Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Sussex
Loops
An Investigation into their Form,Function andSignificance.
ByAmie Friend
CelticArchaeology
MA Thesis2073
,-
Declaration
'l certify that this dissertation is my own unaided work, and has personally
been researched and written by me'
Date
Word Count J' r 49O ., . - , .- " ,
-i-
Acknowledgements
There are several people to whom I owe a very big thank you, for without them the writing of
this thesis would have been nextto impossible.
Firstly. to all those of the Bangor University archaeological department, in particular Raimund
Karl, Kate Waddington and Gary Robinson, for all of their help, guidance and encouragement.
Secondly, to Karen Pollock and Aimee Pritchard, directors of the Ancient Footprints tour
company. I would like to say a very big thank you to you both for not only allowing me to work
with Ancient Footprints, as part of my ATM scheme, but also for the unfailing encouragement
you gave me. I loved working for the company and hope to not only work in a similar occupation
in the future but also within such a relaxed, happy and supportive environment.
In addition I would like to thank those museums whose collections include a Sussex Loop, for
allowing me access to the artefacts, namely Worthing Museum and Art Gallery Lewes Museum,
The Great North Museum, Brighton Museum and The British Museum. In particular I would like
to address this thankyou to Neil Wilkia of the British Museum, and Andy Maxted, of Brighton
Museum, whose help and support has been invaluable and very much appreciated.
Lastly, but by no means least of all, I would like to say a big thank you to Sally and lan. From
helping me talk through problems of argument to proof reading and building me a proper desk,
you have been brilliant and there is no way I would have managed to do a Masters without your
help.
To all those above and to all those who made this masters year so fun and rewarding I say a verybigthankyou.
-ll-
List of Figures
l, Sussex Loop 17 recovered from tle 2011 Near Lewes Hoard
2. A view of the Sussex South Downs as seen from Patching
3. Sussex Loop B found within the East Dean Hoard
4, Sussex Loop 19 recovered from the 2011 Near lewes Hoard
5. SussexLoop 13 foundatHollingburyCastle
6. Sussex Loop 7 recovered as part ofthe Hollingbury Camp Hoard
7. Sussex Loop 10 found at llandcross
8. An overall view ofthe Sussex South Downs
9. The concordance between &e metal work periodisation of Burgess and Needham
10. The main stages of the BronzeAge metalwork development
11. The SoutJr Downs as seen from Sompting
12. Sussex Loop 18 recovered from the 2011 Near Lewes Hoard
13. The Lozenge profile ofthe Sussex Loops as demonstrated by Sussex Loop 15 found within the Chichester
hoard
14. The Round profile of the Sussex Loops as demonseated by Sussex Loop 9 found within the East Dean hoard
1$. The profile ofthe known Sussex Loops
16, The weight range ofthe Sussex Loops
17. The thiclmess of tle round and lozenge construction rods
18. The diameter ofthe round and lozenge consEuction rods
19, The weight ofthe rouad and lozenge consfruction rods
20. The thickness of tle Sussex Loops construction rods by find site
21. The weight of the Sussex Loop by site
22. The variation of construction rods used in tle Sussex Loop assemblage
23. The interior and exterior diameters of the Sussex Loops
24. The interior diameter of the Sussex Loops by find site
25. Nicked decoration around the Loop face of Sussex Loop 10
26. Technical drawing of Sussex Loop 3 demonstrating zig-zag marldngs {Whita LggL,}4;Ll
27. Extended decoration over hookioint ofSussex Loop 11
28. Sussex Loop 15 indicating darker colouring and near invisible decoration
29. Sussex Loop 16 demonstrating patches ofbrighter colour
30. Sussex Loop 3 Patching
31, Sussex Loop 20 from Near Lewes showing patches of a lighter, golden bronze colouring
32, The sharp lozenge profile ofSussex Loop 13 Loop face
33. The smoother interior curve of Sussex Loop 13
34, The compression damage of Sussex Loop 8 EastDean
35. The broken terminal and hollow deprrssion exhibited by Sussex Loop 9
36. The parallel marldngs ofSussex Loop 11
37. The complete, clean cut &rough the Loop hce of Sussex Loop 21
38. Mines of copper and tin throughout Britain and the continent @radley 1988, 251)
39. Rawcopper[WWW5]
40. Raw tin [!V!VW6)
41. The Great Orme tunnels
-lll*
42. Side view of Sussex Loop 9 East Dean
43. Loop face of Sussex Loop 4 Hollingbury Camp
,t4. Side view of Sussex Loop 4 Holltngbury Camp
45. Iaop face of Sussex Loop 9 East Dean
46. View of the Sussex South downs from Sompting near to the Stump Bottom hoard
47. SussexLoop lSNearlewes
48. $ussex Loop 6 Hollingbury Camp
49. Sussex Loop 4 Hollingbury Camp
50. firc Sussexloops made into rings (WWWa)
51. The concentradon of the Sussex Loop by their find sites
52. Sussex Loop 16 Chichester
53. fire clean breakthrough the bronze rod of Sussex Loop 21
54. Sussexloopl0
55. The distribudon of the Sussex Loop finds excluding the two new oramples from the Near Oakham hoard
56. The distribution ofthe round Sussex Loops
57, The dis$ibution oftte lozenge Sussex Loops
58. The dlstribution of the Sussex loops in comparison to the contemporary South Down settlements
59. The distrtbution of the Sussex loops in comparison to tte Late Bronze Age Hill-forts of Sussex
60. The concentration of artefacts associated with t}e Sussex Loops by find site
51. The concentradon of Sussex loops and their associated arteface by ffnd site
62. The dlstribudon of the Sussex Inops and theirassociated artefacts
63. The Sussex fuutJr Downs
-lv*
Contents
Declaration I
Acknowledgements ll
List of Figures lll
Introduction L
Methodolory 5
Dating the Sussex Loops B
Chapter One -?he Sussex Loops
The Sussex Loop Survey 2013 10
Construction Material 22
The Sussex Loop Craftsmen 26
The Sussex Loops their Form and Function 30
Chapter Two * Depositionand Disffibution
Deposition and the Practice of Hoarding 35
A Bronze Age Store Cupboard 36
Votive Deposition 37
Personal Hoards 40
Disposal 43
Deposition 44
Distribution 45
The Brighton Loops 46
Overall Distribution 48
Chapter Three - Assseiated Find$
Associated Finds 52
Scrap Metal or Final Merchandise 53
Votive Deposits 56
Conclusions 58
Bibliography
Appendix
Introduction
.Sussex Loop 2 - Stump Bottom
It is often the case that the most tangible remains of past societies are the metalwork pieces left
behind, pieces which have often become icons of archaeologr owing to their ability to captivate
public interest Many metals such as gold and bronze retain much of their original form and
need little imagination to be seen, at least physically, as they were several thousand years ago.
Indeed objects such as the Battersea shield offer modern audiences a glimpse into the lives of
those who Iived long hefore us as well as incite appreciation for the prehistoric craftsmanship.
However, from an archaeological perspective metalwork is also "one of the rnost important
fossils ... Ieft to us" (Pearce , L984,5) in the study of late prehistoric peoples.
As such the focus of this thesis will cenre predominantly on a little known, bronze
assemblage tucked into t}le region of the Sussex South Downs. The Sussex or Brighton Loops, as
they have come to be known, are essentially trvists of bronze, shaped into often elegant and or
robust forms, as shown in figure 1. They occur almost exclusively within the modern boundaries
of Sussex and, with only trrrro site exceptions, within the rough landscape of the Sussex South
Downs. So far only passing attention has been paid to these regionally specific pieces and
interpreation has ended with their labelling as possible bracelets or upper arm rings, which,
according to antiquarian writers, represented eminent local personages, such as female
members of a druidic order (Russell, 2002,94). However, the Sussex Loops occur within a
landscape and time period wroughtwith change, development and arguably the beginnings of a
new expression of cultural identity. Therefore it may be possible that their interpretation is not
as simple as has previouslybeen believed.
As with the latertechnological development frorn bronze to iron, the transition from, the
academically defined, Neolithic to Bronze
Age was achieved over an extended time
frame, one dominated by both change and
continuation. Indeed it is not until the
latter stages of the second millennium BC
that major developments in both daily life
and cultural expression begin to be
definitively seen archaeologically.
Previously the Neolithic, and
"earlier Bronze Age, had been
characterlsed by evidence for burials and
ritual monuments" fChampion 2009, L26),
as well as "a fair degree of residential
mobility'' {Barber, 2003, 12). In contrast by
the beginning of tlre first millennium BC
Flgure 7 - Sussex Loop 17 - Near Lewes
ffiitqraph bt, Attthar - wlth p,ermlsslon of the Dritlsh ttuseum)
-f-*
I
and for some time previously, the apparently dominating adherence to the dead seems to have
developed steadily into an appreciation of the living. There is increasingly little evidencg as
Champion observes, "for any significant activity at the major ceremonial monuments of the late
Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age, after the middle of the second millennium BC. Instead the
focus ... turns to the rapidly increasing evidence for human settlement and for the division and
exploitation of the natural landscape" (Champion,2009,126). In fact, once the tradition for
barrow burials begins to fade, many areas of the British Isles do not produce significant human
burial evidence for more than a millennium (Champion,Z009,L26).
From around 1500 BC the first settlements truly definable in the archaeological record
begin to appear in areas such as southern Britain (Brtick, 1999, 145). These early forms of
permanent settlement generally seem to comprise small clusters of roundhouses, accompanied
by additional structures of occupancy, such as ponds, granaries and storage pits. They most
likely played host to "single family groups practicing mixed farming and engaging in small scale
inter-household exchanges of goods, labour and marriage partners" (Briick, 2007,25). Each
small village would have utilised the surrounding landscape, and increasingly their own defined
field systems (Pearce, 1984,23), as an enclosed, sedentary style off life became increasingly the
norm.
Several such settlement complexes are known in Sussex including Park Brow in
Figure 2 - TTreSussex5outh Downs as seen ftom Patching(?ha.,g,mphbyAathor)
*2*
Sompting New Barn Down, Patching, and Itford Hill, near Lewes. The areas early hill-forts, such
as Chanctonbury Ring Hearting Beacon and Hollingbury officially arrive around 700-7508C
(Hamilton & Gregory 2000, 66) but are predated in many cases by occupation and activity prior
to the formal building of defended enclosures (Bedwin L978,42). Indeed it would seem that by
the Middle Bronze Age the south coast was changing and by the Late Bronze Age had changed
drastically, both in terms of social and cultural life. Instead of monuments archaeolory sees
defined villageg and instead of burials new cultural practices, such as hoarding, appear with
increasing frequency.
It is a general observation of those such as lfistiansen that during "the early sequence
of bronze technolory the most common form of deposition was by hoarding" (Kristiansen, L989,
2L). Today, according to Barber, "we have clear and unambiguous, although not universally
acknowledged, evidence that deposition in
the Bronze Age could be non random
selective and purposeful" fBarber, 2001,
162). Hoard finds have, in most cases, been
accidental, yet examples have been
recovered from across Britain, including the
Sussex down land zone, and it is within
these contexts that the maiority of Sussex
Loops occur.
Thrrugh studies of such hoarding
practices, communities occupying specific
areas, such as the Sussex Downs, become
increasingly visible archaeologically. As a
result detailed analysis of artefacts, such as
the Sussex Loops, may very likely influence
thinking not only of the artefacts
themselves, in terms of their manufacture and function, but also whert the communities who
create4 used and eventually disposed ofthem are considered.
Significantly fundamental questions concerning the Sussex Loops have yet to be fully
explored. These objects are unusual and whilst some thought has already been given to their
function the theory that they were some form of ornamentation has yet to be fully considered.
Equally no Sussex Loop has yet been found within a secure archaeological context, other than a
Middle Bronze Age hoard, and little serious archaeological attention has been diverted to the
significance such Loops may have held for those who created and used them. Until May of this
year there had been no reported cases of a Sussex Loop, hoarded or otherwise, outside of the
Ftgure3 -Susrexf,oop I- EastDcan(Phoryrcph by Author wlth permtsston ol the ,,'lLilsh lflusanm)
*3-
.l
modern boundaries of Sussex. Two examples have now been recovered approximately 165
miles from the Loops Brighton epicentre, yet aside from this pair, and the three Handcross
examples, tle Sussex Loops as an assemblage seem to have resided within a very specific
regional area, namely a 15 mile radius of modern Brighton's tor,vn centre. The reason for both
this relatively small scale distribution and its obvious anomalies have yet to be academically
addressed and as such it may be reasonably hypothesised tlrat there was more to the Sussex
Loops local or personal significance than simply as pieces of regional jewellery.
In order to consider such questions this thesis will seek to develop a detailed
examination of the Sussex Loops, as a metalwork assemblage, as well as establish depositional
contexts for each Loop, and compare any artefacts that were deposited in tandem. In so doing a
fuller picture of the Sussex Loops will be built, considering what these objects were, who may
have used them and why, as far as we hmow, they are not to be found in any great numbers
outside of the South Downs region.
Yet it is also hoped that this thesis will aid archaeological progress in other areas of
research, such as further interpretation as to the social structures in ptray during the Bronze Age
of Sussex and its south coast. Significantly, investigation into assemblages such as t}re Sussex
Loops may provide tangible indicadons of the crafumen orwomen involved in the manufacture
of such items and whether it is possible that a benefactor or particular client stood in the
shadow of the Loops constructiort.
Similarly, examination of artefact
ranges, such as the Sussex Loops will
provide additional pieces in the jig-
saw that is the development of
hoarding practices during the Bronze
Age, and why such practices were
adopted in the South Downs, and
elsewhere.
As such this thesis will aim to
develop a further understanding of
not only the Sussex loops as an
assemblage but also, though a detailed
study of their forms, function and
significance, contribute to a wider
understanding of Bronze Age
communities, particularly within the
context of the Sussex South Downs.
Flgure 4 -Srssexf,oop 19. Near Lew* Hoard(Pho,ry,mph by Attthor wtth Permisslon ol the &fldsh Ntlfjum)
n4n
frIethodology
$ussex Laop 2A - Near Lewes
It has been a developing trend of the past decades that studies of Bronze Age metalwork, and in
particular detailed typological studies, have become increasingly unpopular as a primary
method of research fEhrenburg 1989, 78). Pearce defines the process oftypolory as "the
definition of forms, and the comparison of one piece with another to create a ladder of
typological development and hence of relative chronology" fPearce, 1984, 5). Such methods of
research have increasingly come under academic scrutiny as new avenues of investigation, such
as spatial and distribution analyses have been trialled, and appreciation of archaeolo$cal
context has increased. Itwas Armbrusterwho remarked tlat, "Chronological questions cannot
be resolved, and indeed they are hardly worth asking, without proper attention to matters of ..,
function and place ... objects cannot be understood unless *rey are seen in the context in which
they are manufactured and the reasons why they were produced are considered" (Armbruster,
2011,418), Indeed detailed discussions as to whether a particular assemblage belongs to the
Taunton, Penard or Wilberton phase of Bronze Age metalwork does little beyond providing a
useful dating frame worh and cerrainly makes little headway in addressing wider academic
questions. Indeed "as Alex Gibson has noted what specialists seem to forget is that an inhabitant
of around 3000 years ago would not give two hoots about what type his axe was so long as it
chopped down that tree or carved that log" (Barber, 2003, 9).As Bradley observes, "for many
scholars the role of metalworkwas clear... itwas the foundation of our chronologies, and the
surest clue" fBradley, 1-989, 1"1) into the rnindset of prehistoric communities. However this idea
t}at typological artalysis is the be all and end all of metalwork studies, particularly where the
Bronze Age is concerned, is rapidly and rightly changing. Metalwork still remains in many cases
the only, or rather best preserved, range of material evidence recovered by archaeolory, and as
such investigations into assemblages can still prove fruitful. However the manner in which
studies of mealwork collections, such as the Sussex Loops, are approached mustbe seriously
considered, forArmbruster is correct in his assessment, and any sttrdywhich seeks to analyse a
specific assemblage must be cautious not to fall prey to the, often circular, trap of detailed
chronological argument,
In cases such as the Sussex Loops, metalwark assemblages can potentially provide a
unique insight into a regional community being, as they are, limited in their geographical
locations. In such cases metalwork need not be dry unspeaking artefacts but instead a wealth of
information which carries with it the possibility of many social and cultural inferences. Studies,
such as foys 2010 investigation into the known lron Age mirrors, are crucial examples of how
analysis of specific assemblages can be used to explore wider archaeological idea. loy's
synthesis employs many analytical approaches. It examines not only the mirrors themselves in
their present form, Iooking at wear patterns and marks of practical use, but also utilises
distribution techniques, such as grave positioning and even focuses on the psychological effect
*l;e
mirrors can have on individuals (Joy, 2010). Throughout the
proiect patterns, trends and anomalies are found examined
and commented upon, in order to establish how and why
tlese mirrors were made.
