Metalwork, land division and enclosed settlement along the Thames

Figure 12.3 shows the distribution of metalwork, field systems and enclosures along the Thames Valley and its estuary approaches. These maps plus the detailed findings from chapters 3, 4 and 5 enable us to reflect on the nature of the gift exchange system operating along this arterial routeway.

In terms of metalwork the River Thames has a marked concentration of ostentatious weaponry, partly matched in the Fenlands of East Anglia but with no other equivalent elsewhere. The finds are concentrated in clusters along the course of the main river, its major tributaries and the estuary foreshores (Figure 12.3). Between the Upper and Middle Thames valley there is a marked increase in metalwork downstream (York 2002, figure 2).

York has recently re-examined 302 accessible and provenanced Bronze Age metal artefacts from the non-tidal river upstream from Teddington, including a collective armoury of 250 spearheads and swords. York’s work suggests that much of the weaponry entered the rivers from the later Middle Bronze Age onwards (York 2002, 81), at the same time a divided landscape emerged.

She was able to show that the proportion of fine metalwork deliberately damaged before it entered the river increased sharply by the end of the Later Bronze Age (ibid. 87). Three quarters of the artefacts had been used – displaying nicks, notches, chips, bows and tears caused by metal striking metal (ibid. 80). That percentage of use was similar throughout her study area (ibid. 83).

Spearheads and swords had been heavily used and of these a significant proportion had been subsequently destroyed (ibid. 84, 86). Sword destruction increased from the Middle Bronze Age, peaking in the Ewart Park phase (ibid. 87).

The data suggests escalation in overt conflict in an area of economic competition (cf. Price 1984).

Both York’s work, and that of Ehrenberg, shows the close association of prestige goods and the river communications route (York 2002;

Ehrenberg 1980) in the Middle Thames zone.

Further downriver, the Lower Thames basin has yielded one of the richest assemblages of Later Bronze Age metalwork in the country, including a mass of complete weapons (Needham and Burgess 1980, 437, 446). Needham and Burgess concluded that these concentrations were related to the region’s position within long distance exchange networks and fluctuations in status based on agricultural production (ibid. 466). The discovery of field systems in the Lower Thames valley since 1980 provides an opportunity to reconsider political changes in relation to the patterns of metal finds.

At the time of escalation in overt conflict in the Thames valley identified by York, there were distinct shifts in the pattern of metal deposition.

Needham and Burgess analysing the Ewart Park phase dated to 1020–800 BC (Needham et al. 1997, 93), show the shift in deposition to the Brentford-Syon Reach (the south-eastern exit point from the Heathrow terraces); along the River Lea; and in the upper reaches of the Wandle river. Each of these, were key routes out of regimented land holdings. The pattern is particularly clear along the rivers Lea and Wandle where there was an extension of land allocation (Figure 4.1 and Plate 6) at the same time that prestige metalwork

Land, Power and Prestige 114

was being deposited. It suggests the political ascendancy of these areas.

The nature of that metalwork is illustrated in Figures 12.4 and 12.5. Along the Lea there is a rich mixture of wargear including shields, swords and spearheads (Figure 12.4). While that arsenal is not matched along the Wandle, the watercourse south of Wandsworth has produced rich hoards, particularly at the foot of the scarp below the large Late Bronze Age ringwork at Queen Mary’s Hospital (Figure 12.5). One find in particular epitomizes the nature of a prestige good as an icon (Figure 12.6). Coleman in 1901 reported the

discovery of a basal looped spearhead, 33 inches long (nearly a metre in length) in the valley of the Wandle. He reported

My first thoughts on seeing this spearhead were what an unwieldy implement it must have been, on account of its great length, and that it required a long shaft to properly balance it; and on examining the socket found it to be so small in diameter that it seemed hardly possible that it could have been used for attacking an enemy, because if there were much force the shaft would have been liable to break off short in the socket (Coleman 1901, 353).

Coleman notes the discovery of similar, but smaller, versions of this looped spearhead at Lakenheath Fen and Datchet. The map of finds along the Wandle (Figure 12.5) also shows the concentration at Battersea, which was once discussed as a possible Middle Bronze Age fording place (Rowlands 1976, 207).

Figure 3.1 shows the accumulating scale of metal deposition and the importance attached to key routeways along the estuary shoreline of Kent, particularly the Wantsum Channel.

The relationship between metalwork and field systems appears close in north Kent (Figures 3.1, 3.3). Inland the occurrence of both Middle Bronze Age implements and land boundaries around Ashford suggests a similar direct link.

The finest bronze prestige items, the weaponry, are confined to the immediate coastal fringes.

A total of ten Middle Bronze Age spearheads and rapiers have been recovered from the final approaches to the Thames river mouth. About thirty Late Bronze Age swords and spearheads have been found along the entire shoreline of Kent, from Gravesend, out to the Isle of Thanet and around to Folkestone (M. Barber cf.). In the main river channel itself metal finds at Dartford mirror a similar concentration on the opposite bank, although the Grays – Thurrock hoard of over 200 pieces is exceptional (Couchman 1980, 45). Field systems are found on both banks of these lower reaches (Figure 3.3). On the opposing estuary shore, the Leigh-Shoebury-Southchurch area has produced the largest concentration of hoard finds in Essex. Here, there is also an enclave of regimented field systems. Along with Middle Bronze Age rapiers, Essex Late Bronze Age sword and spearhead finds are almost entirely confined to the Thames and its tributaries.

