Hoarding, Recycling and the Consumption of Prehistoric Metalwork: Technological Change inWestern EuropeAuthor(s): Richard BradleySource: World Archaeology, Vol. 20, No. 2, Hoards and Hoarding (Oct., 1988), pp. 249-260Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124473Accessed: 30/09/2009 06:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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 athttp://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 printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes 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 WorldArchaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Hoarding, recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork: technological change in western Europe

Richard Bradley

Introduction

This paper considers the interpretation of a series of distinctive deposits of metalwork

dating from the first millennium BC, in conventional terms the Later Bronze and Iron

Ages. Although it is concerned mainly with developments in western Europe, important contrasts will be described between the sequence in that area and metal finds from both northern and central Europe.

The deposits in question are often described as hoards, 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, but this does not mean that all these collections were formed for similar reasons. If we study them as a phenomenon of interest in its own right, we soon discover that the only feature that unites these different deposits is that for some reason

they were never recovered. Such deposits are explained in a variety of ways (for the general review of the question

see Coles and Harding 1979). At their simplest these stress two major aspects of this material. Some collections of metalwork are interpreted as votive deposits and were not meant to be used again, whilst others may have been temporary stores whose recovery was prevented. Often the latter interpretation envisages stores of scrap metal or finished

objects deposited by smiths. Groups of both kinds may help to establish a chronology, but in other respects they played quite different roles.

It is worth elaborating on this distinction. 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). Once deposited, such material could rarely be recovered. Utilitarian hoards, on the other hand, were usually deposited in places from which they could be retrieved, and occasionally their positions seem to have been marked. Outside western

Europe the situation is often less clearcut, in particular in Scandinavia where a large proportion of the hoards assigned to both groups come from bogs. Janet Levy's study of finds from Denmark makes a broad distinction between 'ritual hoards' and 'non-ritual

hoards', based on a close examination of the metalwork and the ways in which it had

World Archaeology Volume 20 No. 2 Hoards and Hoarding ? Routledge 1988 0043-8243/88/2002/249 $1.50/1

250 Richard Bradley

been treated on its deposition (Levy 1982). Although this scheme is sometimes difficult to apply, for ease of reference the same basic distinction will be followed here. In western Europe, however, the most convincing evidence of 'ritual' or 'votive' deposits is provided by river finds rather than hoards.

A further complication concerns the relationship of these collections to the objects found in graves. 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.g. Aner 1956; Torbrfigge 1971). 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. At the same time the archaeological record shows less emphasis on conspicuous burials. By contrast some, elaborate metalwork can still be found with burials in central Europe (Harding 1983), so that the same types of artefact could be deposited in different contexts in these two areas. This contrast between grave finds and river finds runs right through the Later Bronze Age, yet the distributions of the two types of deposit show a broad continuity. The rivers with the main deposits of metalwork are mapped in Figure 1.

The 'ritual hoards' and river finds have provided much of the most elaborate metalwork to survive from later prehistory, but this is a resource which has yet to realise its full potential. 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. This paper does not present any new empirical data. Rather it uses the results of existing analyses to work out the relationship between the practices identified by specialists in this field. In an earlier paper I considered the implications of different types of deposit for our understanding of Bronze Age exchange systems (Bradley 1985). This account complements that analysis by studying the relationship between these enigmatic collections and the sequence of technological change.

Current interpretations

We must now say rather more about current interpretations of these different types of

deposit. The idea of 'ritual hoards' or 'votive deposits' is particularly tenacious and is by no

means limited to finds of metalwork. 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, and even in some areas throughout, the first millennium AD (Torbriigge 1971; Bradley 1987). In western Europe another important group of metal finds occurs in burials. These are a particular feature of the Earlier Bronze Age, 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.

The Scandinavian evidence has been discussed by Kristiansen, who suggests that the change may be related to the supply of exotic metalwork (1984:93). In his opinion the provision of votive offerings may be a 'cheaper' form of consumption than the deposition

Hoarding, recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 251

Figure 1 The complementary distributions of metal sources (after Coles and Harding 1979) and rivers containing elaborate artefacts (data from Torbriigge 1971).

of grave goods. If so, he suggests, difficulties in obtaining sufficient metalwork may account for this change of practice. Whilst the provision of elaborate offerings may have been obligatory at funerals, the frequency of votive deposits could have been influenced more directly by the supply of imported metalwork.

