian Bronze Age. Magdi Vicze was very kind in introducing me to Százhalombatta archaeology and answering my questions about the Great Hungarian Plain. In and around Budapest, I have been warmly greeted by the next generation of Bronze Age specialists: Dani Fukőh, Brigitta Berzsényi, Vajk Szeverényi, Attila Kreiter, Gabi Kúlcsár, Viktória Kiss, Klara Fischl, László Reményi, János Dani and many others.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Carved Ambers in the J. Paul Getty Museum
    ANCIENT CARVED AMBERS IN THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM Faya Causey Ancient Carved Ambers in the J. Paul Getty Museum Ancient Carved Ambers in the J. Paul Getty Museum Faya Causey With technical analysis by Jeff Maish, Herant Khanjian, and Michael Schilling THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM, LOS ANGELES This catalogue was first published in 2012 at http:// Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data museumcatalogues.getty.edu/amber. The present online version Names: Causey, Faya, author. | Maish, Jeffrey, contributor. | was migrated in 2019 to http://www.getty.edu/publications Khanjian, Herant, contributor. | Schilling, Michael (Michael Roy), /ambers; it features zoomable high-resolution photography; free contributor. | J. Paul Getty Museum, issuing body. PDF, EPUB, and MOBI downloads; and JPG downloads of the Title: Ancient carved ambers in the J. Paul Getty Museum / Faya catalogue images. Causey ; with technical analysis by Jeff Maish, Herant Khanjian, and Michael Schilling. © 2019, J. Paul Getty Trust Description: Los Angeles : The J. Paul Getty Museum, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references. | Summary: “This catalogue provides a general introduction to amber in the ancient world followed by detailed catalogue entries for fifty-six Etruscan, Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Greek, and Italic carved ambers from the J. Paul Getty Museum. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a The volume concludes with technical notes about scientific copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4 investigations of these objects and Baltic amber”—Provided by .0/. Figs. 3, 9–17, 22–24, 28, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40, 51, and 54 are publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • 9783110705805.Pdf
    Anthony Harding Bronze Age Lives Münchner Vorlesungen zu Antiken Welten Herausgegeben vom Münchner Zentrum für Antike Welten (MZAW) Band 6 Anthony Harding Bronze Age Lives ISBN 978-3-11-070570-6 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-070580-5 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-070586-7 ISSN 2198-9664 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licens-es/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Control Number: 2020947207 Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Anthony Harding, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Prefaceand acknowledgements This book is the written version of aseries of lecturesdelivered in Munich in the academic year 2015–16 to members of the MünchnerZentrumfür Antike Welten (MZAW) when Iwas Gastprofessor für Kulturgeschichte des AltertumsinLudwig- Maximilians-Universität München. The lectureshavebeen turned into awritten text rather thanaspoken lecture, with bibliography, and have been significantly updated – something that was essential giventhe huge amount of publishedma- terial thathas emergedinthe last few years and continues to emerge,inpartic- ular the highlynovel and important developments in archaeogenetics. In No- vember 2015,when the first lecture was given, there wereonlyacouple of relevant papers available dealing with the genetic origin of Bronze Agepeople; since then, three or four papers ayear have appeared, shedding light on the whole area in ways that were scarcelyimaginable adecade ago.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the World Research