Such an approach will also be invoked by this thesis,
starting with a visual and dimensional examination of the
material artefacts tlemselves. Such an approach will seek to
identifftrends and anomalies within the assemblage in terms
of size, shape and construction material. At the same dme this
thesis will seek to explore, and comment upon, the marks of
use, wear and decoration which are visible on the known
Sussex Loops, looking for variations and consistencies which
may indicate their uses both practically and maybe socially.
Secondly the study will focus on the crucial element
of deposition, for the manner in which an object is disposed
of arguably highlights how it was perceived during its active
life. As such the locadon and manner of deposition accorded
to each Sussex Loop will be examined, aiming to discern why
the process of disposal was consistently that of hoarding and
how such hoarding activities may influence thinking as to
how the Sussex Loops were perceived by their Bronze Age
creators. Through computer generated maps of distribution,
and to some degree methods of spatial analysis, it is hoped
that specific trends of deposition maybe discovered and
arguments sustained as to why these Loops were disposed of
in the manner that they were.
Lastly comparison and association will be utilised
between the Sussex Loops and any other items selected for
deposition at the same time and within the same space.
Through comparison of the obiects chosen for disposal, there
probable value and significance, as well as the identification
of any trends in associated artefacts, the cultural use and
perception of the Loops maybe cautiously interpreted.
Such a methodological approach will however be
complicated by several issues of daa. This project will form
the first investigation of the Sussex Loops and as such the
Flgure 5 - Sussexloop 73 - Near Lewes(Phougmph by Aulhor - wlth prmtsston of the Brtdsh
Naseum)
Ftgure 6 - Sussertroop 7- Holllngbury Camp(Photqraph W Author - wlth permlssioa of the Mttsh
l{aseum)
Ftgurc 7 - Suss* Laop 7A - Ilandcmssffiqfiph W Author - wtthperntsston of the ff]dsh
Musez,n)
*6-
data so far collected is essentlally of a limited variety. To date only basic analysis has been
applied to the Sussex Loops and no example has so far been included in any other detailed
metalwork proiects, such as lead isotope analysis. Equally many of the loown Sussex Loops
have early recovery dates, beginning in 1825 with the four Sussex Loops found at the
Hollingbury Camp hill-fort As a result many of the Loops, now stored, have little to no
accompanying context information. This problem is further complicated for, as yet no Sussex
Loop has been excavated in a controlle{ scrupulous archaeological manner, the results of which
have been published.lndeed even the recent finds, Patching in 1989, the Near Lewes collection
in 2011 and now the Near Oakham hoard of May 20L3,have little information available, the first
being t}te single find of a metal detectorist whilst the latter two currently have little released
information. Such a lack of good contextual evidence will limit interpretation particularly in
terms of spatial distribution. It would have been interesting and perhaps enlightening to
examine how the Sussex Loops were laid out within their depositional cont$rt, however in the
maiority of cases this will simply not be possible, and in the case of the 2011 and 2013 finds. a
proiect of the future. Similarly the data gathered during this project is not fully complete. Of the
34 known Sussex Loops only 22 examples were available for detailed study at this time. Many of
the Loops were found before cataloguing systems, or indeed modern museums were
established, and have long been lost into the ether of material recovered during the antiquarian
beginnings of archaeologr. As such the interpretations put forwards during this thesis will
represent interpretations and ideas which can be drawn from what is currently linown and may
change, as with any archaeological assemblage, with the next find. However such methods of
archaeological investigation, as this thesis will apply, will ultimately allow a much fuller picture
of the Sussex toops, there uses and significance, to be constructed.
FiSure A - The South Dawns(mot9y,mphbyAuthor)
*7 *
Dating the Sussex Loops
Sussex Laop 22 * Hanley Cross
In general the Sussex Loop assemblage is thought to broadly date to the Middle Bronze
Age Ornament Horizon, or the Taunton phase of bronze development This period is
traditionally believed to have spanned from approximately L4O0-L275 BC (Champion, 2009,
127) during roughly the same period as the Deverel-Rimbury pottery forms as demonstrated by
Needham's updated chronology spectrum in figure 9.ln L997 this metal work chronology was
critically evaluated in an investigation which employed the use of radio carbon dating on forty
six selected organic objects, all of which had been located in close proximity to metal work
pieces believed to have originated at various stages of the Bronze Age. In essence this
investigation confirmed the "broad outline of the traditional sequence" (Needham, Bronk
Ramsey, Coombs, Cartwright & Pettitt,
L997,55) as seen in figure 10.
In terms of the Sussex Loops, as
Rowlands (Rowlands, L976 4 96),
Pearce (Pearce, L984, 31) and White
fWhite, L99t,239) put forward it would
therefore seem that the pieces
exclusively originate in hoarded contexts
often resplendent with objects
characteristically attributed to the
Taunton chronological phase, giving the
assemblage at least a broad dating range.
As Pearce writes, ornaments are
a particularly "eye catching feature"
fPearce, L984,31) ofthe Taunton period,
and it is not uncommon for archaeology
to recover "big magnificently executed
spiral twisted neck rings ... similar but smaller arm rings ... bars of bronze sometimes incised
with decorative panels ... and finger rings, coiled finger rings and pins, some with side loops and
some with large quoit heads" {Pearce, L984,31). As the third chapter of this thesis will explore
the Sussex Loops are clearly to be found alongside many of the ornaments classically defined as
Taunton including quoit headed pins, finger rings and even the bronze torcs ofthe period.
Similarly, the Nicked decoration, which Loops such as Sussex Loops t0 & 1L display, is
clearly to be seen in many other cases of metal work believed to have been construction and
deposited within the Middle Bronze Age (Rowlands, 1.976 A, 96). Such a case may be seen in the
Near Lewes hoard recovered in 2011. Alongside the five Sussex Loops buried within this hoard
Neeilhan,7996,722)
This pperBurgess
BC
rmiI7$L,
roEll :irru;1,,,m#YlLeii2m?rlll3:oo f t
lud&ort Ma&dSr.lc *$!&a.*F
2m??00
2fr|:!00
!r00
:]fi.)
2200
2r@
?ml9{r0
l8&
l?00
t{,q)
r 500
I.IffJ
BQ
r:(b
1r6
t(m
9m
t00
?s{m
m
Its t ro!Ul*.
!t6J Ll*4Ncolihe
I
i
IiI
gi^II
I
]-I
I
MBA
tII
II
t.aA
I
ItI
EllI
P.rtod I
ltnud 2
I
II
+ tuiod lc? -.--I
I k'odat--.
ftriod J
lM6
YrrEiod 8l
M. tlt
uAlv
HAV
Ans3 J,TsM
iIFc&d II
srb{@
iv!Inlrru
I
leo wEsr -EIr0) ovErroN a
l?ff) iI
l6m
rr0 ,*lfifun i I
rsp,* *Tffi* i
r?rI
nm (tcmr)
tm{Y.hue)
mEItr {E*s tbkl
70{UFFNri
6&
5oo
-: Bb.tffi gI
Eydhdr I
ilJpFs' f
-1
y[
YII
lx
x
xt
xlt
xtrI
F'lgure 9 - Concordance between the Pefiodlsafran of Burgess & Needham
-8-
archaeologists recovered a copper alloy
quoit headed pin which exhibited a form
of nicked decoration along its sides (PAS
- SUSS-C5D042), similar in design to that
ofthe Sussex Loops.
Miles Russell does distinguish
Brighton's Black Rock Hoard, which
features three Sussex Loops, as
comprising of mostly Late Bronze Age
material, and argues that the dating of the
Sussex Loops construction and deposition
is essentialiy still a matter of debate
(Russell, 2002,94). However whilst the
results of the L997 investigation do
indicate that there will be future potential
IIaior oeriod Staee Tvne-lind tirlr
COPPER
STAGES
l7rl0-2lOcl BC
I Casllelorvn Roche
II Knocknauuc
ill Frankford
E,{RLY
BRONZE
I I Lrili- 1400 BC
IV iUisdale-Killaha
Al lesford-C olleonard
vt \! illerbl Wold
\"II Arreton-lnch Island
\11Dt)LE
BRONZE
r 500- r Orxi BC
\.1II Acton Park I
IX Taunton
x Penard I
LATE
BRONZE
l1)00-600 BC
XI \Yilbunon
x']I Ervan Park I
XIII l-hn Faw'r
Figure 70 - The main stages of metal work development(Needham, Bronk Ramsey, Cmmbs, Cartwrigk A Peffifr, 7997, 37)
"for establishing more subtle trends in the developments of Bronze Age metal work (Needham,
Bronk Ramsey, Coombs, Cartwright & Petti4 L997, 55) in essence the basic Bronze Age
chronologr seems to be sound. As Henderson observes metal work assemblages of the Taunton
phase are commonly found across South East England (Henderson, 2000, 255), and, at present,
it does seem most likely that the Sussex Loops were objects deposited, and perhaps constructed,
within the approximately 200 years which constituted this classically ornamental phenomenon.
;
I
Ftgure 77 - A vi*rt of the South Downs as seen from Sompting near ta the Sfirmp Bottom hoard(PlmtogmphWAuthor)
n9*
Chapter One
The Sussex Loops
$ussex Loop 19 - Near Lewes
I
The Sussexloop Suruey 2073
At first glance the Sussex Loops seem one in
the same when we considerer their size,
shape, and design, In general each Loop
follows a model of manufacture, the twisted
bronzes universally subscribing in
appearance to an elegantly curved centre,
pulled together at the base of the Loop and
doubled back over itself to form a hooked
ioint In their formation the Loops seem
simplistic, in their design regimented.
However, this may not necessarily
be the case. In preparation for this thesis a
survey of the Sussex Loops was carried out
considering elements such as their
construction material, size, shape, profile and
any visible signs of decoration. The survey was ahle to study twenty two out of the thirty four
known Sussex Loops in detail and was ordered for the benefit of the survey by both find site and
the order in which they became accessible to study. A full caalogue of the survey can be found
in the accompanying appendices, the results of which will hopefully build a fuller understanding
of the Sussex Loops, in terms of their construction and design.
Profile
Flgure 72 -.$ussextroop 78 - Near Latres(rhofff{,tsph W auhor - wfth reonlslut o! the Brithh tfiusan)
--a
o ,6cr
Ftgure 7?- The Lozenge ProSle - Srssertroop I S -Chichester(Drawhq byAttthor)
Flgure 74 - Round ProSle- Sussulmp 9 - Ear;tDean(Druwlv,,'Aathot)
-10*
The first attempt at classiffing the Sussex Loops came in 1976 when Rowlands observed two
distinct profiles within the assemblage, the Rourtd and Lozenge designs as featured in figures 13
& 14 {Rowlands, 1976 4 96).These profile designs reflect the shape of the rods used during the
construction of each Loop, and to date hflenty five of the thirty four known Sussex Loops have
been recorded in terms of their profile. This assemblage is the fullest currently possible, and
from the data provided by these twenty five,
in context of the full thirry four, it would
appear that a lozenge design was the
favoured form of Sussex Loop construction,
with 5670 exhibiting this angular profile, as
opposed to the 18Yo which feature the more
rounded design, figure 15. Equally, from a
visual examination it would appear that those
Sussex Loops constmcted to form a lozenge
profile were frequently made smaller, thinner
and, more delicate, than their rounder
counterparts. This is certainly not an
exclusive trend as examples such as Sussex Loop 9 figure t4, or Sussex Loop 15, figure 13,
demonstrate, yet it is a distinctive feature of the data set, as figures L7, LB & 19 highlight It may
also be seen, from the data so far recorded, that, bar one example, the only Sussex Loops to
demonstrate any form of decoration were consuucted in this lozenge style. In contrast the
rounder examples seem better or more robustly made. In general t}e Loop faces are more
confidently shaped, whilst the body of the pieces are still evenly constructed, both in terms of
the bronze rods used and the formation of the hook joints.
Weight and Form of Constrafiian
At present, twenty two out of thirty four
Sussex Loops have been recorded in terms
of their weight, as well as the thickness of
the bronze rods used during their
constructiory a sample which, as figures 16
& 19 demonstrate, shows considerable
variation. To date the largest Sussex Loop
on record was weighed prior to the
commencement of this survey at 7O2g Ftgure 76 . The Weight Range of the Sussex troops(Ihta ft'om thc Sassg Inp Survqr 2013)
Ftgure 15 - The Profile oftheKnown Sussar Loops(Dau fton the &rss,*. L@p SurveJ, 20r3J
aoo ,-
iI
zoo i
ii
oor i-
I
I
soo IIsi
Scoo "a3l
WII
i
I
200 II
I
r0o II
l
6tThe Suss€x lmps
*LL*
during Whites 1991 examination of
the Patching reservoir find fwhite,
199L,240). In contrast the smallest
known Sussex Loop was discovered
in 1907 as part of the East Dean
hoard and was weighed at just 749
differing from its larger counterpart
by a margin 6289. These Loops form
the parameters of the assemblage
an{ if figure 16 is considered, it isclear that, whilst only a handful of
Sussex Loops exceed 4009 each
Loop seems to have been constructed
as an individual piece, made smaller
or larger at t}te crafters whim.
Some correlation can
arguably be found within the data set
when each Loop is considered in the
context of its find site. As
demonstrated by figure 21 larger
hoards such as Near Lewes and
Hollingbury Camp exhibit Loops
which steadily rise in size, whilst
smaller hoards such as East Dean,
Chichester and Handcross show
relative cohesion in the size of their
deposited Loops. These hoards seem
to indicate that, whilst variation was
a factor, in terms of weight and size
the Loops chosen to be buried in
particular hoard sites may have been
picked to compliment those around
them. However these links are
tenuous at best.
$ussexioqprthta fr?,mthe tus'gx laop Surr,q 2Ol3)
Flgurc 78 - The Dfumew of bath Ronllnd md Lozenge Sussx Lups(Dau lrom the Sussu LNp Sun q 2AB)
Flgure 79 . The Wetght of tolth Round and lazenge Suss* Loops{Data fu m the Sussex Loop &twey 2 0 1 3 )
*12*
i
8i-
b
..+-Lozeng8
'Round
1..'.4
i
2
l
O "-- r r r t i
TheSussex Loops
F-Igure 77- the Thtfuress of the konze Rods ud ln both the Round and Loi enge
100
s)lt:1..
85
75l
7O - i-r--------.i-....-r, - | | | i - 1
The Sussex Loops
#Lorenge': Ror,rnd
800
{-Lozenge., .Round
300
200
100
0TheSussex Loops
Figwe20 -Thicbtessofthe Bmnze Rads used inthe Cons*ttcrion afthe
Sussexf,oops
(Daufrumthe Su*tex Looptuaey 2073)
Ftgurc2l -Wetghtof the
.Susoexloops by Find Stte
(Daufiomthe SasaLoop
tunq201g]
( )
( ) ,lr 1
l tr. tr
,IT
l
I t,
t I----
ra v
*10EE{,88E!li.CF6
9Stmup Bottom
El Patching
AHollingburyCamp
XEast Dean
X Handcross
O Hollingbury Castle
OChichester
BNear Lewes
AHanley Cross
234Sussex loop
600
500
g5r*o
=
ONear Oakham
OChichester
A Handcross
@lHanley Cross
OHollingburyCamp
xHollingburyCastle
0Near lewes
AEast Dean100
3
Sussex Loops
I I I
L
It
I,
I
I
)
t,-
-13*
IIn cases such as Hollingbury Castle and
Hanley Cross the Loops are separated
by a considerable margln the
Hollingbury Castle pair by over 2009 a
difference more tlan the weight of the
smallest Sussex Loop. Indeed when the
Loops are considered both as a
collection, as well as in terms of their
find sites, construction variation is
inescapable.
Such observations are still
furthered when figures 20 & 22 are
considered. Unsurprisingly the weight of each Sussex Loop is directly related to the size of its
bronze construction rod, and every example seems to have been rnade according to only a loose
model, or design, of manufacture. It is true that hoards such as Near Lewes and Handcross do
show distinct similarities between their deposited Loops, whilst, if figure 22 is examined,levels
or steps of proportional increase can be observed in the thickness of the bronze rods used
during the construction of each Sussex Loop. Yet both figures 20 & 22 also highlight
considerable construction variation. Whilst levels in the size of the Loops construction rods are
visible, the increase between these levels is steady and even, with no clear statistical preference
of design size. Equally Hollingbury Castle is the prime example of a hoard site whose deposited
Sussex Loops features distinct dimensional variation. Of the two Sussex Loops recovered from
this site, the first weighed 1069 with a bronze construction rod 6mm thick whilst its parher
weighed 3759 with a bronze construction rod 1.5mm thick fu such from a survey of each Loops
dimensional design it would appear that the Sussex Loops were constructed with only basic
similarities of form in mind.