Although Kristiansen's interpretation can be questioned, he is surely correct to

emphasise the problems of maintaining a supply of metal in areas well away from its natural sources. 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. 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. 1). At the same time, the metalwork placed in contemporary burials

252 Richard Bradley

in central Europe could be made from more local materials. This contrast must not be overemphasised but it does raise the possibility that rather different systems may have operated in these two areas.

The interpretation of 'non-ritual' hoards has proceeded along very different lines. Hlere the prevailing view, which is supported by metal analysis, is that many of these deposits are connected with the management of the bronze supply; far fewer are seen as stores of personal possessions. This interpretation only emphasises the practical difficulties of maintaining an adequate supply of bronze outside the source areas. 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. Sometimes this must have improved the mechanical properties of particular objects, but in other cases it may be an indication of the difficulty of sustaining the flow of raw material. This question has been treated too lightly, and for the most part the literature gives the impression that the metal industry was both flexible and productive (cf. Northover 1982).

Some problems in current interpretations

The interpretations summarised above do little to explain the sheer variety of metalwork deposits. Still less do they account for the relationship between these different collections. We can best approach these issues by investigating some of the assumptions that lie behind the interpretations considered so far.

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. It is sometimes suggested that such deposits were broadly equivalent to one another, the votive deposits in western Europe taking on the role of grave offerings once cremation was widely practised (Torbriigge 1971). This would mean that some of this material was deposited during rites of passage. If so, 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, rather than the single set that might accompany a body into the ground (Levy 1982:

69-84). Moreover we shall see that in western Europe the chronological distribution of Later Bronze Age votive deposits sometimes reveals an increasing rate of deposition. In such cases the empirical evidence appears to reverse Kristiansen's proposition, suggesting that the switch from grave goods to other deposits actually allowed a significant expansion in the consumption of metalwork.

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. This depends on how we understand the recycling of metalwork. This may appear efficient, even laudable, from a modern western viewpoint, but it is worth questioning whether this is the right reading of this evidence. Is recycling to be seen as a sign of buoyancy at all? We can consider some information from other periods. Of particular relevance is a recent study of the place of recycling in the economy of pre-industrial England (Woodward 1985). This points in precisely the opposite direction to the orthodoxy in Bronze Age

Hoarding, recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 253

studies. For Woodward recycling, including the recycling of metals, may well be an indication of poverty and chronic shortage. It is a comparison that provides food for

thought. A more directly archaeological example may be relevant at this point, for a partial

analogy to the Bronze Age situation is found in the Viking Age, when communities in northern Europe were again dependent on a supply of metal from outside, in this case silver. 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.g. Hardh 1976; cf. Graham-Campbell 1982; see also Thurborg, this

issue). Here there is abundant evidence for the recycling of metal artefacts imported from a distance and, although it is difficult to measure the supply of imported silver, it is

possible to identify the major sources of this material through the presence of foreign coins.

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. At this stage we need to broaden our discussion to take into account some additional characteristics of Later Bronze Age metalworking. Having suggested a rather different framework for

analysis, we can then attempt to work out its implications for the use of metalwork over a

longer period. We can also consider the difficult problems raised by the adoption of iron in western Europe.

Three general tendencies are worth taking into account. First, there can be little doubt that the Later Bronze Age was a period of agricultural expansion. 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. 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).

Secondly, we have seen that there is compelling evidence for the widespread recycling of metals. This was certainly not confined to the Later Bronze Age, but there are indications that more complex arrangements were now being made for the accumulation and re-use of scrap metal. By this stage such material might even include types of artefact that are more commonly discovered in votive deposits, including ornaments and pieces of weaponry. Normally these items would have received such summary treatment outside the areas in which they appeared in more specialised contexts (Bradley 1985). There were also changes in the sources of raw material that were used in western

Europe. Of particular interest is the increasing use of Atlantic metal sources at the end of the Bronze Age, in preference to the central European ores which had provided so much raw material (Northover 1982). Such changes in Northover's 'metal circulation zones'

may mean that the industry was in difficulties.