    History of the World Research History of Civilisation Research Notes 200000 - 5500 BCE 5499 - 1000 BCE 999 - 500 BCE 499 - 1 BCE 1 CE - 500 CE 501 CE - 750 CE 751 CE - 1000 1001 - 1250 1251 - 1500 1501 - 1600 1601 - 1700 1701 - 1800 1801 - 1900 1901 - Present References Notes -Prakrit -> Sanskrit (1500-1350 BCE) -6th Dynasty of Egypt -Correct location of Jomon Japan -Correct Japan and New Zealand -Correct location of Donghu -Remove “Armenian” label -Add D’mt -Remove “Canaanite” label -Change Gojoseon -Etruscan conquest of Corsica -322: Southern Greece to Macedonia -Remove “Gujarati” label (to 640) -Genoa to Lombards 651 (not 750) Add “Georgian” label from 1008-1021 -Rasulids should appear in 1228 (not 1245) -Provence to France 1481 (not 1513) -Yedisan to Ottomans in 1527 (not 1580) -Cyprus to Ottoman Empire in 1571 (not 1627) -Inner Norway to sweden in 1648 (not 1721) -N. Russia annexed 1716, Peninsula annexed in 1732, E. Russia annexed 1750 (not 1753) -Scania to Sweden in 1658 (not 1759) -Newfoundland appears in 1841 (not 1870) -Sierra Leone -Kenya -Sao Tome and Principe gain independence in 1975 (not 2016) -Correct Red Turban Rebellion --------- Ab = Abhiras Aby = Abyssinia Agh = Aghlabids Al = Caucasian Albania Ala = Alemania Andh = Andhrabhrtya Arz = Arzawa Arm = Armenia Ash = Ashanti Ask = Assaka Assy/As = Assyria At = Atropatene Aus = Austria Av = Avanti Ayu = Ayutthaya Az = Azerbaijan Bab = Babylon Bami = Bamiyan BCA = British Central Africa Protectorate Bn = Bana BNW = Barotseland Northwest Rhodesia Bo = Bohemia BP = Bechuanaland
    [Show full text]
  • A Wessex-Type Gold Bead Or Button Cover From
    AST NUMBER 69 November 2011 THE NEWSLETTER OF THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY Registered Office University College London, Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/ A WESSEX-TYPE GOLD deep. Analysis of the bone by Carmelita Troy identified P the partial remains of two individuals, an adult female BEAD OR BUTTON COVER and a child aged between six and eight years. The entire FROM TULLAMORE, cremation was sampled and sieved as per standard COUNTY OFFALY practice for cremation burials. Two identifiable artefacts were retrieved during sieving, an antler awl and the gold bead cover. Both objects were recovered In 2006 Headland Archaeology (Ireland) Ltd recovered from the primary fill of the cremation. The awl was a curious gold object from a cremation burial near made of antler and recovered in several pieces. This Tullamore in County Offaly. This was subsequently was heavily burnt and is believed to have been placed identified as a Wessex-type bead or button cover which on the pyre with one of the cremated individuals. is a unique find from an Irish archaeological context. Traces of melted copper were also recovered from the The excavation was directed by Linda Hegarty and the samples indicating that copper objects or personal final report from which this account is derived was adornments were also present. Charred cattle bone was written by Grace Corbett and Tom Janes. also recovered. A sample of the cremated human bone was radiocarbon dated by Queen’s University Belfast and returned a date of 1776-1601 cal BC (2 sigma), placing the burial in the Early-Middle Bronze Age transition.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Lapis Lazuli in the Formative Period of Egyptian Culture: an Approach in Terms of Culture Contact
    A STUDY OF LAPIS LAZULI IN THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN CULTURE: AN APPROACH IN TERMS OF CULTURE CONTACT Michinori OHSHIRO* Introduction The purpose of this paper is to clarify the starting and terminating dates of the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture. Although a large number of studies have been made on ancient Egyptian culture, little is known about the formative period. The exact periodization still remains a matter of debate. It has been suggested that the fundamental structure of ancient Egyptian culture was generally completed in the Old Kingdom. W. M. F. Petrie and other scholars have insisted that all significant characteristics of ancient Egyptian culture had already appeared at the end of the Third Dynasty(1). However no one has clearly explained the process. Since the Semainean Period and the Dynastic Race theory defined by Petrie have been rejected by the research of H. Kantor by using archaeological materials(2), it has been suggested that ancient Egyptian culture had an inherent continuity from the Predynastic Period to the Early Dynastic Period. On the other hand, Kantor recognized that cylinder seals or stone vessels clearly had an influence from Mesopotamia or Syria-Palestine just before organizing the unified Dynasty. She suggested that it is not a result of an accidental trade relationship(3). Although H. Frankfort has suggested that the formation of ancient Egyptian culture was not affected by contact with Mesopotamia, on the other hand he considered that many questions were still open to speculation(4). Concerning this significant theme of Egyptology, J. A. Wilson also recognized the influence of Mesopotamia on ancient Egypt, and theorized that Egypt made a great spurt because of its influence(5).