16
l4
12
grotaEtEbtr
..s-Thickness
2ll
0-TheSussex
Loops
Ftgure 22 - Thtclorcss of Brutze Rods used in the Conshu*ion ofthe SussexLoops
(Dau Iram fie Susscx Lm p Suney 2 O 1 3)
EE
ooElUo
1ml95
90858075
7A
65
6055
The
--Glnteriour Diameter
d-Exteriour Diameter
e Sussex
Loops
Figure 23 - The Intertor and Meriour Diameurc of the Sussex Loops
Diameter
On the other hand as the
graphs in figures 73 & 24
highlieht, distinct correlation
can be determined when the
Sussex Loops are considered
in terms of their diameter
-L4*
(Dau fmm the Sussex Lup Sa,r,glt 2013)
size. Only 1.7mm separate the smallest internal diameter of 59mm, Sussex Loop 20 Near Lewes,
and the largest of 76mm, Sussex Loop 23 Hanley Cross. Between these pieces range the rest of
the 22 strong Sussex Loop sample of which the majority, 19 examples, measure between 50 and
69mm, As the data tables of the appendices demonstrate the interior diameter of each Loop
takes no notice of its weight and profile, or the size of the bronze rods used during construction.
Whilst tle external diameter does fluctuate due to these factors the interior diameters remain
steadily oblivious to the rest of the Sussex Loops construction design. Indeed the Iarge Patching
Loop of 7029 is actually 1mm smaller in diameter, at 66mm, than the 749 East Dean example.
Many of the larger Loops such as Sussex Loop 16, weighed at597g are not only solidly built but
also seem to have be designed with larger toop faces, which in some cases give the Loops a
slightly squashed appearance. The weight and substantial qualities of these Loops are absorbed
by the size of tleir construction rods and in the shape of their design, Ieaving the interior
diameter relatively consistent with its fellows. In reality Sussex Loop 16 has one of the largest
internal diameters at 70mm but when compared to smaller and thinner examples such as
Sussex Loop 7, weighed at 80g with a 67mm interior diameter, the difference is minimal.
Flgarc 24 - The Intcriour Diameur of the $ussexf,oops(Dau ll!,m fie fussa. Loop $nvey 2 O 1 3 )
EE
ooEt!ctos3oEoc
O Chichester
@l Handcross
A Hanley
CrossXHollingbury
Campx Hollingbury
CastleONear Lewes
* Patching
OEast Dean
OStumpBottom
srsseiroops
-15-
Decoration
During the course of this survey it was
observed that four Loop examples,
including Sussex Loops 3, Patching 10 & L1,
Handcross, and 15 from Chichester,
demonstrated some form of nicked
decoration. Rowlands also refers to visible
decoration in the cases of Sussex Loop 24,
Pyecombe fRowlands, 1976 B, 268), and
Sussex Loop 32, the only round sectioned
Loop to so far demonstrate any form of
decoration, which was discovered within
Brighton's Black Rock hoard fRowlands,
L976 8,263J. These latter examples were
unavailable for examination at the time of
this study, as were the two newest Sussex
Loop examples, discovered earlier this year
in the Near Oakham hoard. However, both
of these Near Oakham examples were
recorded as badly corroded but with
patches of a nicked style of decoration still
visible fWilkin, 2013, U.
In three of the four studied cases,
this nicked style of decoration is essentially
constructed from many incised lines, carved
into the bronze surface of each Loop, at
close and regular intervals, figure 25. The
marks follow the curve of the Loops
construction design, namely the exterior
apex of the lozenge profile, with addition
lines of decoration added around the Loop
hook figure 27. The only example to
demonstrate any variation on this
decoratiye style was the single Loop
recovered adjacent to the Patching
Ftgure 25 - Sussar Loop 7A - Handcross(Phot$mph by Author - with permissroa af the Britlsh Museum)
Figure 26 - Sussex ioop 3 - Patchtng@rming by Whtu, 7997, 247)
Figure 27 - Sussex Loop 77 - Ilandcross(Phaeogrfrph by Author . wlih permlssloa af the Great North Museum)*L6*
reservoir. Instead of the parallel lines
inscribed into its fellows the Patching
example was decorated "with an incised
zigzag line" fWhite, L99L, 240) which
follows the curve of the Loop around both
sides ofthe outer lozenge profile, as seen in
figure 26. The marks of both styles seem to
have been sliced, or grooved, into the metal,
possibly by a hnife blade 0r other
reasonably thick carving tool. This work
would not have been particularly
complicated, but would have been a process
requiring time and a degree of
concentration, to ensure that the marks
stayed evenly spaced and Rue to the
pattern intended.
In the case ofSussex Loops 10 & 11,
the nicked decoration is particularly clear.
The marks are deeply cut into the bronze
which exhibits a golden hue. In contrast the
decoration incised into both Sussex Loops 3
& 1"5 is much less prominent, due to a
combination of the marks shallower cut and
the darker appearance of their bronze
construction rods. Indeed the marlis which
build the patterns of these two pieces are
obscured to the point that they are only
truly visible when the Loops are angled
under a good lighg figures 28 & 30.
As such, it must be acknowledged
that the colouring of the Sussex Loops may
have been a significant factor of their
ornamentation, Being an alloy the colour of
any bronze object is dependent on the
quantities of its component metals.
Variations in the ratio of copper and tin, as
Figure 28 -Suxex Loop 75 - Chichester{Photoghraph W Author - with per'mtsstor, of Brittsh Museum)
Figure 29 - Sussex Loop 76 - Chichester(Photogroph W Author- wlth Pe,,,,jssion of the Brittsh iluseum)
Figure 30 - Sussex Loop 3 - Patching{Photagmph hy Author - with Permlsstaa of Worthfitg l+luseum)
-t7 *
I
well as any rninority metals included within
the smelted mix, such as lead or arsenig
would have affected the colouring
particular batches of bronze exhibited.
Bronze corrosion "is a well known
phenomenon ... in particular archaeological
artefacts which remain in the soil for
thousands of years are subjected to severe
corrosion" {Tronner, Nord & Borg, 1995,
2725), and there are several Sussex Loops
which do show the patina of corrosion. It is
therefore very likely that the Sussex Loops
were originally of varied hues and
considerably brighter in appearance, their
surfaces most likely cleaned and polished to
a vivid shine. Indeed if both the decorated
and undecorated Sussex Loops from the
Chichester hoard are examined, figures 28
& 29, each indicate patches of a classic
copper colouring under the duller
appearance oftheir old bronze coat. Both of
these examples were recovered in 1903 and
corrosion has been argued to have
increased over the past 50-100 years, due to
the higher levels of pollution now present in
our modern soils fTronnel Nord & Borg
1995, 27?,5). However there are more
recent finds, such as Sussex Loop 20 from
the 2011 Near Lewes hoard, which also
demonstrates patches of brighter colouring
in this case of a lighter reddish gold as seen
in figure 31. As such it must be recognised
that the Loops we see today are only the
basis of &eir former selves and it is
distinctly possible that the decoration
included on specific examples was not the
Ftgure 31 - Sussex Loop 20 - Near Lewes(Potogroph W Author - with Permlsslon olthe Mtish Museum)
Figure 32 - $ussax f,oop 73 - Holltngbury Castle{Photogmph hy Author - wlth ParTnlsslon of the Mtlsh Museum)
Figure 33 - Suss*Loop 13 - Hollingbury Casile{Photugmph W Ailthor - with Per'misston of the grittsh Museum)
-18*
Ionly aesthetic quality that the Sussex
Loops presented to their Bronze Age
creators.
Of the four surveyed Loops all are
lozenge in profile but do not conform
otherwise in terms of size or shape. The
Handcross Loops are practically identical
however the Chichester example is
considerably rnore substantial in its
dimensions whilst the Patching Loop,
which, while not smaller, is thinner in its
design and less angular than either the
Chichester or Handcross examples.
Marks of Use and Domage Ftgare 34 - Sussex Loap I - East Dean{Photorymph W Author - wlth permlsston olthe grtfrsh Museum)
To a greater or lesser extent, sections of damage and possible marks of wear can be seen on
every known Sussex Loop. Firstly there is a distinctive smoothed quality to many of the interior
curves of the Loops bronze construction rods. In the case of the rounder profile a smoother
interior surface would seem a by product of the bronze rod used, however this smoothing effect
can also be witnessed on many of the lozenge style Loops, including Sussex Loop 13, as seen in
figure 32 & 33. On its outer face
this Loops lozenge profile is still
sharp and defined, despite heavy
corrosion, yet the underside, or
internal face, of the Loop is
smoothed almost flat. A similar
case can also be seen in Sussex
Loop 10, which also shows
smoothing to the Loop hook.
This smoothing pattern may be a
result of each Loops
construction however it would
seem distinctly possible that
such trends may have occurred,Flgure 35 - Sussar Loop 9 - Edst Dean
(Photogfiph W Author - wlth permtsston of the Brltish iluseum)
-L9*
or were at least sustained, as a result of the Loops practical function. Such smoothing marks are
not the limit of the Sussex Loops wear and tear however, for there is, to a greater or lesser
extent, damage on each Loop example.
Lesser damage includes Loops such as Sussex Loop 10 which exhibits chips not only to
the Loop hook but also to the central Loop face, figure 25. Such post depositional chipping is
clear in several other examples such as Sussex Loop 2, Stump Bottom, as are other form of post
depositional damage such as the corrosion witnessed in the case of Sussex Loop 13, figures 32 &
33. Similarly, many of the Loops, particularly smaller examples such as Sussex Loops 7 and
Sussex Loop I figure 34, exhibit significant damage having been compressed out of any linked
shape, damage which will have
affected the dimensional
measurements taken for these
examples. Equally the new
Near Oakham hoard exhibits
damage to both recovered
Loops, the first broken in two
places, whilst its partner into
six fragmentary pieces
(Wilkins, ?0L3,1). In addition
several instances of severe
damage have been found,
including Sussex Loop 9 which
features a broken terminal, the
centre of which has a large
circular hollow, figure 35.
Whilst t]le cause of suchFigure 36 - Sussex f,oop 77 - Handcross
(Pkotqmph by Author - wlth Wnntaslon oI the Orcat North lluseum)
destruction is most likely post
depositional, in one particular case the direct cause of damage is known. Sussex Loop 3 was
recovered badly twisted by a flint piece which was "jammed through its centre" fWhite, L99L,
239) causing considerable damage to the Loop face as seen in figure 30. The Patching flint was
discarded by the finder (White, L991,239) and it is unknown whether the piece was worked or
not, and therefore whether the flint as purposely pushed through the Loop. However there are
several other cases in which the Loop appears to have been damaged in a manner suggesting
purposeful intent In the case of Sussex Loop 21, Near Lewes figure 37, a clean cut separates the
base of the right side of the Loop from the backtwist of the rod. Similarly sliced markings can be
seen in cases such as Sussex Loops 7 and 23, neither of which appears to be a form of
*24*
regimented decoration. Sussex Loop 7 features some deep scratches on the bottom right of the
Loop face which look clean in their form and were perhaps the result of a blade. A similar story
is evident in the case of Sussex Loop 23 from Hanley Cross which features two lateral ridges
across the back of the Loop on the internal side which seem to indicate a filled cut or break in
the bronze. There are also three large, parallel scratches cut into the bronze of Sussex Loop LL
partially obscuring the earlier, smaller and
design, figure 36. It is possible such
marks were again post depositional in
origin but they do seem purposeful in
their intent and old in their infliction.
The Sussex Loop Assemblage
Overall the Sussex Loop assemblage
demonstrates alt artefact group of
distinct similarities and underlying
variations. Whilst the main overt design
of the Loops is distinctively similar no
two Sussex Loops are completely
identical. The closest parallels within the
assemblage in term of all aspect of their
construction are undoubtedly those of the
Handcross hoard. Rowlands has continued
more regimented patterning of the decorative
the arguments of those such as Piggott putting forward the possibility that t}re Loops were
meant to be worn as pairs fRowlands, L976 A,96), and in this case such a partnership may be in
evidence. However the Handcross hoard originally had a third Loop included in its deposition,
the location of which unknown. In reality each of the Sussex Loops seems to have been created
as individual pieces none displaying particular similarities, or dimensional opposites, to any
other Loop currently within the assemblage. A key example of such a trend can be seen in tlepictures used throughout this thesis. Each image displays a different Sussex Loop highlighting
the visual similarities and differences this artefact group exhibits. As such interpretation as to
why these obiects were created and how they may have been perceived within their Bronze Age
contexts are considerations key to understanding not only the Loops themselves but perhaps
wider academic questions concerning the societies in which they were created. Such
considerations may develop intriguing insights concerning not only the individuals involved in
the Loops creation but also perhaps the individuals for whom they were made.
Figure 37 - Sussex Loop 21 - Near Lewes(Photqraph W Authorwlth - Permrsslon olthe httish ltuseum)
*2L*
C a n sttuac:tio n M ateri ol
In considering the Sussex Loops, their prafiical and social function, it seems wise to start at the
beginning. For any metalwork this refers to the raw materials used during tleir construction as
well as a consideration of the provenance and cultural perception of such materials. In reality
the transition from stone to bronze was a slow process spanning some 500 years [Pryor, 2003,
264J and was, as Andrew Selkirk describes, "one of the greatest non events of all time" fBarber,
2903, L7). For much of the later Neolithig and for the entirety of the Early Bronze Age, the
knowledge of mining smelting and crafting this new material was in its infancy. and many of the
earliest bronze artefacts closely resemble the design of their previous stone counterparts
(Kristiansen, 1989, 23). It is from this alloy of copper and tin that every known Sussex Loop has
been constructed, and it is this material, as
well as the processes which shaped it, that
have in many cultures been treated as
special (Pryor, 2003, 264), a perception
which is perhaps aansferable.
"Prehistoric bronze was generally
an alloy of 10Yo tin and 90% coppef
[Pearce 1984 7) two substances which,
while both native to the British Isles, are
completely absent in the area surrounding
the Sussex Loopg as figure 38
demonstrates. Clearly the raw materials
necessary for the craftingsuch items were
introduced from a handful of possible
mines, all of which stand a good distance
from tlre Loops final site of burial. rt is Frsursss'so"uoof*ffiff#,Tllt,?iri*su*,undtutssussex
already widely acknowledged that long
range trade links were in operation during the Neolithic, distribufing flint mined from areas
such as the Sussex Downs. As such it is entirely possible that both copper and tin resources
were imported along such lines of exchange, implying wide reaching networks of
communication as well as a concept of commercial trade. Indeed in 1984 Pearce believed the
most likely source of bronze for the Sussex area was "initially from Northern France and
ultimately from the great ore refining centres of central and alpine Europe" (Pearcg 1984,34)
*22*
However, in addition to these continental
imports trace element analysis suggests that
a number of British ore sources were indeed
utilised fChampion, 2009, 137) and if we
consider the locations of the British
prehistoric mines another possibility does
present itself.
It is notoriously difficult to find
secure, Bronze Age, evidence oflong term or
reused smelting sites within the British Isles
fHarding 2000, 232). The primary stages of
ore concentration would have been fairly
straight forward encompassing the laborious tasks of crushing and sorting rock to separate out
the copper ore. Equally the inicial smelting of the ore is usally assumed to have occured close to
the mine sites. However good evidence for either task still remains sparse (Barber, 2003, 112).
As such it may be plausible that, far from being industrial sources of long reaching trade, the
early mines of both copper and tin were utilised by individuals or groups travelling perhaps
great distances, in search of raw materials both culturally and practically suitable for the
crafting of items such as the Sussex Loops.
Whilst some mines saw significant activity during the prehistoric, the Great Orme mine
alone it is estimated produced somewhere in the region of 2AA tons of copper {Barber, 2003,
83), such extraction seems not to represent intensive or continuous industrial activity, but
rather activity which "occurred over at least a millennium" (Barber, 2003, 83). Similarly as
Pryor has suggests ore mining during the prehistoric was not, in most cases, the permanent
occupation of a particular community, as was the case at the Hallstatt salt mines, but rather the
work of individuals who were primarily farmers
and or labourers, only applying their hand to
mining when the need arose (Pryor, 2AA3,271),
taking what they needed for their community, a
particular profect or indeed as much as they
could carry. l{e know from Neolithic mining that
raw materials were not always mined purely for
the product, as in modern parallels, but often for
a specific form of that producL Flint miners
would cut through several usable layers in order
Ftgut40 - RawT-ln(WWW6 -wwv., geeot@rn
Ftgure 39 - Raw Copper(WWWS - wvw,mmeha.'t-com)
*23-
to get at flint deposits considered worthy of extraction. Such a scenario also seems to be in
occurrence during the Bronze Age prospection of copper and tin, for many rich and accessible
sites, such as the large tin mines of Cornwall (Barber, 2003, 97), look to have been passed over.