Lastly, there is some evidence that in western Europe an increasing proportion of the metal supply was diverted into the votive sphere. This is difficult to quantify since we

254 Richard Bradley

know all too little about the rate at which the natural ores were being extracted, and only in Scandinavia have attempts beeanmade to work out how long different types of artefact circulated before they entered the archaeological record (cf. Kristiansen 1984). Nor do we know what proportion of the material originally deposited has been recovered and documented by archaeologists. In particular our knowledge of river finds depends very largely on the extent of dredging in different areas. Consequently we cannot compare the amounts of metalwork from one region to another, but we can consider the chronological distribution of the finds from any one river. By relating this evidence to the likely duration of the periods represented, we can gain some impression of changes in the rate of deposition over time.

This evidence shows a number of processes at work, 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. The simplest pattern can be illustrated by finds of weapons from the Paris Basin (Mohen 1977), where the rate of

deposition seems to have increased nearly four times over between Bronze Moyen and Bronze Final 2, before it fell sharply during Bronze Final 3; exactly the same pattern is evident if we consider single finds of weapons from dry land. At the same time, 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). A second process can be illustrated by the river finds from Mainz, documented by

Wegner (1976). His study shows that the rate of deposition rose sharply from the Neolithic period onwards, reaching a peak during the Later Bronze Age. Finds of dated swords, however, show an approximately even rate of deposition between Bronze D and Hallstatt BI, but this increased threefold during Hallstatt B3, before it fell away almost completely. Again there seems to be a close relationship between this evidence and the evidence of dry-land hoards, which reached a peak during the period that saw the greatest deposition of swords in the rivers. An alternative is found in Upper Austria, where the distributions of river finds and grave finds overlap (Erbach-Schonberg 1985). The chronological distributions of the swords in these deposits are to some extent complementary, but when the two are combined we discover that the rate of consumption in different areas rose sharply between Hallstatt A and B3. The number of hoards with similar material showed an equivalent increase over this period.

In other areas the chronological relationship between these two types of deposit is less straightforward. A different case is presented by the Lower Thames, where a high level of consumption seems to be evidenced by Late Bronze Age river finds (Needham and Burgess 1980). The rate of deposition seems to been roughly the same during Late Bronze Age 1, 2 and 4, but in Late Bronze Age 3 it fell by nearly 60 per cent, before regaining its former level. 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. Some of these contained weapon fragments and what is interpreted as scrap metal.

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. In Scandinavia, however, Kristiansen has investigated this question through wear analysis, attempting to work out how long different objects circulated before their deposition. Because all the

Hoarding, recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 255

metalwork had to be imported, he can use these estimates to identify fluctuations in the

supply of bronzes. He suggests that the main influx of metalwork was during Period II and that after that time the supply decreased, although there were lesser peaks around the end of Period III and during Period V (Kristiansen 1984: fig. 13). For the most part this presents a different picture from Levy's analysis of the Danish 'ritual hoards', whose rate of deposition was lowest in Perod III and considerably higher in periods IV and V

(Levy 1982). It seems as if the rate of consumption actually increased at a time when the amount of imported metalwork was falling. Only in Period VI when the metal supply reached its lowest point was the rate of deposition curtailed.

There is only limited evidence for the careful collection of scrap metal in Scandinavia, but in all the other cases, we can suggest that there was a systematic relationship between the level of consumption of fine metalwork and the frequency of utilitarian hoards. As more and more objects were deposited in contexts from which they could not be recovered, increasingly concerted attempts may have been made to reuse what remained in circulation.

We must now address the more difficult task of bringing these observations together in a single interpretation.