There is a lack of comparable metalwork clusters away from the main river valley, even Figure 12.4 An arsenal of war gear along the River

Lea. Derived from GLSMR data

Patterns in the Land 115

noticeable for actual metalworking from Bishops Canning Down and Burderop Down. The only cluster of Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age finds came from Tan Hill where a network of cross ridge dykes and other linear earthworks meet, restricting access in various directions (ibid.

147).

The distribution maps (Figure 12.3) also plot settlement enclosure along the Thames. They take a variety of forms including ringworks, D-shaped enclosures, enclosed farmsteads and palisaded riverside habitation. Each form of architecture suggests, what may be called, a social dynamic of enhanced visibility and social in upland zones having Later Bronze Age field

systems. This can be illustrated from the record around Avebury and the Marlborough Downs (Barber 2005, figures 13.1–13.3). The metalwork from the Middle Bronze Age here is sparse, including a complete absence of Middle Bronze Age metal finds from Fyfield and Overton Downs, despite the extensive contemporary coaxial field layout. A few Middle Bronze Age spearheads have been found, but such weapons are entirely absent in the Late Bronze Age.

There are no recorded Middle or Late Bronze Age sword finds from these uplands or the Avebury basin, but the Late Bronze Age is Figure 12.5. Later Bronze Age metalwork along the

Wandle Valley. Source derived from GLSMR data Figure 12.6. Ceremonial spearhead from the Wandle Valley. Source Coleman 1901 (^1/6 actual size)

Land, Power and Prestige 116

exclusion (Needham and Ambers 1994, 237). They are sited on strategic points within the Thames Basin and Upper Thames routeways, dominating the movement of people, livestock and produce.

The ringworks in particular are a distinctive type of site originating in the 10th and 9th centuries BC, characterised by circular, ditched enclosures, some of which have two circular enclosures. They are an eastern England form of monument with Irish parallels (Bradley 1996).

The distribution maps (Figure 12.3) show the relationship between the ringworks, areas of metalwork concentration and field systems.

Until recent years we have been largely ignorant of the direct link between field and ringwork construction. For while there has been over a century of investigation into ringworks, they have often been undertaken under rescue conditions, with excavation mostly confined to the circuit ditches and enclosure interiors, to the exclusion of the immediate environmental setting of each compound. Two Thameside ringworks provide some insight into the nature of the construction work. At South Hornchurch three successive ringworks/circular enclosures were built. Each time a new compound was created it appears that the local labour force was also mobilised to re-orient the land boundaries in the vicinity.

The original ringwork encroaches on an adjacent droveway creating a funnel or control point for stock moving along the track and therefore served to control movement through the landscape (Guttmann and Last 2000, figure 7, 353). That original compound and its contemporaneous field system was imposed on and replaced existing farm boundaries. Later the first ringwork was recut and these alterations were accompanied by a further re-landscaping of the fields. Eventually the original ringwork was replaced by another form of circular enclosure. A construction phase, which again involved changing land boundaries (but only in the immediate vicinity). Each enclosure therefore was set in its own contemporaneous field system integrating the structure into the routines of everyday life (ibid. 356).

Our knowledge of Mucking North ring is more limited but it has some parallels to developments at South Hornchurch. Like South Hornchurch it is strategically placed near to the Thames routeway, for it lies on the Boyn Hill terrace overlooking the head of the Thames estuary immediately above Mucking Creek which might have provided a natural landing place

(Bond 1988, 3). Excavations at both sites revealed a number of phases of ringwork construction.

Both the original ringwork at Mucking and that at Hornchurch are associated with Post Deverel-Rimbury plainware pottery i.e. firmly dated to the Late Bronze Age. Compared with subsequent rebuilds both structures were the most elaborate form of ringwork on their respective sites and both were sited in a divided landscape axially aligned north-east/south-west. We know a little more about the construction at Mucking, where construction gangs were possibly employed to dig the original north ringwork circuit (Bond 1988, 18).

In addition to the distinctive ringworks, other forms of settlement are found along the Thames valley. Each again is sited in an eminent position, in areas known to be metal and field rich. Amongst these are two Thames riverside settlements, Runnymede Bridge and Wallingford, Oxfordshire which are of Late Bronze Age date, sited to access the social and political relations that went with exchange (Needham 2000, 242).

Waterlogged sediments surviving on these bankside settlements can allow sampling for palaeo-environmental study. For example, Robinson was able to demonstrate from the insect fauna collected at Runnymede an increase in the intensity of grazing during the early first millennium BC compared with the late second millennium BC (Robinson 2000, 154). That study and similar environmental analyses confirm that the enclaves of metalwork, enclosure and land division represent areas of productive intensification.