As such it would seem plausible that miners ravelled to farther reaches of Britain, and even the
continent, than necessary in search of the raw materials required for the creation of bronze
obiects. This is not to say that the materials transported were not traded but that the system in
place during the Bronze Age was probably not as industrial as our modern values would have us
believe. The raw materials unquestionably travelled into the Downs but how and by whom is a
matter worth considering.
Indeed journeys to and from the ore sources would perhaps have increased the value
attached to any obiect produced from the gathered materials. As Pryor writes "the prehistoric
was never a free marketand the way obiece behaved was entirely dictated by social beliefs and
conventions ... in essence prehistoric objects had a social life of their own" {Pryor, 2A03,273),
one which may have been influenced by many factors. fourneys to obtain natural resources
would have undoubtedly provided tales not only of the perilous journey to reach the mines but
also of the practice of mining itself, stories which would arguably have affected the value and or
cultural perception of any bronze object constructed from particular materials, including the
Sussex Loops.
Mining was already a well established activity by the turn of the Bronze Age and metal
extraction was probably an "adaption of earlier practices" (Roberts, 2008, 358). In Sussex
prehistoric miners dug deep shafu into the chalk in search of flint some of which, such as those
at Harrow Hill, still leave drastic scars in the earth. Mines and the process of extracting raw
material would have been an activity
well understood by the community at
Iarge, even if the skills to do so were
not necessarily possessed by all
[Robert 2008, 358), and one which
would have been deeply rooted in
folklore. A mine would have been a
place separated from the world of
light and life. Under the ground there
is nothing green or obviously living
the majority of things to see, other
than earth and roch being the ores
themselves, the colours of which
often " wash out of the rocks andFlgure 47 - The Great Orme Tunnels
(PhotagmphbyAuthor)
-24-
stain the surrounding area with brilliant colours" fHenderson, 2000, 214J. Such places, it has
often been speculated, would have been fraught with danger, difference and mystery places
where myths and superstitions would have reigned free. Such mines would have required
people to "occupy spaces that were socially Iiminal and where norms were suspended or
challenged" (lohnston, 2008, 192). Such a perception of mining and the liminal zone between
the surface and subterranean world would have been well established long before the mining of
metal ores but likely would have increased exponentially, for whilst the majority of flint mines
such as Grimes Graves and Cissbury Ring were open cast those excavated for copper in
particular were closed. These closed mines would have resembled "caves and tombs ... taking
miners into the metaphysical dimensions and into contact with the spirits" (|ohnston, 2008,
195). Indeed those such as Pryor believe it "highly unlikely that people entered a mine, even a
relatively shallow surface mine lightly... the spiritual dangers that were thought to lie beneath
the ground vastly more frightening than the prospect of a roof collapse" (Pryor, 2003,274).
Such extraction sites plus the effort and danger involved in obtaining materials for
metalworking would therefore very likely have influenced the cultural perception of objects
constructed from such materials including the Sussex Loops.
Yet, we must not disregard the importance of bronze as a material in its own right. The
creation of bronze would have been a transforming process which, particularly in the beginning
would not always have been successful. Around the world this process has often been steeped in
custom, strict aboos and in many cases linked with fertility. Furnaces are normally "pot bellied
to allow gasses to circulate efficiently and thus resemble a pregnant torso an effect heightened
by the addition of clay breasts to the outside ... then as if to complete the analogy, the furnace is
broached low down below the belly and the red hot metal pours forth very much like a birth"
fPryor, 2003, 264). Indeed the Chishinga men are not permitted to sleep with their human
wives whilst involved with the furnaces as it is seen as an act of adultery which would lead to
the death of the child (Barber, 2003, 128).
As such bronze artefacts may have been metaphorically born into Bronze Age
communities. Such objects, created of fire and fusion, rfly have been allowed a cultural
identities of their own, an idea which is not altogether new to archaeologgr. If the Sussex Loops
were born of otherworldly places and transforming processes it would seem reasonable that
their significance within the local community would have reflected such beginnings. Indeed the
concept of object identity maybe still furthered emphasised when the Sussex Loops themselves
are considered. As previously demonstrated whilst the basic design of each Loop corresponds
with that of its fellows it must be acknowledged that there are variations within the data set,
variations which may be seen as a cultural expression of identity, either in terms of the objects
themselves or possibly in relation to those individuals directly associated with them.
-25*
The Sussex Loop Crafismen
The ability to smelt and work ores into a range
of shapes can be seen as an important
technological step (Pearce, tq84,7J. To date
archaeological studies of bronze assemblages
have provided a growing wealth of evidence for
the prehistoric bronze industry, as well as
chronolory, technolory and trade (Champion,
2A09, 140J. However as Champion writes
collections such as the Sussex Loops may
potentially expand archaeological knowledge in
"'many other aspects of Bronze Age society"
(Champion, 2009, 140) including the recognition
of Bronze Age smiths, for whom there is still a distinct lack of information fHardin g 20A0,236).
As demonstrated by the 2013 Sussex Loop Survey, a distinct theme of individuality
would seem to pervade the Loop assemblage as a whole. Such a trend may indeed represent the
cultural expression of object identity however it may also indicate that the Sussex Loops were
not in fact the single product of one particular craftsman but in rather the work of several
Bronze Age smith, each with their own skill levels and methods of rnanufacture. Such
observations are not always easy to distinguish
for many of the recovered Sussex Loops are
marred by significant damage. Similarly it isnot by any means certain that a modern
audience will accurately conceive those Sussex
Loop examples which feature the work of
crafuman recognised as particularly skilled
during the Bronze Age. Yet when comparisons
are made of examples, such as Sussex Loops 9
and Sussex Loop 4, the possibility that several
smiths were responsible for the Loops
construction arguably becomes distinctly
apparent.
Despite damage to the hook ioint,
Sussex Loop 9, figure 42, seems well formed
Figure 42 - Sussexloop 9 * East, Deanghorogmph by Author- wtth Psrmtsslon of tl,.e Bfitish Museum)
Figure4? - Sussexloap 4- Hollingbury Camp(Photograph by Author- with Permi*stort olthe British Museum)
*26*
and symmetrical in its Loop face, even in the
bacl$ rards curve of the Loop itsel{ and gives the
optical impression of being aesthetically
proportioned overall. In contrast Sussex Loop 4,
figure 44, is thicker and slightly less damaged, yet
its construction is arguably much less graceful or
confidently executed, the Loop face for example
being distinctly asymmetrical, as seen in figure
43. Equally despite the rounded profile of each
piece Sussex Loop 4 is significantly squarer in the
formation of its hook ioint as opposed to Sussex
Loop 9 which exhibits a softer, rounder style.
Through such comparisons it would seem
reasonable to conclude that not every Sussex
Loop was the product of a single smith, and variation in an individual's skill and style is indeed
in evidence throughout the Sussex Loop collection.
Such an argument for multiple craftsmen has already been posed by those such as
Rowlands, who believed that the Sussex Loops were the result of "a concentration of highly
efficient Middle Bronze Age smiths" fWhite, 1991,240) operating around the Sussex South
Downs. Such smiths would have required knowledge, skill and a creativity of design, all of
which, would to a degree, have required tuition. Forms of prehistoric education are difficult to
access however, in the context of the Iron Age, Karl has argued that, for a professional
education, a child would have likely been sent away from their parental home, perhaps in a form
of apprenticeship (Karl, 2005, 259J, whilst by the second century BC, Cunliffe argues that there
was a flourishing ffadition within the British Isles,
of "workshops or schools of craftsmen" fCunliffe,
20L3,309J and crafumanship. Such practices may
also have been employed to a certain existent
within the Bronze Age, for those of this earlier
period would have been direct ancestors to those of
the Iron Age, and in many cases the traditions that
are evident during this later phase are likely to have
been a legary of those practices employed by
previous generations. Therefore, despite Curwen's
arguments that the Sussex Loops were the particular
Figure 44 - Sassetr Loop 4 - Ilollingbury Camp(Photogrdph by Author- wtth Perrnission oftlrc Brttkh lluseum)
Figure 45 - Sassex Loop I - East Dean(Photqmphby Author -wlth ?ermtss/,onaf the Brtdsh Museum)
*27 *
product of one craftsman (White, L99L,240), it would seem plausible that the Loops are in fact
representative of several Bronze Age smiths, working within the Sussex area, either alone, or
within t}re confines of a crafting school. However the social framework within which these
smiths worked is still debaable.
It is Barbers view that instead of being itinerant, smiths would have travelled between
settled communities (Barber, 2003, L31), a view suppofted by Harding who argues that metal
smiths would have cast their products at each site they visited rather than working from a
central location (Harding,2000, 236). Such a view depicts a scenario in which the Sussex Loops
are the product of one or two craffsmen travelling from village to village, perhaps with an
apprentice in tow, crafting and selling whilst in all likelihood rnaintaining a level of competition
with their rival crafumen. Yet the social focus of the Bronze Age was a movement towards a
more settled style of life. This is not to say that people did not travel, indeed as Pryor observes
there was a propensity at this time for building roads or track ways (Pryor, 2A03, 262).
However, a settled style of daily life was the key social factor (Brtich 2007, 25), with the
construction of farmsteads, and latter the hill-forts, becoming the increasing concern of the
populace. Therefore it is plausible that Bronze Age metal smiths were increasingly part of
workshops or schools of craft. As previously stated metal working would have taken knowledge
and skill which, while likely the result of a form of apprenticeship, would have needed to be
sustained. Craft schools or workshops would have allowed locals, who practiced metalworking
to share ideas, teach new recruits as well as continuously develop their own skills throughout
their adult lives. In practical terms, dris theory is quite valid however as yetthere have been no
excavated sites along the south coast, or in Britain as a whole, which indicates definitive, or
subsAntial, evidence for large scale or concentrated activities of Bronze Age metal working
(Harding.2O0A,232).
Still it is worth considering that a combination of apprenticeship and school of craft
provided the framework within which the Sussex Loops were consuucted. fu Rowlands has
pointed out, the "productive output of Bronze Age metalworkers is unlikely to have required
year round employment any more than flint knapping pottery making or basket weaving"
(Barber, 2003, 130). As such it is possible that individuals learned in the skills of a smith lived
separately for most of the year, training their own apprentice, helping with the tasks of their
own communities and gathering only at times of the year approved by the agricultural calendar.
Within such a social structure, settled communities would have had the constant presence of an
individual skilled in crafting bronze goods, but also access to developments in fashions and
technological methods of working this relatively new material. Indeed it seems unlikely that
there was no form of communication between skilled individuals, during the Bronze Agg
particularly in a local sense. Drawing an Iron Age comparison children may well have been sent
*28*
away from home for the very reason of learning unknown skills (Karl, 2005, 259), whilst the
obvious developments in bronze metallurgr during the Sussex Bronze Age, and the Bronze Age
in general, would argue that at the very least a regional sharing of knowledge was prominent.
Similarly the fact that bronze was coming into Susse& as well as the recent recovery of
two Sussex Loop examples far removed from the Brighton area, indicates that people were not
completely stationary. Individuals would have travelled to see extended family members or
friends as well as moving farther afield to find new resources and marriage partners, participate
in trade links or even purely for natural human curiosity. Indeed it must be recognised that the
current lack or absence of definitive archaeological evidence is not in itself evidence for its non
existence, and in the future it may well be possible that centres or concentrations of metal
production will become archaeologically visible.
In the meantime it would seem that the Sussex Loops were constmcted within
approximately 200 years of each other, a time frame representative of perhaps five or six
generations, and many successive smiths. Each smith would arguably have added to the
technological knowledge handed down to them but would also have undoubtedly introduced
their own style and fashions of working. The construction and shaping of bronze, shows much
progression from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age and it is arguable that such developmens
are far more likely to have occurred when students were exposed to more than one method of
metalworking, and were encouraged to experiment with new ideas. As such it is highly likely
that the variations visible within the Sussex Loop assemblage were the results of several
craftsmen's production efforts, and whilst roaming specialist is a valid possibility, it is also likely
that the smiths themselves would have belonged to a form of, or precursor to, t}te lron Age
schools of craftsmanship.
Flqure 46 - View ofdrc SussexSouth Dawns fiom SomptingneartotheStumpfufiom
hoardfindsite,
(PhotqgmphbyAudlor)
-29 -
The Sussex Loops their Form and Function
As Barber writes it has only been with the growing quantity of evidence, excavated since the
1960s, that archaeolory has begun to truly appreciate how little is known "about the uses and
meanings of bronze during the Bronze Age" (Barbet 2003, 18). This statement is particularly
appropriate in the case of artefact assemblages such as the Sussex Loops, for little serious
attention has been given to the determination of how these objects were used and little more to
the consideration of their meaningwithin their original Bronze Age setting.
The first ffnd of a Sussex Loop came in 1825 when four were recovered during the
excavation of the Hollingbury Camp hill-fort. Initially the Loops were interpreted as a form of
upper arm band, similar to the style of ornament which can be found in greater number on the
continent. The Loops are band like in shape, reasonably substantial in size and of a design which
may have originally been unhooked and re-hooked around an individual's bicep. Similarly the
Loops were often deposited withiu hoards of other distinctly ornamental items, the result of
which saw them cast, particularly during the early phase of archaeology, in a religious role.
Indeed as Russell writes, the nineteenth century antiquarians catalogued the Sussex Loops as a
form of arm ring worn by those of a local druidic order, their relatively small size arguing that
they were the notation of female members or "other sacred damsels" (Russell,2002,94).
Such arguments were further cemented with later Loop finds which, while all slightly
different, universally exhibit the twisted design format In particular such arguments developed
through hoard finds such as that at Handcross, the Loops in which not only exhibited a
distinctive colouring but also a very clear form of decoration. \ffhilst during the Early Bronze
Age female prestige goods are absent, as Kristiansen has argued, such material goods would
seem to have developed alongside those of male prestige weaponry possibly including new
forms of ornamentation (Kristiansen, 1989, 22J such as the Sussex Loops. As such the Sussex
Loops may indeed have been an expression of cultural prestige or status however, as early as
1931, it was recognised that "the shape and size of the Loops render it unlikely that they were
armlets" (Grinsell, 1931, 50), religious or otherwise, unless they were intended for children. Yet
the Sussex Loops function as upper arm rings has remained the main presumption in
archaeological writing until relatively recently (Pearce, L984,31), and any deviation has usually
argued for them as other forms of ornamentation.
However the Sussex Loops are unusual, regional items, and while they are normally
included in ornament hoards a more practical function should not be discounted. Ornate
weighB for looms, fishing or even anchors or cleaB for small maritime crafu may all be
possibilities. The Loops size and in many cases the shape of their construction would easily have
allowed rope or ties to be connected securely to them whilst at the same time $ving
ornamentation to the process. Similarly the deposition of multiple Loops within each known
-30*
hoard site would suggest that these were not items meant to be used individually bul despite
their dimensional variations, in tandem with one another. Indeed it may be argued that as a
modern audience we expect obiects made for the same purpose to have been constructed
identically in size, shape and design in order to reflect that purpose. However, such modern
values of standardisation were most likely not the case during the Brouze Age and if the Loops
did have a practical functions, such as a form of clasp, small variations in weight, size or profile
may not have been noticed or considered a problem as long as the object fuffiiled its role.
However, whilst many of the Sussex Loops demonstrate significant damage, in the
majority the damage cannot be categorically attributed to a practical use. Many of the smaller
Loops, such as Sussex Loop 8, do seem to have been forced out of their original formation but
this seems to have been caused by compression rather than strain on the Loop hook itself.
Similarly there seems to be no obvious striations visible on any of the bronze rods used during
the construction of the Sussex Loops, marks which would have identified the friction of ropes or
ties. It may very reasonably be argued that the smoothing effect visible on the interior of many
of the Loops may have been the result of the Loops fixture to posts or poles possibly as part of
homes, gates or even boats. However this is pure speculations and brings the arguments once
again back to the Loops function as a form of ornamentation.
As such whilst the size of the Sussex Loops seem to inhibit their use as upper arm rings,
and their weight as a brooch or other form of clothing clasp, strong arguments may be put
forward in respect to their uses as a type of bracelet or bangle. Crucially, as demonstrated
above, the Sussex Loops survey indicates that regardless of differences in size, profile or weight
each Sussex Loop seerns to have corresponded with its fellows in terms of inner diameter,
Whtlst many Sussex Loops have sustained severe damage to their loop and hook joint it may be
argued that each Loop would have originally have been constructed as a static piece. Through
examination of those Loops reasonably undamaged in this respect, such as Sussex Loop 1,8,
figure 47, as well as Loops partially unhooked, such as Sussex Loop 6, figure 48, it would seem
unlikely that each Loop would have originally been designed to unhook and then re-hook.