Perhaps the most important point to emphasise is the chronological and geographical distribution of grave goods and votive deposits. 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. The reasons for this change remain in doubt, but to some extent they contrast with developments in central Europe where metalwork could still be deposited with the dead. It seems as if the use of fine metalwork in the votive sphere was most obvious in areas in which the metal itself - and sometimes the styles in which it was worked - possessed an exotic character (Fig. 1). By contrast more of the objects deposited as grave goods in central Europe could have been made locally. Perhaps the bronze industry was differently organised in the latter area and social distinctions were indicated by the style of metal artefacts. In western Europe, on the other hand, more emphasis could have fallen on the long-distance links that attended their acquisition. To that extent bronze may have been so important in the votive sphere precisely because it was of foreign origin. Both systems no doubt possessed a competitive aspect, but this could have expressed itself in very different ways. It is often suggested that the provision of rich graves plays a part in maintaining the social order (cf. Parker Pearson 1982), but this need not mean that the distinctive practices seen in western

Europe lacked an equally important role. Gregory (1980) has shown how gifts to the

supernatural can provide an effective medium for competitive consumption. This may be the implication of the increasing number of votive deposits in the Later Bronze Age sequence. In Appadurai's useful term fine metalwork may have been deposited during 'tournaments of value' (1986:21).

The main patterns traced in this section contain a common thread. Far from being a

'cheaper' form of consumption, the squandering of weapons and ornaments in votive

deposits could have taken place at a quickening pace during the Later Bronze Age. In western Europe this seems to have run in parallel with a major period of reorganisation in the domestic economy. It seems clear that this must have made growing demands on the metal supply for the production of everyday tools. Since the objects consumed in

256 Richard Bradley

such quantity in the votive sphere tended to be made of imported materials, it is hardly surprising that the period is also marked by efforts to conserve metal through the accumulation and re-use of scrap. 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. One sign of the strains that resulted is when types of object which were usually deposited in water were accumulated as scrap metal. This duality in the treatment of fine objects is a particular feature of the scrap hoards, but is unusual in the ethnographic record. As Appadurai has commented, such 'diversion of commodities from specified paths is always a sign of creativity or crisis, whether aesthetic or economic' (1986:26).

In this case the most likely interpretation is that these changes precipitated an economic crisis. The processes of hoarding, 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. We have seen that there is some evidence for chronological development. If we are to say more about how these processes were connected, we must return to the question of sequence.

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. The increasing rate at which exotic objects were taken out of circulation may have created difficulties in obtaining fresh material, and in particular must have posed problems for the domestic economy where the same material was used for ordinary tools. As the intensity of consumption in the votive deposits increased, we have seen that there were more obvious attempts to recycle what metalwork remained.

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, and it is then that in some areas we see a diminution in the consumption of river metalwork, matched by a peak of recycling evidenced in the scrap hoards. Both may be indications of a general shortage of metal. This view is hardly novel, 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. perhaps, is the suggestion that it might have been caused by strains originating within the local system. 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). The two interpretations are not necessarily in conflict.

We have suggested how the metal supply may have come under pressure, but we have still to account for the distinctive character of the transition from bronze to iron in different parts of Europe. This transition took different forms in different areas, but three basic patterns can perhaps be recognised. First, there are areas in which iron artefacts, especially weapons, seem to have taken over from bronzes as prestige objects. These were generally deposited in graves. In this case it seems likely that the initial change was accomplished fairly simply and that the production of iron weapons

IHoarding, recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 257

continued a long-established tradition and merely substituted one locally available material for another, less familiar one. It seems to be this pattern that is found in central

Europe (cf. Collis 1984:74). A second kind of transition can be identified in northern Europe, where the practice of

ritual hoarding continued on a significant scale after it had largely lapsed in other areas

(Larsson 1986: fig. 102). Here, however, many of the difficulties suggested for western

Europe would have been less severe. In Scandinavia a substantial part of the metal

supply had been devoted to the ritual sphere, but in this area metal seems to have played a less important role in the domestic economy, where stone and bone tools were still in use (Levinson 1983). There may have been fewer pressures on the metal supply and there is less evidence of scrap hoards in this region. Instead some of the latest deposits of bronze artefacts are made up of ornaments, apparently devoted to the supernatural (Levy 1982; Larsson 1986).