    [Show full text]
  • Flint Artefacts of Northern Pontic Populations of the Early and Middle Bronze Age: 3200 – 1600 Bc
    FLINT ARTEFACTS OF NORTHERN PONTIC POPULATIONS OF THE EARLY AND MIDDLE BRONZE AGE: 3200 – 1600 BC Serhiy M. Razumov ½ VOLUME 16• 2011 BALTIC-PONTIC STUDIES 61-809 Poznań (Poland) Św. Marcin 78 Tel. 618294799, Fax 618294788 E-mail: [email protected] EDITOR Aleksander Kośko EDITORIAL COMMITEE Sophia S. Berezanskaya (Kiev), Aleksandra Cofta-Broniewska (Poznań), Mikhail Charniauski (Minsk), Lucyna Domańska (Łódź), Elena G. Kalechyts (Minsk), Viktor I. Klochko (Kiev), Jan Machnik (Kraków), Vitaliy V. Otroshchenko (Kiev), Ma- rzena Szmyt (Poznań), Petro Tolochko (Kiev) SECRETARY Marzena Szmyt SECRETARY OF VOLUME Karolina Harat Danuta Żurkiewicz ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF EASTERN STUDIES INSTITUTE OF PREHISTORY Poznań 2011 ISBN 83-86094-16-8 ISSN 1231-0344 FLINT ARTEFACTS OF NORTHERN PONTIC POPULATIONS OF THE EARLY AND MIDDLE BRONZE AGE: 3200 – 1600 BC (BASED ON BURIAL MATERIALS) Serhiy M. Razumov Translated by Inna Pidluska ½ VOLUME 16• 2011 c Copyright by BPS and Authors All rights reserved Cover Design: Eugeniusz Skorwider Linguistic consultation: Ryszard J. Reisner Printed in Poland Computer typeset by PSO Sp. z o.o. w Poznaniu Printing: Zakłady Poligraficzne TMDRUK in Poznań CONTENTS Editor’sForeword ...................................................... 5 Introduction ........................................................... 7 I. Historiography, Source Base, Research Methodology ................. 10 I.1. The Issue: Research History and Current Status . ............. 10 I.2. TheSourceBase ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • ARCL3068, Neolithic of Britain
    UCL - INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ARCL0078: The Age of Stonehenge 2019/2020 Year 2/3 Option, 0.5 unit Turnitin Class ID: ******* Turnitin Password IoA1920 Essay (2,375-2,625 words) submission date: 18 November 2019 (Target return: 25 November 2019) Co-ordinator: Prof. Mike Parker Pearson E-mail address: [email protected] Room 310, Institute of Archaeology phone 0207 679 4767 1 1. Overview Stonehenge is the world’s most famous stone circle, dating from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. An iconic symbol of mystery and counter-culture, it has attracted attention from enthusiasts around the world who have come up with myriad and often bizarre interpretations of who built it, how and why. This half- module will explore Stonehenge and other monumental constructions within their social, cultural and landscape context, allowing Stonehenge to be understood within the world of prehistoric Britain and Europe from the adoption of farming to the development of copper and bronze metallurgy. This course will examine the history of archaeological research on Stonehenge, and the nature of social change from the Neolithic to the Bell Beaker period and the Early Bronze Age. With many recent investigations of Stonehenge producing a wealth of new evidence, this course will bring students up to date on our knowledge of this fascinating period in prehistory. The course covers the prehistory of the British Isles between c.4000 and c.1500 BC, from the introduction of farming to the early Bronze Age. We will cover the Mesolithic background and Neolithic beginnings, the development of Early Neolithic settlement and monumentality, the changing material culture and monument styles of the Middle Neolithic in the prelude to Stonehenge, Late Neolithic settlements and society at the time of Stonehenge, followed by the arrival of the Bell Beaker way of life and the adoption of metallurgy in Britain.
    [Show full text]