During construction the Loops would have had to be bent into position then forced further
along its curved trajectory before the Ioop and hook would have fitted together, and in many
cases, such as Sussex Loop 4, figure 49, the loop hook seems to have been hammered completely
around the top of the loop. As such if the Sussex Loops were a form of bracelet they would most
likely have been form of bangle, meant to be slipped over the hand of the wearer. The design of
such a style would need to take into account both the wearers wrist size, but also their hand size
(WWWII. According to statistics of a modern population smaller individual, below Sft 5 inches
in heighi have a mean wrist size of approximately t58mm, hourever larger individuals, men and
$romen, who exceed that hu,gfrq have an approximate wrist size of between 165-190mm
-31 -
(WWWZ). In relation modern females are likely to have a mean
hand width of approximately 74rnm whilst men average around
84mm (1,/WW3). Such averages may have been slightly less
during the prehistoriq for in the past fifty years growth rates have
taken a noticeable spikg if not as drastic as is commonly believed,
due to the increased and sustained accessibility to properly
nourishing food, as well as a wider concept of its importance
during periods of growth. The majority of the Sussex Loops
demonstrate internal diameters between 60 - 70 mm and as such,
whilst several Loop examples would only have fitted smaller
individuals, indeed perhaps females, with flexibility of the wrist
the Sussex Loops may very likely have been adequately sized to
form a style ofbangle or braceleL
From the data so far collected it would seem that the
Sussex Loops were indeed a form of bracelet, however the
significance and or social meaning of such bronze obiects are
arguably far from clear. As Gosden writes, a large part of any social
life is the links which are forged between people and material
objects (Gosden, ?AAL 157). Anthropolory would indicate that
throughout obseruable history and within the majority of
cultures, objects often display clues as to the wealth, status or
profession which individuals held or aspired to. In some cases
material goods may facilitate the expression of direct cultural
messages, such as the modern interpretation of the Caduceus
symbol of medicine, however in other cases cultural messages are
transmitted as pure inference, the exhibition of which demands
audiences of a particular cultural upbringing to be understood. In
modern capitalistsociety's individuals build large houses, drive top
of the range cars or wear expensive clothing or jewellery to
transmit personal statements of wealth and or status. As Bvocho
writes, personal ornamentation "has always played a significant
part in every sociegr, and as such the history of ornaments is
probably as old as that of humaniql' fBvocho, 2005, 409). Such a
statement is perfectly true and as Bvocho argues ornaments can
be indicators of culhrral states such as age, marital status or social
rank as well as symbols which people wear to identify themselves
Ftgure 17 - Sussex Loop 7& - Near Levtes(Phot4,mph by Author * wtth Wmttsston ol the Eridsh
llusanml
Ftgurc 48 - Suxulnop 6 - HollingburyCamp
{PhoWradr by Author - wlth Wrmlsston ol the Mttshlluseum)
Flgurc 49 - Sussex loop 4 - HolllngburyCemp
(Phowmptry ty Aathor - wlth pf/nnfssioa ol the trl.Jshttuseum)
*32*
as part of religious, social or even professional groups wit}in a particular society. Indeed
"ornamentation is an expression of people's values as well as social and economic organisation"
(Bvocho, 2005, 410). As previously demonstrated the Sussex Loops would seem to have been
constmcted as a form of jewellery however their relatively restricted nature in terms of overall
design, as well as their limited deposition and distribution, as chapter two will explorq may
argue that they subscribe to Bvocho's idea of a social symbol. This symbol may have indirect$
transmitted the concept of wealth and or status however it may also have held a distinct cultural
connotation such as belonging to a very particular social sub group (Ehrenberg 1989, 81)
including individuals inducted into the religious, crafting or intellectual sectors of society.
As Harding argues the social position of skilled individuals during the Bronze Age is a
feafiire which is still unclear (Harding, 2000, 239). Individuals skilled, for instance, as metal
smiths would have been able to ffansform pieces of rock ore, through processes of fire and
fusion, into objects such as the Sussex Loops. They may have travelled themselves into the
mines and as such were likely awarded a high or at least specifically recognised status within
Bronze Age society. Such a social status may also be argued for individuals within the societies
who were skilled and or knowledgeable in matters such as medicine and healing or religion.
Whilst the physical ramifications of the Sussex Loops would argue that they were a form of
bracelet, the individuality which they display in every other aspect of their construction would
suggest that they were representative of particular individuals. As has previously been
demonstrated training and education would seem to have been an increasingly defined
phenomenon, and as such it is possible that t}te Sussex Loops constituted the recognition of
individuals competentin the skills taughtto tlem.
Indeed a key theme of the Sussex Loops, as an assemblage, is their nature as an
o)iymoron of design, being both similar in overall constnrction yet significantly different in
terms of their individual size, shape and profile. Such pieces may very reasonably be argued to
have been made or commissioned with particular clients in mind. Such a client may have been,
as argued abovg an individual ofa recognised skill, yet such bracelets as the Sussex Loop rnay
also have been used to indicate individuals of a particular social status, such as political or
cultural leaders. Such bracelets are heavy for every day wear, particularly for those such as
smiths whose work would have involved a skilled yet physical element. As such whilst the
Loops may have been used to demonstrate status as a professional they may equally have been
made to represent an individual on their elevation to a position of authority.ln1976 Rowlands
compared the Sussex Loops constructional design to the large spiral twisted torcs of the period
(Rowlands, L976 A,96), a category of object which in the context of the Iater Iron Age golden
torc is often believed to have been a symbol of developed leadership. It would be absurd
according to Pryor to suggest the Bronze Age "societies were completely egalitarian, clearly they
*33-
were not, very few societies anywhere in the world are" (Pryor, 2003, 250). Undoubtedly as
community's settled down geographically the social structure would have settled with itallowing defined "powerful tribal chiefs, the equivalent perhaps to petty warlords" [Pryor, 2003,
250) to become Iocally established. As such it may be plausible that items such as the Sussex
Loops were constructed for particular individuals, sized to fit them and crafted in a manner
which may have culturally represented that individual to the community amund them.
However it must not be overlooked that "starved of familiarity we are then forced to
make much more conscious interpretations" (Clarl6 1986, 67). Such propositions for the
significance and cultural uses of objects such as the Sussex Loops are perfectly plausible,
however with only the material objects as evidence such interpretations will always have an
element of speculation. Indeed objects cannot be seen as ritualistic or culturally significant
purely on the basis that they are exotic (Grant, Gorin & Fleming 2005, 167). Even today the
Sussex Loops are made and used for aesthetic and simple ornamentation purposes. In 201"0
Kerry Seaton crafted several small rings inspired by the design of the Sussex Loops recovered
from Brighton's Hollingbury Camp hoard, as seen in figure 50 (WWW4). There is arguably an
inequality in archaeolory today as Shennan puts forward which believes that whilst we engage
in the construction and trade of material obiects to make a profit those of the prehistoric
participated in such transactions in order to cement relationships or simply to offer gifts
fShennaa 1999,352), Indeed in 1976, according to Rowland it was "generally understood that
the $ussex Loops were copies in Bronze rod" of the spiral twisted bracelets found in the Barton
Bendish Hoard (Rowlands, 1976 A,96), indicating that economic value driven by fashion was
not unheard ofin the Bronze Age.
However as the following chapter will demonstrate the distribution and deposition of
the Sussex Loops are consistent in the fact that they are nearly universally hoarded, and with
only n,rro site exceptions within a remarkably intimate region of the Sussex South Downs. As
such it may reasonably be suggested that if these Loops
were simply pieces of obscure regional jewellery the
deposition sites would be far more wide spread and the
depositional contexts slighfly more diverse. Indeed
bronze is inherently a reryclable material and the process
of rerycling is often believed to have been a common
process during the Bronze Age (Barber, 200L, 162).
Therefore it would shnd to reason that the objects
chosen for inclusion in contexts such as hoards, never to
be retrieved, were objects of particular and significant
cultural merit Ftgure 50 - Kerry Seaton'sSussex LoapRlngs(www4)
-34*
Chapter Two
Deposition and Distribution
Sussex Loop I - East, Dean
Deposttion and the ?ractice of Hoarding
With the discovery of the Near Oakham hoard in May of this year, there are now thirty four
Sussex Loops known to archaeolory, and of those thirty four only one has ever been found
uncontained by a Middle Bronze Age hoard. As figure 51 demonstrates the Sussex Loops are
most commonly found in sets of two, however the deposition of up to five examples has been
known. Each hoard seems to have been carefully deposited usually within hilly terrain offset by
areas of flatter ground which constitute some of the most picturesque regions of the natural
landscape, and are surrounded by a rich variety of contemporary activity.
The only example to so far deviate, from this otherwise exclusive trend, has been Sussex
Loop 3, a single fin4 which was recovered in 1989 not far from the Patching reservoir, courtesy
of a local metal detectorist (White, 1991, 239), The placement of this particular find would
however suggest that it may originally have complied with the common depositional practice
featured by its fellows. Discovered at a depth of approximately 25cm (White, L99L,239), the
Patching Loop "was found close to the reservoir, in soil which may have been disturbed" (White,
L991,240) during the reservoirs construction. The Loop itself is badly twisted due to a large
piece of flint which had been fammed through its centre (White, L99L,239), and while such
destruction may have occurred at the time of the Loops deposition there is a possibility that the
flint was forced through the Loop as a result of drastic post depositional upheaval. Indeed the
area in which the Loop was located is part of one of the most famous chalk and flint districts in
Britain and loose surface flint is common. In all likelihood the Patching find would originally
have belonged to a Middle Bronze Age hoard possibly interred with a partner Loop, as well as
other artefacts, all of which are eitler
still to be found or were lost at the
time of the reservoirJs construction.
As such it would seem clear
that a form of hoarding practice was
the only accepted formula for
disposing ofa Sussex Loop, and given
this exclusive quality, the context and
motivations behind the creation of
such hoards may have significant
implications as to not only the Loops
function but also their wider social
value and meaning.
".":;$**$s$$--$.:::S*Flgure 57- The Sussett Loops Concentradon by Ftnd Stu
(Datu ftont t B Sassex l,oop Sr,d.!4r 2O73)
-35*
A Branze Age Store Cupboard
Unlike flint, the primary construction material of the past several millennia, a key feature of
bronze is its potential to be re-melted, reworked and reshaped into a range of alternative tools
or ornaments, as well as any other implement required by the community at large. As
established in chapter one, and as Barber emphasises, archaeological "traces of the
metalworkerc themselves are scarce" (Barber, 2003, L22), as are indications as to the social
sffucrures which governed the daily practice of their work, However, the possibility that a
Bronze Age smith was not itinerant, but rather travelled between farmsteads and villages,
smelting and selling merchandise as they went is one of significant potential. As such, ifmobility was indeed a prominent factor of metalworking during the British Bronze Age, it would
seem highly plausible that the hoards of the period a new phenomenon, may have played a key
part in bronze production and or distribution.
Indeed if such a scenario were in operation the hoards of t}e period, including those
which contain a Sussex Loop, may well have been collections of material meant to supply the
smith's and their craft. It must be acknowledged that the equipment necessary for not only
working bronze but also for transporting a forger's materials, would have been both extensive
and cumbersome. Transporting the raw materials as well as all the paraphernalia of a smith
may therefore have been countered through the creation of hoards. Bradley classifies such
deposits as founder's hoards, essentially comprising of accumulated scrap metal awaiting its
turn to be recycled into other useful forms (Bradley, 1998, 12). Many of the Loops exhibit marks
which may be interpreted as signs of long term wear and tear the result of an active life prior to
deposition. Several Loops, such as Sussex Loop 10 recovered from the Handcross hoard, exhibit
large chips and scratched grooves to the surfaces of their bronze construction rods. In some
case these chips are clearly post depositional, however in others the position of the damage
would correspond with the logical areas of impact which would have occurred if the Sussex
Loops were indeed a form of bracelet or bangle, caught and bumped during the course of its
wearer's daily routine. The scrap, or recyclable metal, would have been pieces rnost Iikely
collected from the villages and farmsteads through which a smith travelled, buried within the
local vicinity of the suppliers to ensure that an adequate quantity of raw material was on hand
during the smith's next visit
If such a motivation did inspire the creation of Middle Bronze Age hoards objects such
as the Sussex Loops would essentially have been waste material, with each Loop having little
merit beyond that of a piece of jewellery which had reached the end of its sentimental or
fashionable value. However, neither the Sussex Loops as an assemblage nor the majority of
artefacts associated with the finds seem to have been pieces obviously meant as scrap. In
*36*
general the artefacts included within the Loop hoards are whole and relatively undamaged,
comprising of material goods which range across the object spectrum including both ornaments
and tools, as well as material items which, as chapter three will explore, can arguably be seen as
pieces of a relatively high social value. As such it may be more likely that the Sussex Loop
hoards were a part of the bronze industry, but ratJrer than being pieces of scrap metal, ready to
be remade, they in fact represent the opposing extreme of the working rycle having been
deposited as components of a merchant's hoard.
Such hoards would have been akin to treasure cashes, comprising of "freshly made
pieces that were stored together awaiting disEibution to the customeC fBradley, L998,12). In
such a case the Sussex Loops are still likely to have been ordinary everyday pieces of
metalwork, most likely a form of jewellery which were stored ready for the next market day or
trading session. Yet these regional and context specific pieces may equally have been
constructed for an individual, iudicating the possibility that shadow clients, or a commissioner,
hovered behind their creation, ascribing them with particular social or personal meaning.
Indeed, as chapter one puts forward, each Sussex Loop does seem to have been worked as an
individual piece.
Such deposits, created either for future metal working exploits or as part of a wider
merchant trade, would have been regularly made and intended only as "temporary stores"
(Bradley, 1989, L6). They would most likely have been marked in a manner known only to the
crafter or smith to whom the hoard belonged only entering the archaeological record "when the
normal cycle of burial and recovery was broken"
(Bradley, 1989, 16). However, as lftistiansen
comments, "hoarding is often thought to
represent religious consumption, by a
community, or an outstanding individual on
behalf of a community" (Kristiansen, 1989,22),
an argument which the Sussex Loops may indeed
support
Yotive Deposition
As previously discussed the Sussex Loops
are the product of a time period wrought by
change, and a rapid development towards a more
agricultural and geographically centred form ofFtgure 52 - Sussex f,oop 16 - Afichexr,r
(motug,aph by Aatho," - wtih permisstoa of the Btitlsh Uaseum)
*37 *
life. As such there may be a strong case to be argued that rather than being temporarily stored
scrap or merchandise the Sussex Loops in fact represent permanent additions to the landscape
as part ofvotive offerings ofone kind or another.
It is remarkably unusual, as Pryor writes, for bronze objects of any form to be
discovered within either a settlement or purely domestic archaeological context [Pryor, 2003,
275). Intrinsically bronze is a recyclable material and, according to those such as Barber, the
reworking of otrd bronze in order to supplement incoming raw materials was a common feature
of the Bronze Age (Barber,2003,162). As previously demonstrated the raw components of
bronze are not materials in any sense local to Sussex, or the region surrounding the Sou&
Downs. As such the necessary supplies to craft a Sussex Loops were most likely reasonably
limited, and as a result these ornamental objects may have commanded a relatively high social
value. Indeed as Pryor points out, the suruival of Bronze Age hoards into the modern
archaeological record would suggest that the maiority of bronze objects which have been
recovered were deliberately and permanently deposited fPryor, 2003, 275). Whilst the survival
of such obiects in a handful of cases may have been the result of a break in the rerycling system
or the failure of a merchant, client or smith to retrieve the hoarded goods, the survival of so
many hoards within the Sussex area would argue that they were formed deliberately with a
cultural practice or votive offering in mind.
Such an argument is further strengthened by the fact that the deposition of such hoards
seems to have been respected by not only the community of the time, but also those of the
following decades, as witnessed during the construction of the Hollingbury Camp hill-fort.
Whilst the presence of the Hollingbury Camp hoard may simply not have been knovvn, the
building of Hollingbury Camp itself only followed the Sussex Loop phenomenon by a relatively
short period of time. As such it is very possible that the hoards of previous generation were not
only known of but also respected, until a time came when t}te community had evolved to the
point that legends and stories of the past had become so obscured that the hoards slipped from
living memory.
Many of these Loops, such as Sussex Loop 21 figure 53, feature damage which was very
likely deliberately inflicted. In this case the Loop exhibits a thin, clean break through its bronze
rod atthe base ofthe Loop face, which does notseem to have been any form ofpost deposition
damage. Much academic thought has been given to objects which seem to have been broken
prior to deposition and in the majority, arguments that such damage would have been made
prior to burial under a cloud of religious or ritualistic motivation have been sustained. As such
it may indeed be plausible that t}e depositional contexts of the Sussex Loops indicate not
storage prior to distribution nor cashes of reryclable material, but rather objects selected for
deposition due to social need, tradition or the beliefs of an individual. Religious connotations
*38*
have already been attached to the Sussex Loops, and in the light of their exclusive
archaeological contexts such motivations, behind not only their deposition but also perhaps
their manufacture, must be considered.
