File:Bronze Age gold bracelet hoard (FindID 627280).jpg

English: The following is taken from the Treasure report written by Neil Wilkin (Curator of European Bronze Age collection)

Descriptive catalogue

Note on numbering, terminology and weight: The gold ornaments were recovered in three nested 'sets' and have been labelled with reference to set number followed by object number (i.e. A.1-2, B.1-4 & C.1-2).

The goldwork has yet to be cleaned and the weights given are subject to change. As the ornaments were deposited in a 'nested' fashion, most are covered and obscured by others and set C has a central plug of soil. It was therefore not possible to record all measurements and descriptions. However, it is apparent from the way in which the ornaments nest on top of one another that ornaments of similar size, form and decoration have been grouped together within the respective sets.

Set A [Bracelets A.1-2]

Set A consists of two gold ornaments that have been deposited with one wrapped directly over the other. The form and decoration of both appears to be the same but the outer bracelet (A.1) is visible only from the exterior while the inner ornament (A.2) is visible only from the interior. The ornaments cannot be detached at present and are discussed together in the following description (unless otherwise stated).

Form

Both ornaments are straight sided, coming to rounded terminals which turn in towards more rounded terminals, c.30mm from either end, from which narrow fastening hooks project. On one side of both ornaments the fastening hook is aligned horizontally in the direction of the bracelet while on the opposite side the hook faces inwards towards the centre of the bracelets.

The top and bottom edges of the bracelets have been folded over to give the bracelet a '[' -profile, with each edge c.2mm in width. From the angle of the impressions that forms the top and bottom rows of the decorative register, it is apparent that the edges have been folded over after decoration was applied (to the top and bottom of the decorative register at least: Nos. 1-2, below), and have served (intentionally or otherwise) as guide lines for the folds. The fastening 'hooks' have been fashioned by folding over thin 'rod' like terminals.

Decoration

Both ornaments have been decorated with a pattern of impressed dots applied from both front and back and raised embossed areas with 'C'-shaped profiles, possibly produced using a former (e.g. of wood). From variations in direction of the rows of applied decoration, it appears as if a 'comb'-like tool was used to apply the 'dot' decoration, rather than a single point.

Taken across the centre of the bracelet the decorative register is as follows:

1. Five rows of punched 'dot' decoration in the following sequence from the edge towards the centre of the bracelet: i. applied from front; ii. applied from back; iii. applied from front; iv. applied from back; v. applied from front.
2. Embossed area with 'C'-shaped profile coming to 'U' shaped terminals.
3. Five rows of punched decoration: i. applied from front; ii. applied from back; iii. applied from front; iv. applied from back; v. applied from front.
4. Embossed area with 'C'-shaped profile coming to 'U' shaped terminals.
5. Continuation of the band of five rows described in No. 1, thus following the same sequence: i. applied from front; ii. applied from back; iii. applied from front; iv. applied from back; v. applied from front.

Condition

Approximately 50% of the circumference of the bracelets have been crumpled and distorted. The damaged side of both bracelets carries multiple bends and two tears puncture the goldwork, concentrated around the axis between the crumpled and uncrumpled surfaces. A black discolouration is visible on some surfaces of both bracelets. On the better preserved end of the inner bracelet (A.2) there is a narrow tear of 6-7mm length and c.1mm wide.

Deposition

As there is no distortion to either set of terminal hooks, it is unlikely that they were fastened when the distortion to one end of the bracelets took place.

Dimensions

Circumference: Approx. 138mm (distorted and crumpled)

Width: c.23-24mm (maximum) tapering to more rounded forms (c.30mm from the hooked terminals). The (max.) width in the middle of the bracelets is therefore consistent for c. 80mm of the circumference. The rod forming the hooked terminals has a width that narrows from c.4mm to 1.1mm.

Weight: 20.6g (combined weight of both bracelets A.1 and A.2.

Set B [Ornaments B.1-4]

Set B consists of four ornaments, deposited with each wrapped directly over the other. The form and decoration of both appears to be similar but the outermost ornament (B.1) is visible only from the exterior while the innermost ornament of the set (B.4) is visible only from the interior. The ornaments cannot be detached at present and reddish brown soil is sandwiched between ornaments B.2 and B.3 and between B.3 and B.4. The ornaments are discussed together in the following description (unless otherwise stated). Lightly twisted gold thread or wire has also been looped seven times around the outer bracelet (B.1).