It was only in western Europe that the transition from bronze to iron would have been

particularly traumatic, for here bronze played a central role in both the votive and the domestic spheres. Moreover it seems likely that bronzes were used so extensively in the votive sphere because of their generally exotic character. It may be for this reason that the adoption of ironworking was somewhat retarded in this area. Rather than adopt iron

weaponry on any scale once it first became available in central Europe, communities seem to have continued to deposit bronze weapons in the rivers of western Europe. 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. 11.2; Pleiner 1981).

A graphic illustration of this point is provided by the swords made during this crucial period. The Gundlingen sword was made of bronze and may belong to either a central or a western European tradition (Cohen 1967; Schauer 1972). It was distributed throughout both areas, but maintained the regional contrast between grave finds and river deposits. Its contemporary, the Mindelheim sword, was a central European development and was made in both bronze and iron. Although the latter type had a more restricted distribution, this contrast was still maintained, and the iron swords were preferred in graves, whilst the bronze swords were deposited in rivers, largely in the west. Where bronze and iron were both deposited in the same areas, the contexts of this material are revealing. Gerdsen (1986) has studied the swords from twenty-nine regions of Europe. In twenty-three of these areas iron swords dominated the burial record, but all the river finds in his catalogue were made of bronze. These were found in fifteen of the regions studied, but in eleven of these iron swords were preferred as grave goods. Few swords are recorded as single finds from dry land, but bronze weapons predominated in those areas with a significant quantity of river finds, again suggesting that the choice of metal might have been significant. Although some of this patterning must be due to chronological factors, these observations also emphasise the links between the use of different materials and ways in which they entered the archaeological record.

After this transitional phase, the character of the archaeological record is transformed. Hoards are very infrequent and far fewer weapons are found in votive deposits. As iron weapons were adopted more generally, the mode of deposition could change so that now they were buried with the dead. In other cases the number of metal finds decreases altogether, for example in the British Isles, where burials with grave goods are largely

258 Richard Bradley

absent. It seems possible that fine metalwork was still in short supply. This is strongly suggested by the chronology of the river finds. We have already seen how they reached a peak in the later years of the Bronze Age before their numbers diminished sharply. 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, generally in La Tene C/D (Torbriigge 1971). In the light of our earlier arguments, 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); when iron weapons were sufficiently widely available, the practice of votive deposition was renewed. Despite changes in the nature of the artefacts employed, this practice then continued unabated around and outside the frontiers of the Roman Empire. 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. During this hiatus the number of river and bog finds was much reduced. In some areas, however, such material simply changed its character; for instance deposits of food and agricultural equipment are recorded in southern Scandinavia (cf. Parker Pearson 1984:75).

Conclusions

This paper began by emphasising the difficulty of working with the traditional category of 'hoard', when it seems to embrace at least two quite different concepts: utilitarian deposits often connected with the management of the metal supply; and essentially votive deposits of fine artefacts which were never meant to be recovered. The relationships between these two groups are extremely complicated, and in western Europe, where so much fine metalwork was deposited in rivers, 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 have been because bronze smiths could not meet these demands that a less exotic material came into favour. The importance of such changes can be overemphasised unless they are studied as part of a longer sequence of development. In these terms the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition in western Europe may mask a broader fluctuation in the consumption of metal artefacts. 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.

Acknowledgement

I am very grateful to Frances Raymond for preparing Fig. 1.

27.viii. 1987 Department of Archaeology University of Reading

Hoarding, recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork 259

References

Aner, E. 1956. Grab und Hort. Offa, 15: 31-42.

Appadurai, A. 1986. Commodities and the politics of value. In The Social Life of Things (ed. A. Appadurai). Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-63.

Bradley, R. 1985. Exchange and social distance - the structure of bronze artefact distributions. Man, 20: 692-704.

Bradley, R. 1987. Stages in the chronological development of hoards and votive deposits. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 53: 351-62.

Cohen, J. D. 1967. The Hallstatt sword of bronze: on the Continent and in Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 33: 377-454.

Coles, J. and Harding, A. 1979. The Bronze Age in Europe. London: Methuen.

Collis, J. 1984. The European Iron Age. London: Batsford.

Erbach-Schonberg, M-C. 1985. Bemerkungen zur urnenfelderzeitlichen Deponierungen in Ober6sterreich. Archiologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 15: 163-78.