As Needham writes "none of the British hoards have any evidence connecting them
explicitly to the process of metal working. Explanation of the broken objects in some hoards are
ambiguous and therefore they cannot necessarily be regarded as the unretrieved stock piles of
smiths or indeed merchants" (Needham, L988,232). Therefore as Pryor writes "this brings us
back to the realms of ideologf (Pryor, 2003, 275) for it seems unreasonable to throw away
metal which may have been melted down and reused (Pryor, 2A03,275). Similarly, whilst it israre for the circumstances of a hoards to he adequately recorded there is sometimes evidence
that considerable care was taken in the arrangement of the objects, "thus hinting that deposition
was not only deliberate but
intended to be permanenf
fNeedham, 1988, 232). To date
there has been little published
material pertaining to the layout of
Bronze Age hoards containing the
Sussex Loops. However the
arguably purposeful damage
inflicted on Loop examples, such as
Sussex Loop 21 and Sussex Loop 3,
may indicate that there were
acknowledged and socially
meaningful processes behind the
deposition of the Sussex Loops.
Therefore, hoarded obiects,
including the Sussex Loops, may be
seen as giffs 0r expressions of
appeasement to spiritual elements during times of crisis, such as widespread sickness, war orfamine. Similarly such deposits may have been created in order to inspire lucl<, perhaps at
particular times of the year, such as the months leading to the harvest, a new season, the
anointrnent of a new leader or even a particularly important social marriage or birth. Such
deposits would most likely have been made by the community as a whole with the individual
pieces donated by the many separate branches ofthe social group. Indeed as Needham suggests
hoards rnay very likely have represented the needs and wishes of a community, the "deposits
BrorueConsfiadion Rod(Photogmph by Author - wt& perufixstoa of the M$sIt lluyrum)
*39*
buried in t}e knowledge and to the benefit of a society at largg although the act itself may have
been reserved for a select few" {Needham, 1988, 59).
However the motivations behind such votive offerings are far from clear. As such, from
evidence provided by Middle Bronze Age hoards such as those of the Sussex Loops, it may be
plausible to suggest that the hoarding practices of the Bronze Age may have been a rnore
individual or personal undertone than previously thought, an undertone which may have crucial
connotations for exclusively hoarded objects such as the sussex Loops.
Personql Hoords
As Barber writes, "evidence for selective, formal and deliberate deposition inevitably leads in
the direction of a ritual or votive" (Barber, 2003, 164) offering. However '.the landscape of the
Middle Bronze Age ... is perceived to be more domestic in nature, as the monuments
characteristic of the earlier millennia cease to be constructed" (Barbec 2001, 164) and
archaeological awareness of particular individuals, and subgroups of the overall population,
increases. In such a social context it become distinctly plausible that the Sussex Loops were
obiects hoarded as part of votive offerings, the sole purpose of which was to highlight an
individual, either to the community at large or to a higher religious or spiritual entity.
In reality the Sussex Loops, and the objects with which they were deposited, are
artefacts very likely to have been relatively rare and valuable within Bronze Age society. The
compilation of the Loop hoards shows distinct variation in terms of their chosen artefacts,
which include obiects not only of different designs, such as alternative forms of a brooch, but
also objects which are of distinctly divergent object categories, such as ornaments as opposed
to tools. Indeed the Stump Bottom example, as seen in the following chapter, exhibits adistinctly ornamental set of metalwork pieces in addition to its two Sussex Loops. This
compilation distinaly contrasts with that of the Falmer Hill hoard, which, besides its four
Sussex Loops, presented archaeolory with an Early Bronze Age flint dagger, or cases such
Pyecombe and Chichester, who's Sussex loops were recovered from a hoarded context with no
accompanying artefacts other than their partner Loop. It would therefore seem thatindividuality is a key and observable theme not only when the Sussex Loops are considered as
an assemblage but also in terms of their horded contexts.
Similarly as Barber writes, "from a social perspective metal was perceived as possessing
a form of value expressed through concerns with factors such as access to the raw materials ...
and to metalwork technolory itself (Barbea 2003, ZS). As chapter one highlights bronze, and
the objects which it created, were the product of materials gathered from places liminal in
nature, spiritual in belief and dangerous in reality, forged through the transforming powers of
-4O*
fire, skill and knowledge. It is likely that the creation of metal, from the ore source to the
finished product carried specific cultural connotations, which would have affected how objects
such as the Sussex Loops were perceived and valued. Such value may have been purely
economic in nature however, as Osborne puts forward, an obiect deposited in a hoarded context
may equally have been created "for everyday use, and been converted into an item which might
be employed in an exchange with supernatural powers" (Osborne, 2004,2).ln essence an object
of defined and recognised sentimental value. As a modern audience "we generally think of
collection and display as a post renaissance phenomenon originating in the cabinets of curiosity
and culminating in the galleries and museums of the contemporary world" (Gosden, 2004, 35).
However this is almost certainly not the case. In either sense if an individual were to deposit
valuable obiects, particularly objects valuable in an abstract rather than practical sense, the act
would have spoken volumes for their wealth, social status or even hopes for t}e future,
It must be acknowledged that these Middle Bronze Age hoards may have been created
by individuals seeking to hide their wealth from the general populace, and therefore "maintain
a monopoly control over the supply of metalworh or simply manipulate its value" [Bradley,
1989, 12). However in terms of the Sussex Loop hoards, which do seem to have been
permanently interred deposition may have been an individual's way of securing eternal
benefit, grfting his or her wealth to spiritual entities prior to their death, or as compensation
for a crime or indiscretion. In both cases deposition would have had to be witnessed in order
for the votive aspect of the hoard to be culturally effective, and the objects chosen for
deposition would have needed to be
culturally meaningful, either in
tems of personal significance or
overt wealth, In such a light the
Sussex Loops, as an essential part of
many Middle Bronze Age hoards in
the Sussex area, would have needed
to be objects which the local
community recognised immediately
as objects of worth or, as examined
in chapter one, obiects of directly
personal or religious connoations.
As such the arguable individuality,
of not only the Sussex Loops but also
the compilation of the hoards to
which they belon& may be used toFtgure 54 - Sussex Loop 70 - Ilandcross
(Photogmph by Author - with permissioa ol the Hlfrsh lruseum)
-41 -
argue that at least some of the Bronze Age hoards were not the construction of whole
communities but rather the creation of individuals with the aim of some form of personal
benefit.
Such arguments may be still furthered if the period's burial customs are taken into
account. Prior to the Bronze Age large monuments focused on death and the dead can be seen
to dominate the archaeological record. Individuals were accorded final burial rites which
arguably stripped away individuality, such as West Kennett and other large Neolithic and Early
Bronze Age barrows, inducting the deceased into the single communal entity of the dead.
However as the Bronze Age developed into its later stages and the Iron Age becomes
increasingly visible archaeologically, a completely opposite burial custom seem to take
president, with individuals being buried in single graves adorned with a range of grave goods,
representative of possible ranh status or profession. The Sussex Loops occupy the time
between these two distinctive cultural traditions, which sees cremation "become the dominant
funerary rite, throughout the entire British Isles" (Parker-Pearson, 20A3,49). It was argued by
Kristiansen that hoarding may well have been adopted as "a cheaper alternative to grave
goods" {Bradley, 1989, 1"3J, and whilst the idea that object collections, such as those wit}rin the
Sussex Loops hoards, were a cheaper alternative is unlikely, it is possible that the practice of
hoarding constituted a link between the earlier preoccupation with collective representation
and the later traditions, which visibly emphasise the individual.
The hoards of the Sussex Loops seem to appear in tandem with the abandonment of
earlier traditions, and the movement towards a more regionally settled, and arguably
competitive, way of life. As Needham writes "the deposition of metal work within established
traditions could gradually have taken over pre-existing rites" (Needham, 1988, 59) and such
selective deposition may have developed along with social thinking until it morphed into the
grave goods of the later period. As argued above the hoards of the Sussex Loops all seem to
have been individual in their composition and the absence of the Loops in other hoards of the
period may be seen as an extension of this selective and ultimately unique style of deposition.
As such it is very plausible that the hoards of the Bronze Age were created either by aparticular individual or by the community at large in order to represent or remember an
individual. Examples of single burials are known prior to hoards of the Sussex Loops, such as
the Amesbury Archer whose diverse collection of grave good is perhaps roughly paralleled in
these small hoards, containirtg as they do ornaments, tools an{ in some cases, scatters of flint,
all of which can be found in the archers grave (Barber, 2003, 125). Therefore it may not be
altogether farfetched to speculate that the Sussex Loops were a form of significant regional
jewellery which was considered appropriate to be chosen in the representation of an
individual at the time of their death, or in a display of that individual's social standing.
*42*
Disposal
Through examination of the Sussex Loop hoards it becomes increasingly apparent that the
artefacts selected for deposition comprised of objects which may very likely have held a high
economic value. Equally such obiects may indeed have been hoarded purely for the benefit of
an individual, however the reason why these particular objects were chosen must also be
considered, for it must not be ignored that the decision to permanently exile particular
materials, and or objects groups, from the social sphere may not have been done as a gift but
rather as a form ofdisposal.
As chapter one demonstrates, the Sussex Loops, while all of the same general shape, are
objects which display distinct variation in terms of their construction, including elements such
as their size, shape and profile. In essence such variations would argue that the Sussex Loops
were originally crafted to be individual, possessing subtle yet unique characteristics of design.
Similarly the colour of many of the Loops highlights that whilst the assemblage conforms in its
overall twisted design, the raw materials used during construction would have comprised
copper, tin and additives, such as lead and arsenig which would have originated from a range
of geographical locations. As has previously been established Bronze Age mines seem to have
be assigned particular significance by certain community groups, with raw material from one
site being preferable to another, even if other equally profitable mines were closer and easier
to access. As fohnston writes "there is a wide range of evidence from across Britain which
supports the argument that during the Neolithic and Bronze Age, underground spaces were
conceived in particular and special ways" $ohnstory 2008, 199). As such the archaeological
recovery of the Sussex Loops, deposited exclusively within clearly defied hoards and
constructed to both conform and express some form of individuality, may reflect their cultural
perception as special, spiritual or dangerous, objects which could never be remade into
something else.
Similarly it must be recognised that the Sussed Loops, which have so far been
recovered, may in reality only represent a small minority of those which were originally made,
deposited in a permanent hoard as opposed to entering the recycling process, which may have
been deemed inappropriate for these particular Loops. Such selective deposition may indeed
reflect factors such as the materials from which the Loops were crafted, with the ore sourced
from favoured mine sites, or a particular combination of mines sites, transferring its cultural
value and or perception to the objects created. Indeed even within our own modern society
where material objects are increasingly constructed to be used, discarded and replaced, objects
of value, either finically or sentimentally, are accorded particular attention, being curated or
hidden in banks, museums or safety deposit boxes. However the same care and attention is
*43*
also given by a modern audience to dangerous materials such as nuclear waste. As such it may
be plausible that the practice of hoarding during the Middle Bronze Age, was a method which
contained obfecB culturally acknowledged to be special or dangerous whether due to the
material they were made from, the obiects type, the way they were designed or some other
cultural concept which is now long lost to archaeologr.
In the case of the Sussex Loops, and many of their accompanying bronze artefacts, this
practice of disposal may be speculated to have been an attempt at returning the raw materials
of the smelted bronze to the state in which it was originally found, namely the realms beneath
the ground. As Ixer and Budd write, it is now becoming possible "to develop a clear idea of the
impurity patterns likely to have resulted from smelting the ores of particular sites which we
know to have been exploited in the Early and Middle Bronze Age" (lxer & Budd, L998, 17J. The
results of such work will undoubtedly have some very enlightening results, and may lead to
some interesting interpretations as to why specific pieces of metal work such as the Sussex
Loops, were chosen to be permanenfly abandoned, within hoards of the Bronze Age period
rather than be absorbed into the bronze recycling. \{hilst it must be acknowledged that the
Sussex Loop hoards, as seen in the followingchapter, did not always comprise solely of bronze
artefacts, and as such the returning of particularly sourced bronze to the ground remains pure
speculation, the Bronze Age perception of underground spaces as liminal or special does seem
to be increasingly clear in the archaeological record. As such the Bronze Age use of small
underground spaces to deposit material goods, considered as unique or socially dangerous,
maybe of some serious merit.
Deposition
As such the deposition of the Sussex Loops is undoubtedly a key element in understanding not
only the Loops as practical objects, but also their perception and value within a community. As
Ehrenberg writes "the provenience, or contefi, in which implements are found varies
considerably from region to region ... small hoards of weapons are typical of some areas, such
as Ireland and Northern Britain, were as large scrap or founders hoards are typical of South
East England" (Ehrenberg, L989, B0). Such variation indicates that the motivations behind the
creation of hoards were not necessarily consistent, and over past several decades many
academic studies have given thought to the development of hoarding practices and the
implications such depositions may have. As demonstrated above the interpretation of hoarded
contexts portrays the Sussex Loops in many and varying lights, each of which holds implication
for those who created, used and finally disposed of them. From the evidence of the Sussex
Loops in addition to their hoarded contexts it would seem most likely, as posed above, that the
*44*
Sussex Loops were objects of some value within their community. This may simply have been
in terms of an ornamental bracelet made for a particular individual. Yet the exclusively
hoarded contexts imply that there was more to the Sussex Loops than a purely regional form of
iewellery connotations which made them appropriate for depositions arguably votive in some
form.
Distribution
As Llobera writes "space is a medium in which human beings play out there lives" (Llobera,
L996,6L2) a medium which is often not only affected by such a play, but also affects the play
itself. In the past several decades there has been a noticeable shift in archaeological thought to
consider not just individual sites, or particular artefacts, but the contexts in which these aspects
of archaeology are to be found. Indeed attention has now shifted to consider "practices
occurring within the landscape, their nature, their characteristics, and their location, how they
changed through time, how their distribution attaches meaning to certain spaces and the
importance of how and why they were carried out'' [Llobera, L996, 614).
Classically, the Sussex Loops distribution has always remained particularly limited and
overtly regional in its form. Until May of this year, and the recovery of the Near Oakham hoard,
the Sussex Loops as an assemblage had never been found outside of the modern boundaries of
Sussex and had only once been found outside of the South Downs parameters. The Loops may
Wure55-TheDistibution of the
SussextroopsExcluding the Near
OakhamFinds.
(ItauIrumthe Sussex
LoqfirNey2073)
-45-
distribution is
no longer be seen as an
exclusively regional
phenomenon, for the Near
Oakham hoard is roughly
165 miles north of the
Sussex South Downs. Yet
the Sussex Loops
still
particularly limited in itscast, congregating within a
very tight radius of modern
Brighton's town centre,
which suggests that the
Loops were indeed a form
of cultural expression, orFtgure 56 - The Dtstrabution of the Round Sussex tr oops by Find Sitc
(Datu fron t,e Sussex Loop turvey 2073)
perhaps a fashion which failed to spread. In either case the tightly radiating form of the Sussex
Loops distribution may be highlight key aspects of the Sussex Loops creations as well as
perhaps provide tantalising hints into the Bronze Age of the Brighton area.
The Brighton Loops
As figure 55
demonstrates, the Sussex
Loops radiate from the area
immediately surounding
modern Brighton's town
centre, leading to them
often being referred to as
the Brighton Loops. Within
the borders of today's
thriving city, five hoards
have been recovered,
including Hollingbury
Camp, Hollingbury Castle,
Hanley Cross, Black Rock
! 6 '! '8
Mit* o"
Figurc 57 - The Dtstribution olthe Lozenge.Sussex f,oops byFind Sites(DaUIrom the Sussex Loap Survey 20L3)
-46*
and Falmer Hill, which collectively represent fifteen out of the thirty four known Sussex Loops.
These hoards comprise some of the largest Loop concentrations with both Falmer Hill and
Hollingbury Camp exhibiting four examples and Black Rock providing a further three. However
only one of these examples was found to have been decorated, and few are noteworthy in terms
of their design or overall construction. Similarly, as figures 56 & 57 indicate, there seems to be
little to no correlation in the Loops distribution when factors such as their profile or otlerconstructional trends are taken into account Clearly the Sussex Loops were an assemblage
whose function and value centred mainly around the immediate area of Brighton, and as such
arguments such as the Loops inclusion in the scrap or merchandise hoards of the bronze
industry may be tentatively furthered.