Form

The top and bottom of the ornaments have been folded over internally to create less sharp and more rounded edges to the sheet. In some areas the fold has a relatively irregular edge and has obscured the decoration visible on the inside of the ornaments. The folded edges do not take on the impressed decoration, suggesting that the folding of the decoration may have occurred after the decoration of the surfaces. This is particularly clear on B.4.

If unravelled, the profile of the bracelets would be elliptical (unlike Set A which has a length along which the width remains consistent, but like Set C). The form of the embossed decoration is discussed below.

The fastening 'hooks' have been fashioned by folding over thin 'rod' like terminals. Only one set of the terminals is currently fastened (those of B.2) the others are unfastened and are a short distance apart in the case of the outer ornaments (B.1) or overlap because placed within the restricted space of B.2 (B.3 and B.4). It appears that the terminal hooks faced different directions (as was the case for set A): one set running along the same plane as the ornament and the other facing into the centre of the ornament. When nesting the ornaments the terminals two were positioned with their horizontal/inward facing terminals in one position and two were arranged in an inverse fashion.

Condition

A black discolouration is visible on some of the exposed surfaces of the ornaments. The outer ornament (B.1) has several dents and depressions, including one of 24mm by 4mm and one of 9mm by 5mm, with most of the damage occurring on the central 'C'-shaped embossed area (No. 4 in the above register).

Deposition

It is apparent from the relationship of the terminals of the four ornaments (see above), that not all are in their original form: the outer set (B.1) cannot fasten over the top of B.2 and is therefore over extended while the inner ornaments (B.3 and B.4) are under extended as a result of being placed within B.2. Ornament B.2 is therefore the only ornament at its natural extension.

Decoration

The bracelets have the following decorative register:

1. A narrow 'U' shaped 'furrow' into which dot decoration has been applied. It has clearly demarcated edges. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 7.
2. A second 'U' shaped 'furrow' into which dot decoration has not been applied. It has clearly demarcated edges. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 6.
3. A third U' shaped furrow into which dot decoration has been applied. At the centre facing edge the gold rises to an embossed form and it is not demarcated on this side. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 5.
4. Embossed area with 'C'-shaped profile coming to 'V' shaped terminals.
5. Mirrors decoration of entry No. 3. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 3.
6. Mirrors decoration (including the lack of dot impressions) of entry No. 2. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 2.
7. Mirrors decoration of entry No. 1. Comes to a 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 1.

Dimensions

Circumference of B.1: 122mm (but terminals are 8-9mm from one another and therefore from being closed) - original circumference likely to be c.113mm.

Circumference of B.2: c.113mm (terminal hooks are locked in place).

Circumference of B.3: c.110mm (terminal hooks are overlapping) - original circumference likely to be c.113mm

Circumference of B.4: c.100mm (terminal hooks are overlapping) - original circumference likely to be c.113mm

Diameter of B.1: 42mm by 40mm

Diameter of B.2: 39mm by 35mm

Diameter of B.3: 34mm by 34mm

Diameter of B.4: 30mm by 32mm

Width: Maximum width of 23mm narrowing immediately towards the terminals.

Weight: 23.7g (combined weight of bracelets B.1-4 (and loosely twisted gold thread), as they cannot be detached).

Twisted gold 'thread' wrapped around ornament B.1

Lightly twisted gold 'thread' has been wrapped seven times around B.1 only, just off-centre (c.5mm from the mid-point of the ornament). A small section of c.40-50mm was found loose between B.1 and B.2 and was removed and bagged separately.

Dimensions

Width of thread: 0.65mm

(All other dimensions not possible as they were obscured from view).

Set C [Ornaments C.1 & C.2]

Set C consists of two ornaments, deposited with each wrapped directly over the other. The form and decoration of both appears to be similar but the outermost ornament (C.1) is visible only from the exterior while the innermost ornament of the set (C.2) is entirely obscured by a fill of reddish brown soil. The ornaments cannot be detached at present and are discussed together in the following description (unless otherwise stated).

Form

As with 'Set B', the top and bottom of C.1 and C.2 have been folded over internally to create less sharp and more rounded edges to the sheet.

If unravelled, the profile of the bracelets would be elliptical (unlike Set A which has a length along which the width remains consistent, but like Set B). The form of the embossed decoration is discussed below.