Gaucher, G. 1981. Sites et cultures de l'dge du Bronze dans le bassin Parisien. Paris: CNRS.

Gerdsen, H. 1986. Studien zu den Schwertgraben der Alteren Hallstattzeit. Mainz: Von Zabern.

Graham-Campbell, J. 1982. Viking silver hoards: an introduction. In The Vikings (ed. R. T. Farrell). Chichester: Phillimore, pp. 32-42.

Gregory, C. 1980. Gifts to men and gifts to god: gift exchange and capital accumulation in contemporary Papua. Man, 15: 626-52.

Hardh, B. 1976. Wikingerzeitliche Depotfunde aus Siidschweden. Lund: CWK Gleerup.

Harding, A. 1983. The Bronze Age in Central and Eastern Europe: advances and prospects. In Advances in World Archaeology, vol. 2 (eds F. Wendorf and A. Close). New York: Academic Press, pp. 1-50.

Harding, A. 1984. Aspects of social evolution in the Bronze Age. In European Social Evolution (ed. J. Bintliff). Bradford: University of Bradford, pp. 139-45.

Kristiansen, K. 1984. Ideology and material culture: an archaeological perspective. In Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology (ed. M. Spriggs). Cambridge University Press, pp. 72-100.

Larsson, T. 1986. The Bronze Age Metalwork in Southern Sweden: Aspects of Social and Spatial Organisation 1800-500 BC. Umea: University of Umea, Department of Archaeology.

Levinson, K. 1983. Jernets introduktion i Danmark. Kuml (1982-3): 153-68.

Levy, J. 1982. Social and Religious Organisation in Bronze Age Denmark: An Analysis of Ritual Hoard Finds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series No. 124.

Mohen, J-P. 1977. L'dge du Bronze dans la region de Paris. Paris: Editions des Mus6es Nationaux.

Needham, S. and Burgess, C. 1980. The Later Bronze Age in the lower Thames valley: the metalwork evidence. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age (eds J. Barrett and R. Bradley). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series No. 83, pp. 437-69.

Northover, P. 1982. The exploration of the long-distance movement of bronze in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe. Bulletin of the London University Institute of Archaeology, 19: 45-72.

Parker Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (ed. I. Hodder). Cambridge University Press, pp. 99-113.

Parker Pearson, M. 1984. Economic and ideological change: cyclical growth in the pre-state

260 Richard Bradley

societies of Jutland. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory (eds D. Miller and C. Tilley). Cambridge University Press, pp. 69-92.

Pleiner, R. 1980. Early iron metallurgy in Europe. In The Coming of the Age of Iron (eds T. Wertime and J. Muhly). New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 375-415.

Pleiner, R. 1981. Die Wege des Eisens nach Europa. In Friihes Eisen in Europa (ed. R. Pleiner), Schaffshausen: Peter Meili, pp. 115-28.

Rowlands, M. 1980. Kinship, alliance and exchange in the Later Bronze Age. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age (eds J. Barrett and R. Bradley). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series No. 83, pp. 15-55.

Schauer, P. 1972. Zu Herkunft der bronzenen Hallstatt Schwerter. Archdologisches Korrespondenz- blatt, 2: 261-70.

Torbriigge, W. 1971. Vor- und Friihgeschichtliche Fliissfunde. Bericht der romischgermanischen Kommission, 40: 1-146.

Wegner, W. 1976. Die vorgeschichtlichen Flussfunde aus dem Main und aus dem Rhein bei Mainz. Kallmunz: Michael Lassleben.

Woodward, D. 1985. 'Swords into ploughshares': recycling in pre-industrial England. Economic History Review, 38: 175-91.

Abstract

Bradley, Richard

Hoarding, 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; and the 'non-ritual' hoards found on dry land, which sometimes contain scrap metal. It seems likely that fine bronzes were being sacrificed at an increasing rate during this period. Since the metal was rarely of local origin, the supply of bronze came under strain and more material had to be recycled to meet the need for everyday artefacts. Ultimately these conflicting claims resulted in a general shortage of metal and encouraged the adoption of ironworking in western Europe.