As Briick observes;
"Metalwark is more regularly found on Late Bronze Age settlements
than those of the previous period ... the range of types ore considerably wider
during the loter period, with small craft workers tools being particularly well
represented. This diversification of object types implies that conceptual
boundaries were being drawn around particular activities or that previously
undffirentiated groups of practices were being broken down into more closely
defined categories of activity" [Brilck, 2007, 26),
In such a light the Sussex Loops, limited and of a concentrated distribution, may indicate the
early movement towards such defined activity boundaries. It is very possible that the Sussex
Loops were deposited as part of either scrap or merchant hoards, created as a form of bracelet
and traded back to the merchant or smith when the customer no longer had a practical or
sentimental use for them. It has been the traditional mind set of British archaeology to "reject
any analysis of other cultures, past or presen! in terms of the costs and benefits associated with
particular practices, as the imposition of a modern capitalist value system" [Shennan, 1999,
352J. Yet, as Shennan argues, people are normally rational when it comes to the expenditure of
time and effort (Shennan, L999,353), and it may not be a particularly big leap to suggest that
even within prehistory material gain and economic trade were key factors of everyday life. As
such from the evidence of the Sussex Loops particularly concentrated distribution the
possibility that Loops were part of the local bronze industry, its production and trade, would
seem very plausible.
Indeed none of the reasonably contemporary sites come near to the hoards themselves,
other than the later Hollingbury Camp. The fact that this main Sussex Loops concentration is
slightly removed from the known villages, farms and distinctly agricultural areas of the Downs
*47-
Iwould argue that, as Brtick puts forward, the activities of particular specialists, such as metal
smiths, were separated from those of the everyday populace. Metal working as an occupation
was, as seen in chapter one, likely constrained by strict working practices and taboos which
required the activity to set up away from tle domestic or agricultural areas of society. Such
measures were arguably the result of the community's perception of metalworking as special
and transformative with a quality of the magical or supernatural. However the distance may
equally have been evoked as safety measures, in a more practical sense, keeping young children
or animals away from the loud noise, fire and molten metal which would have surrounded any
bronze production site.
In essence the Sussex Loops do seem to focus on the Brighton area and as such
arguments for a localised and defined area of bronze production, recycling older material into
new, maybe significantly increased. However with all of the modern building which has
occurred in and around the Brighton no Bronze Age site of intensive metalworking has yet been
reported. Indeed the Hollingbury hoards were recovered from one of the busiest industrial
areas of the modern city, where development, expansion and building projects have been
repeatedly seen in the past several decades. Therefore it may also be argued that the regional
distribution of the Sussex Loops, their slight separation from the agricultural areas as well as
their subtle constructional marks of individuality may suggest that their concentration in the
Brighton area is fact indicative of important cultural individuals [Grant Gorin & Fleming 2005,
275). Indeed rather than representing aspects of a bronze working industry the Loops
concentrated distribution may be interpreted as a representation of a hub or centre of the
regions cultural elite.
Overall Distribution
Whilst fifteen Loops, 44o/o of rt,e overall collection, were located within the limiB of the modern
city of Brighton, a further fourteen examples have, to date, been found within 15-20 miles of the
city. Combined, the fifteen Brighton Loops and their fourteen outliers represent 850/o of the
overall Sussex Loop assemblage and demonstrate clearly the Loops biases towards the South
Downs. Considering this immensely concentrated and small scale disrribution interpretation as
to the Loops function within the local society may be further emphasised.
As figures 58 & 59 demonstrate the area immediately surrounding Brighton was a
hotspot of activity throughout the Bronze Age, and indeed as Bronze gave way to lron. That
there was an increasingly centralised form of lifestyle developing within the South Downs
seems clear from the settlement evidence of the period, and the various branches of the
community would undoubtedly have been one in the same. Indeed the placement of domestic
-48*
sites in such close proximity illustrates the point that people would have likely been some form
of cultural unit in terms of traditions, social structure and more than likely political or tribal
allegiance. Similarly the hill-forts of the Late Bronze Age indicate that the area was continuously
occupied and the communities who surrounded the burial of the Sussex Loops developed
quickly, inducting and constructing new ideas and fashion into there every day lives. These
increasing concenffations of both every day activity and regional objects, such as the Sussex
Loops, may therefore indicate not so much concentrations of crafting specialists but other forms
of social professionals, such as religious or political leaders.
As demonstrated in chapter one the Sussex Loops are all of one very distinctive design,
yet when the assemblage is broken into its component parts distinct variation can be observed
in terms of the Loops size, shape and profile. Each Loop would seem to have been worked as an
individual piece and given, to an extent its own unique set of design characteristics. It may be
very true that the Sussex Loop were merely a set of local jewellery which, for whatever reason,
was only favoured by a few members of the society or failed entirely as a fashion piece.
However the fact that the pieces were constructed of bronze, a material mostly likely of some
considerable value, were accorded what appears to be a very specific process of deposition and
Region(Dato fram the Sussex Loop Suwq 2073)
"t'
*.at*a
aa. ****
0 5 10 t0 Mrlss
Legend
* s{,se€xLoops
I S.t{3rhmrS&s
Figure 58 - The Dlstibution of the Sussex Loops in Comparison to the Known SefrIements of the South Downs
*49-
-l
do not seen to have been made or traded in any great numbers beyond a particularly limited
geographical area, would argue that there was more to the Loops than mealy ornamentation. As
such the Sussex Loops distribution may significantly further arguments which suggest that they
were representative of a particular individual, perhaps as part of an overall profession or social
role.
Such a social symbol may indeed have represented a social elite or a cultural or political
leader, yet when the Loops overall distribution is examined this argument seems less likely, A
social symbol, which was tied to members of the society versed or entrusted with the
communities spiritual or practical well being are not likely to have been found far apart. Each
piece would, most likely, have been made specifically for the individual to whom it was to mark
out, and, more particularly the symbolic message or value that the Loops held in their
immediate surroundings would have waned the further an individual travelled from the centre
of its significance, in this case Brighton and the South Downs. To date there have been five Loop
examples recovered from hoarded contexts outside of the South Downs district, three from
Handcross and two from the most recent Near Oakham hoard. As such in the context of the
Loops overall distribution it would seem much more likely that if the Loops were a social
Figure 59 - The Dtsalbudon of the Sussu Loops in Comparison to the Latc Bronze Age Hill-forts of Sussex(Dau from the Sassex Loop Survey 2013)
50-
AY-
*
H;tr!F$ Biffint
Gac*tldr . l$ldonb{ty
t*"*""'* *",r*Jt"noon*oo'o *
astlt'Eaffiffi"
* alhui#T*trfter*t*urlc*r*
*
0 5 10 20 Miles
tre,gend
f $uasax Loopr
f LBA,Et,AHiHsts
symbol they were representative of either particular professionals or a social elite
unconstrained by regional responsibilities.
Many academic arguments focus of the nature of travel within the Bronze Age and given
the fact that bronze was coming into the region it would seem that travel was a reasonably
common feature of the Middle Bronze Age. The furthest Loop outliers, namely those of the Near
Oakham hoard, are within an approximate eight day walk from the South Downs whilst the
Handcross hoard is less than a day outside ofBrighton. In reality these are not great distances to
be travelling compared to those needed to bring in supplies of bronze or raw ore. Therefore
conclusions that the Loops were a community's representation of a particular profession or
individual may not be all that farfetched when the distribution of the Sussex Loops is critically
examined. They are mostly concentrated in an area of particular regional cohesion, namely the
district surrounding Brighton, and radiate out from this geographical area becoming anomalies
north of the Weald.
It must be acknowledged that those Loops found outside of the South Downs do
represent the majority of decorated examples. Both the known Handcross Loops are decorated,
and decorated in a much more obvious manner than any other Loops examined during the
course of this survey. Similarly the Near Oakham examples were recorded as decorated at the
time of their discovery although badly damaged fWilkin, 2A13,1). Such distribution trends may
very plausibly argue that Sussex Loops were little more than ornamental jewellery perhaps
items which were traded or given as gifts. However the overall distribution would find this
perhaps a little inconsistent. If such trades or gifts were in effect the distribution would
arguably be at least fractionally more wide spread than it so far seems to be and perhaps the
depositional contexts would not have been as consistent.
As such it would seem that the Loops distribution, radiating out from Brighton, is
demonstrative of an assemblage with some degree of social meaning the heart of which centres
within the Brighton area. The decorative pieces which seem to have been released further afield
may indeed support this theory for if an individual was to travel, perhaps to develop local
knowledge in a particular area or profession, they would have been representative of the
society from which they originated and as such it would have been to the benefit of the society
at large that they appear wealthy, or esteemed.
-51 -
Chapter Three - Ass ociatedFinds
.Sussex Loap 9 - East Dean
Chapter Three - Associated Finds
As demonstrated in chapter two there ha+ to date, been only a single Sussex Loop recovered
from a context not that of a Middle Bronze Age hoard. However the Patching Loop was located
with a large section flint jammed through its cenre, and, whilst this association was likely the
result of the Loops modern disturbance, of the thirty four Sussex Loops currently recorded, no
other example has yet to be found alone. Indeed of the thirty three Sussex Loops so far
discovered within a secure hoarded context, 82% were found alongside a selection of artefacts.
These artefacts comprise a wide spectrum of material goods including other ornaments, tools,
possible weaponry and or hunting equipment, as well as objects which may well be seen as
curated or domestic in nature.
As figure 60 demonstrates the concentration of artefacts associated with each Loop
seems to have fluctuated
substantially. It must be
acknowledged that many of
the Sussex Loops were
discovered in the early
stages of archaeolory, a
factor which may have
significantly affected the
records as to the Loops
associated finds. Indeed
those Loop examples, such
as Hollingbury Castle found
in 1896, may originally have
been deposited alongside
other Bronze Age objects
IStump Bottom
tr Patching
@ Hollingbury Camp
I East Dean
E Handcross
tr Near Lewes
! Hanley Cross
tr Famer Hill
El Black Rock
I Near Oakham
Figure 60 - The Concentration of Associated Artr,facts in the Hoards Containing a SussexLoop
@ata from the Sussex Loop survey 2073)
which went unrecorded or unnoticed at the time, due to the overriding concern for whole
metalwork pieces. Similarly items associated with the Sussex Loops, such as flint scatters, may
not have necessarily have been identified given the very flinty context in which nearly all of the
Sussex Loops have been found.
However from the archaeological data so far substantiated the Sussex Loops seem to
have been objects which were not only buried exclusively within hoarded contexts, but also
objects which were appropriate for burial in both large and small scale deposits. The full
significance ofthe hoarded objects found alongside the Sussex Loops can unfortunately not be
addressed in appropriate depth during this thesis, for the hoards of Sussex is a project worthy of
-52-
a thesis in its own right. However, the concentration of artefacts associated with each Sussex
Loop, as well as the burial of particular goods, may have a very enlightening impact on the
Loops as an assemblage, any interpretation as to how they functioned within their Bronze Age
society and why they are so often buried within the hoards of the Sussex South Downs.
Scrap Metql or FinalMerchandise
There is a distinct possibility, as has previously been established, that the Sussex Loops became
features ofhoarded contexts due to their incorporation in the bronze production industry ofthe
period. Such diposits may either have been those termed as founders hoards, gathering together
large quantities of scrap, old or unwanted material to be reworked by the societies craftsmen, or
those comprising of finished merchandise ready and waiting to be sold. Such arguments, in
terms of the Sussex Loops context, constructional trends and distribution may hold distinct
merit, merit which may be further emphasised when the Loops associated artefacts are taken
into account
Significantly, as figure 62, demonstrates a range of material goods were deposited
alongside the Sussex Loops. These goods include those of a distinctly ornamental nature as well
as weaponr!, tools and domestic wear, Smiths of the Bronze Age, unless specialism was in
practice fPatterson, 2005, 308), would unquestionably have been responsible for the
production of any metalwork required by the community at large. Whether itinerant or
travelling the Bronze Age smiths would have been supported by a local clientele "eager to ease
their daily toil" (Barber,
2003, 130J or perhaps a
social elite, keen to retain
and express their social
position [Barber, 2003,
130). As such if the Sussex
Loop hoards were indeed a
part of the overall bronze
production system, it would
seem logical that they be
included alongside material
goods representative of the
many and varied needs of
the local community.
I Sussex Loops
ElAssociated Finds
"'. . l$:$$" ts"
Figure 67 - The Concentration ofSuss* Loops ond AssociatcdArtefac* by Find Site(Dau Fom the Sassex Loop Survey 2073)
-53-
Furthermore, several of the artefacts with which the Sussex Loops have been found
show distinct marks of wear damage, whilst others indicate that prior to deposition serious
repair work had been attempted. The Near Lewes hoard, as figure 62 shows, has to date been
the largest hoard of Bronze Age material found which also features a Sussex Loop. During
excavation several object categories were recovered from the hoard of which many pieces
demonstrated severe damage, a proportion of which was arguably sustained during the Bronze
Age. One quoit headed pin, its nicked decoration still visible in places, resembling that of the
Sussex Loops IPAS - SUSS-C5D042), was recovered broken in three places. Such damage may
have been part of the depositional process, however in this case it is perhaps more likely that
the pin broke to badly to be worth fixing resulting in the pins replacement and eventual
rerycling. Similarly in the case of the Black Rock hoard marks of previous repair work are
evident. The rapier blade and hilt recovered from this find demonstrate clear rivet holes
fRowland, 1976 8,263), made to reattached blade to hilt, indicating that this hoard at least may
have comprised of broken, unwanted or used objects, traded so as the objects could be remade
or disposed of. As such arguments may indeed be furthered that at Ieast some of the hoards of
which the Sussex Loops were apart may have belonged to the founders hoard classification put
forward by Bradley (Bradley, L998, LZ).
However there may also be a reasonable case to argue that the Sussex Loops in fact
represent both extremes of the bronze working process, some hoards bearing scrap whilst
others new merchandise. If the map in figure 62 and the graph in figure 61 are examined, there
would seem to be a significant divide in terms of the concentration of material artefacts
associated with the Sussex Loops. A distinct trend is observable from these figures which
suggest that the Loops were either apart of small scale hoards, comprising of objects mostly
ornamental in function, or larger hoards demonstrative of a variety of material goods. Smaller
hoards, such as Handcross and East Dean demonstrate a handful of ornamental items in
addition to their Sussex Loops, whilst Hollingbury Castle and Pyecombe were comprised purely
of the Loops themselves. In contrast the larger hoards such as Near Lewes, but also Stump
Bottom and Black Rock, are comprised of objects including ceramic vessels, amber beads and
palstaves as well as torcs, a spear head and the bronze rapier. As such it may be argued that the
Sussex Loop hoards were indeed a part ofthe bronze industry, but rather than being one in the
same they in fact represent both the smith's raw materials and their producdon output.
In such a light the Sussex Loops would appear to have been forms of regional jewellery,
most likely of some value, which was perhaps made for particular individuals explaining the
arguable individuality of the Loops construction. Apart from the Handcross hoard, which
originally featured three Sussex Loops, the smaller hoards seem to exhibit even Loop numbers
as opposed to the larger hoards which demonstrate uneven. Speculation may be indulged in
-54-
that these Loops were perhaps sold or designed as partners perhaps for a particular marriage or
created as a set for an individual. Chapter one briefly encountered this possibility of Loop
partnerships and, whilst it true that the only overtly partnered Loops were those found at
Handcross, as |ames & Rigby write in an Iron Age context there are instances were female
skeletons are found wearing a pair of bangles at the wrist possibly securing the long sleeves of a
tunic or gown"(fames & Rigby, L997, 22). |ust because we, in today's ordered and symmetry
obsessed world, would find it hard to wear paired ornaments which did not match does not
mean that those of the Bronze Age felt the same.
Yet whilst from artefact association it seem reasonably possible that the Sussex Loops
were ornaments representative of a Bronze Age production system, as chapter one
demonstrated the Loops do show traits of variation in terms of the skill employed to make them
and the constructional design which defined them. Crucially it must be acknowledged that those
hoards possibly meant for scrap, such as Near Lewes, do contain Loop examples which are
arguably finer than those of the Loops included in smaller hoards of possibly finished pieces.
This does not necessarily mean such a trend of scrap and merchandise hoards is not possible for
cultural impressions of skill and quality may not be transferable, however it does suggest that
the trends observed in the associated material may not be as clear cut as they first seem.
{Datafromthe Sussexloop Sun q 2073)
-55-
AE!,ffi -E€lt Sr*rE(.lfn
e $s! I c.u4 e l+dEhrE(lcZCffiFIll&nt4tFifiq?rske{!|tr*qleohdrEFlresitbEi8nFiltWdtrh[,esQr*4I?ithr*ut{lrry@n{**&EfilctrfffilsgprhEEsftf&nEL*h*rsIiPha. .oil.{ fufr riq!{!fpr$S+ndWfiEirrb!{mi.r6Ed!f&!h'&aGrfrnBEld'rsffi*.!q*fltb.r*rh*Ery{ErlBsff4E* €{iHGfigoFrdqftd$gs..S.ffikdil*
trcro&E -an1,'Ik(oEB
er lcElrdtlf &Srillf* thsi e hue t FCshEXlei S rrd#r€ troilhqp5ycef
chEEtdro{lthi.bslFftlr*i#t.:Mtarct coilrd A$rttrqB
l,.pd
o"-o'o'
Figure 62 - The Disfr'lbution of the sussex Loops and thelr Associated Artelacts
However, as observed in the previous chapter there does seem to have been a
congregation of Sussex Loops around the Brighton area. Whilst such hoards may be
representative of a specialist centre of activity, from the evidence provided by the Loops
associated finds it would seem that those hoards possibly representing the scrap of a smith
were to be found outside of the Brighton area the only exception being the Black Rock hoard. As
such, if the trends above are employed in interpretation, it may be argued that Bronze Age
smiths were indeed travellers, and the smaller merchandise hoards of the immediate Brighton
area may indicate some form of cultural centre. Such a centre was perhaps of the social elite,
who required distinctly regional and status deflning jewellery but also perhaps of a recognised
activity such as healing or religion, an activity whose members or leaders were marked out by
particular ornaments such as looped bracelets.
Votive Deposits
Equally, from the evidence provided by the Sussex Loops associated artefacts, it must be
acknowledged that the Loops themselves may very likely have been a form of material in some
way appropriate for the context of a votive offering. Significantly if the Loop hoards are
considered as an overall collection it must be recognised that each one comprises of ornaments
which may very reasonably be seen a valuable commodity or objects potentially invested with
social meaning. The majority of the hoards exhibit distinctly ornamental items such as finger
rings, torcs and brooches whilst rare items such as Amber and the Gold appliqu6 disks of the
Near Lewes find, are observable in several examples.
Similarly there is the distinct possibility that there was an element of curation involved
in the compilation of the Sussex Loop hoards. In combination with the four Sussex Loops
recovered from the Falmer Hill hoard, excavation revealed what appeared to be an Early Bronze
Age flint dagger. The creation of such an item is likely to have preceded the Sussex Loops burial
by a good margin and as such there would seem to have been a reasonable case for curation
associated with the Sussex Loops. This is not to say that there would not have been items
curated among those objects constructed of bronze. The Sussex Loops themselves may well
have been items passed down through the generations, father to son or mother to daughter.
However at present there is no way to definitively distinguish such curation practices for the
date range of the Sussex Loops is currently too wide.
Together such evidence would argue that there is some merit to the theory that the
Sussex Loops were objects of significant cultural value, making them appropriate as gifts to
spiritual entireties of some description. However the Hollingbury Camp hoard provides possibly
the most compelling evidence for such votive motivations of all the Sussex Loop deposits. The
-56-
Hollingbury Camp hoard was found in 1825 and featured the first recorded Sussex Loops of the
archaeological recorded, the diggers recovering four reasonably intact examples. The hoard is
one of those within the very boundaries of the modern city of Brighton and alongside the Loops
archaeologists found a number of artefacts including finger rings, a plastave and a bronze torc.
However the most significant feature of these finds is that it was recorded in enough detail to
establish that the hoard seems to have been laid out in a very particular way, the palstave fitted
inside the torc, the finger rings were threaded onto the torc itself and a Sussex Loop was laid in
each corner (Rowlands, 197 6 B, 267).
Spatial analysis of objects in situ provides tantalising hints as to how the objects in
question were perceived at the time of their burial. As Bradley writes, in regard to the hoards of
the Bronze Age "all too sften studies of such deposits have been concerned with content rather
than context" (Barber, 2003, 20J. The very fact that the hoard was carefully laid out would argue
that a votive element was present in the deposition motivations. Hoards of scrap material would
likely not have been valued in their present state to the degree necessary for specific
arrangement These hoards would have been temporary and in contrast the arrangement of the
Loops in the Hollingbury Camp hoard would seem to suggest they were made to be permanent.
Indeed there is deliberate symmetrical care applied to the Hollinebury Camp arrangement
which arguably would have been irrelevant in a practical hoard, yet crucial in one made fbr
supernatural or suirituai ourooses"
However, it is "unfortunately the case that the overwhelming majority of Bronze Age
metal artetacts available for studv were neither found bv archaeologists nor recovered in a
careful and controlled manner" {tsarber, 2003, 162-}.I'heretore, as Needham writes, "only rarely
are the circumstances of hoards adequatelv recorded ... to give evidence of considerable care in
the arransement of obiects, thus hintins that deposition was not onlv deliberate but also
permanenf' fNeedham. 1988. 47'l and possiblv of votive intenl Other than HollinSbury Camp,
there is little recorded or published information concernins the spatial lavout of the Sussex
Looos within their hoards. Manv of the Loops were found during archaeolows beeinning and in
manv cases the record of their finds are patchv or nonexistent. The most recent finds of Near
Lewes and Near Oakham may in the future have further to add to the arguments of deliberate
and fbrmal lavout but currently only Hollinebury Camp is known to have been specifically laid
out. However from the deposition of these Looos it would seem that there is indeed merit to the
notion that the Sussex Loops formed part of a votive offerinq and it must be acknowledeed that
thev mav have been part of the hoard for a particular reason. Indeed the lavout of the Loops in
the corner of the hoard mav be ar.qued to have had simificance such as a suardian or boundarv
marker.
*_\7*
Conclusions
.Sussex Loop 76 - Chichester
Conclasions
Therefore, in conclusion it seems clear that the Sussex Loops were designed as objects ofpotential or recognised value within the communities of which they were apart. The SussexLoops were objects created from materials which during the Middle Bronze Age would havebeen relatively new to Sussex and would have involved dangerous, skilled and transformativeprocesses such as mining and smelting to be workable. The creation of any bronze object at thistime would have been an involved process which would have required the participation of manyindividuals, from the miners and transporters of the raw and recyclable material, to the smithsand the final recipients themselves. Flint was still in use to construct the basic needs ofeveryday life such as practical tools and implements, and as such the objects cast or fashionedfrom bronze would most likely have been items of considerable value crafted for a specificreason.
In essence, from the data gathered during the 2013 Sussex Loop survey, the Loopsthemselves seem to have been some form of bracelet or bangle. The Loop hooks do not seem tohave been designed to be unhooke&or re-hooked and as such the traditional view ofthe Loopsas arm rings is not consistent with the dimensional qualities featured by the Loops themselves.The Loops are small, and even taking into account fluctuations in growth rates, they were mostlikely fashioned for women or adolescences, rather than the men of the community. Thesebracelets may well have been made simply as a style of regional jewellery designed by localsmiths, and deposited in hoards ready to be retrieved on the occasion of a trading or marketstyle event' However when the Loops currently known are considered not only as anassemblage but also in terms of their hoarded contexts and their distinctly limited geographicaldistribution, it must be recognised that there is the distinct possibility that the sussex Loopscarried further cultural meaning within their local sphere than simply ornamentation.
It must be acknowledged that the Sussex Loops as an assemblage are an enigma. Theyare distinctly regional obiects which, while occasionally are found elsewhere, focus on a veryintimate area of sussex' They represent a very distinguishable overall design yet are clearlyconstructed to be individual in terms of their size, shape, and decoration. They do occurexclusively with in Middle Bronze Age hoards, however even within this safe scenario they areaccompanied by objects which are both intriguing in their own right, and argue clearly that theLoops were a part of considered meaningful and most likely votive forms of deposition. Indeedthe golden appliqu6 disks which were found as part of the Near Lewes hoard are not foundanywhere else in the UK, their only parallels being visible on the continent [pAS - SUSS-
c5D042)' As such each of the arguments posed throughout this thesis concerning the function,significance and inference that the Sussex Loop assemblage may have had are distinctlyplausible.
-58-
The Loops may very well have been the bracelets made by travelling craftsmen or a
settled community of smiths, which gained sentimental value during their active lives resulting
in their selection and inclusion within hoards of a votive motivation, made either on behalf of
the community as a whole or as an offering of a distinctly personal nature. Equally from the
data put forward during the course of this thesis it would seem that the Sussex Loops were
bracelets meant for display. Overall the Loops are inescapably individual in their own right, but
clearly conform in overt design to one very limited form. They are objecs which are centred in a
defined are of the countryside, an area which may have been the centre of a particular industry
or of the local culture, and they are considered appropriate for burial in a form of votive
deposition. As such it may be plausible to suggest that the Sussex Loops were some form of
social symbol perhaps of a particular profession, perhaps of a social class or perhaps of a
recognised position of authority.
However whether regionally valuable as a bracelet or as a symbol of social status the
Sussex Loops clearly demonstrate a local community which was becoming increasingly settled
in its domestic lifestyle. They indicate that the communities of the Sussex South Downs were
skilled, knowledgeable and creative, were able to procure the materials required for their
projects and therefore were most likely in conrol of long range trade links. Yet, most of all from
the interpretation which the Loops inspire as an assemblage, they demonstrate a community
which were keen to show their cultural and most likely personal, individuality, a community
which was rapidly leaving behind the older practices of the Neolithic and adopting the new
ideas of social status defined by personal prestige goods, which characterised the Late Bronze
Age and ultimately the Iron Age.
Figure 63 - Ihe Sussex$outh Downs(PhotqraphW Author)
-59-
Bibliography
Armbruster, BR. 2011. 'Approaches to Metalwork The Role of Technologr in Tradition Innovation andCultural Change' in Moore, T & Armada, X Atlantic Europe in the First Millennium BC: Crossing the Divide.Oxford, Oxford University Press
Barber, M. 2001. 'A Time and Place for Bronze' in Brtick J Bronze Age Landscapes Traditions and
Transformation. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Barber, M. 2003. Bronze and the Bronze Age: MetalWork and Society in Britain 2500-8008C.
Gloucestershire, Tempus Publishing.
Bedwin, O.1978. 'lron Age Sussex - The Downs and the Coastal Plain' in Drewett, PL Archaeology in
Sussex to AD 7500. London, Council for British Archaeolory, Research Report 29.
Bradley, R. 1988.'Hoarding, recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork: technological
change in western Europe' inWorld ArchaeologyYol.20 Issue 2 pp.249-259.
Bradley, R 1989. 'The role of Bronze Age metal work in Scandinavia and the British isles' in Nordstrom, H
& Knapp, ABronze Age Studies; Transactions of the British Scandinavia Colloquium in Stockholm, May 10-
11, Statens Historiska Museum.
Bradley, R. 1998. The Passage of Arms: An Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoard and VotiveDeposits. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Brtick 1.1999. 'Houses, Lifecycle's and Deposition on Middle Bronze Age Settlements in Southern
England' Proceedings of the Prehistortc Society Vol. 65 pp 145-166.
Briich LZA07. 'The Character of Later Bronze Age Settlement in Southern Britain' in Haselgrove, C &
Pope, R The Earlier lron Age in Britain and the Near Continent Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Bvocho, G. 2005.'Ornaments as Social and chronological Icons: A Case Study of South Eastern Zimbabwe'in J ournal of Social Archaeology Y ol. 5 pp.409-422.
Champion, T. 2009. 'The Later Bronze Age' in Hunter, | & Ralston, I The Archaeology of Britain: anintroduction from earliest times to the twenty-first century. London & New York Routledge.
Clark, M|. 1986.'lllusion and Delusion: The Media and the Natural Scientist' in LeonardoYol. 19 Issue 1pp.65-70.
Cunliffe, 8.2013. Britain Begins. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Ehrenberg, M, 1989. 'The Interpretation of Regional Variability in British and Irish Bronze Age
Metalwork' in Nordstrom, H & Knape, a Bronze Age Studies: Transitions of the British - Scandinavian
Colloquium, Snckholm. The Museum of National Antiquities, Stockholm, Studies 6.
Gosden, C. 2001. 'Making Sense: Archaeology and Aesthetics' inWorld ArchaeologyYol. 33 [2) pp.763-7.
Gosden, C-2004. 'Making and Display: Our Aesthetic Appreciation of Things and Objects' in Renfrew, C,
Gosden, C & DeMarrais, E.Substance, Memory, Display: Archaeology and.Art McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Grant f, Gorin, S & Fleming, N. 2005. The Archaeology Course Book: An Introduction to Study Skills, Topicsand Methods. London, Routledge.
Grinsell, LV. 1931. 'Sussex in tle Bronze Age' in Sussex Archaeological Collections Vol. 72pp.30-80.
Hamilton, S & Gregory, K 2000.'Updatingthe Sussex Iron Age'in SussexArchaeological CollectionsYol.
138 pp. 57-74.
Harding, A. 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Henderson, J. 2000. The Science and Archaeology of Materials: an investigation of inorganic materials.
London & NewYorh Routledge.
Ixer, RA & Budd, P. 1998. 'The Mineralogr of Bronze Age Copper Ores from the British Isles: Implicationsfor the Composition of Early Metalwork' in Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyYol.lT Issue 1 pp. 15 - 41.
fames, S & Rigby, V.7997. Britain and the Celtic lron Age. London, The British Museum.
fohnston, R. 2008. 'Copper Mining and the Transformation of Environmental Knowledge in Bronze AgeBritain' in Journal of Social ArchaeologyYol. 8 pp. 190.
loy,l.2010.lron Age Mircors: a biographical approach. BAR British Series 518
Karl, R. 2005. 'Master and Apprentice, Knight and Squire: Education in the Celtic Iron Age' in Oxford
lournal of ArchaeologyYol.24 Issue. 3 pp.255-271,.
Kristiansen, K. 1989.'Value, Ranking and Consumption in the Bronze Age'in Nordstrom, H & Knape, a
Bronze Age Studies: Transitions of the British - Scandinavian Colloquium, Stockholm. The Museum of
National Antiquities, Stockholm, Studies 6.
Llobera, M. 1995.'Exploring the Topography of Mind: GIS, Social Space and Archaeolog/ inAntiquityYol.70 pp. 612-22.
Needham, S. 1988. 'Selective Deposition in the Early Bronze Age' World ArchaeologyYol.2O pp. 229 - 248.
Needham, S. 1996. 'Chronology and Periodisation in the British Bronze Age' in Acta ArchaeologicaYol.6T
pp.127-140.
Needham, S, Bronk Ramsey, C, Coombs, D, Cartwright C & Pettitt, p, tgg7. 'An Independent Chronology
for British Bronze Age Metalwork The Results of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Program'in
Archaeology J ournal YoL 1 54 pp. 55-107.
Osborne, R. 2004. 'Hoards, Votives, Offerings: The Archaeology of the Dedicated ObjecE' in WorldArchaeology Vol. 36 Issue 1 pp. 1-10
Patterson, T. 2005. 'Craft Specialisation: the Reorganisation of Production Relations and StateFormations' inJournal of Sacial ArchaeologyYol. 5 pp. 302-gg7Parker-Pearson, M. 2003. The Archaeology of Death and Burial The History Press, Sutton Publishing Ltd.
Pearce, S. 1984. Bronze Age Metalworkin Southern Britain. Buckinghamshire, Shire Publications LTD.
Pryor, F. 2003. Britain BC: Life in Britain and lreland before the Romans. London, Harper Perennial.
Roberts, B. 2008. 'Creating Traditions and Shaping Technologies: Understanding the EarliestMetal Objects and Metal Production in Western Europe' inWorld ArchaeologyYol. 40 (3J pp.354-372.
Rowlands, M!.1976 A. The Organisation of Middle Bronze Age Metalworking - Part One Dt'scusston. British
Archaeolory Reports 31.
Rowlands, MJ. 1976 B.The Organisation of Middle Bronze Age Metalworking - PartTwo Catalogue. British
Archaeolory Reports 31.
Russell, M.2002. Prehistoric Sussex Gloucestershirg Tempus Publishing Ltd.
Shennan, S. 1999. 'Cost, Benefit and Value in the Organization of Early European Copper Production' inAntiquity Y ol. 73 pp. 352-63.
Tronner, K Nord AG & Borg G. 1995.'Corrosion of Archaeological Bronze Artefacts in Acidic Soil'in
Water, Air and SoiI Pollution Vol. 84 Issue 4 pp.2725-2730.
White, S. 1991. 'A iussex Loop from Patching West Sussex' in Sussex Archaeological Collection YoL.129,
Archaeological Notes p329-41.
Wilkin, N. 2013. 2013 7316: A Middle Bronze Age Hoard from Near Oakham, Surry. Report on potential
Treasure for H.M Coroner.
WWW1 -www.hsn.com
WVYW2 - wwwnlm.nlh.gov.uk
WWV3 - www.averagebody.com
WWW4 - www.kerryseaton.com
WWWS - www.ramehartcom
WVW6 - www.geevor.com
![Pragmatics and discourse analysis' [Review] - Sussex](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/6319ef111a1adcf65a0eddf3/pragmatics-and-discourse-analysis-review-sussex-.jpg)