One side of both C.1 and C.2 has been broken or cut and there is no terminal present. This is likely to have involved removing two to three centimetres (including the fastening hooks). Due to lack of room within the circumference of C.1, the terminal of the inner ornament (C.2) underlaps the broken terminal and the suspected second fastening hook is obscured by the central plug of soil in which it is likely to be embedded.

In the middle of the broken edge of ornament C.1 (c.2.3mm from the edge) is a small perforation (c.2 by 1.5mm in diameter). It is possible that this was used to receive the remaining hooked terminal as a modification designed to make the ornaments smaller. It is not possible to see a similar perforation on ornament C.2 although it is partially obscured by C.1 and by soil. As a result caution is needed in identifying the perforation as an intentional feature and it is unlikely to have supported the stresses placed on a fastening terminal without tearing or enlarging the hole (neither of which are visibly under a hand lens) if used repeatedly. The one visible terminal 'hook' has been fashioned by folding over thin 'rod'-like terminals.

Condition

One edge has been pushed inwards along a length of c.17mm and has a c.3-4mm, causing a small tear to the edge through the first 'U' shaped embossed furrow. As noted above, one end of each terminal has been broken off.

Deposition

Deposited as a nested pair, one end of both ornaments has been cut either to make the circumference of the ornaments smaller or to render them unusable prior to deposition.

Decoration

The ornaments have a decorative register that is identical to 'set B', with the exception of the broken terminal which renders the decoration asymmetrical.

1. A narrow 'U' shaped 'furrow' into which dot decoration has been applied. It has clearly demarcated edges. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 7 at one end of the bracelet but is terminated by the break/tear at the other end.
2. A second 'U' shaped 'furrow' into which dot decoration has not been applied. It has clearly demarcated edges. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 6 at one end of the bracelet but is terminated by the break/tear at the other end.
3. A third U' shaped furrow into which dot decoration has been applied. At the centre facing edge the gold rises to an embossed form and it is not demarcated on this side. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 5 at one end of the bracelet but is terminated by the break/tear at the other end.
4. Embossed area with 'C'-shaped profile coming to 'V' shaped terminals.
5. Mirrors decoration of entry No. 3. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 3 at one end of the bracelet but is terminated by the break/tear at the other end.
6. Mirrors decoration (including the lack of dot impressions) of entry No. 2. Comes to 'V' shaped terminal in contact with No. 2 at one end of the bracelet but is terminated by the break/tear at the other end.

Dimensions

Diameter of C.1: 38.5mm by 38.1mm, not possible to measure C.2 as it is obscured by soil.

Circumference of C.1: 119mm (with broken/cut terminal), not possible to measure C.2 as it is obscured by soil.

Weight: 46.6g

Gold composition of ornament [Sets A, B & C]

Non-destructive X-ray fluorescence analysis of the surface of a group of eight ornaments was undertaken by Sue La Niece at the British Museum. It indicated a surface composition for seven of them (one was inaccessible inside the soil block) of approximately 84-88% gold, 12-15% silver with approximately 1% copper. The full report is appended.

Pottery from Evaluation excavations on the 15^th of November 2013

15 sherds of pottery with a total weight of 47g were recovered during the rapid archaeological evaluation. These were examined by Frances Raymond who noted that they were moderately abraded and derived from a single Bronze Age vessel. The dating of the vessel is open to interpretation. Frances Raymond notes that:

'The profile, decoration and fabric are consistent with the biconical forms of the later early Bronze Age and are also reminiscent of some of the smaller accessory vessels from middle Bronze Age funerary contexts. It is equally possible that the rim is from a late Bronze Age straight or convex-sided jar of the type represented in early Plain Ware assemblages of the twelfth to eleventh centuries cal BC.'

The report on the pottery is appended, courtesy of F. Raymond.

Copper alloy awl of probable Bronze Age date

A copper alloy awl was found close to the findspot of the gold ornaments found on the 9^th of November 2013. From its form it appears to be Bronze Age, although dating remains difficult to establish for this type of Bronze Age object. Given the proximity of the find to the goldwork it may be feasible to assume a Bronze Age date. The tang is curved and oval in plan while the awl shaft is sub-rectangular and broken at the end.

Dimensions: Length: 60mm; Width (max.): 9.5mm; Thickness (max.): 7mm; Thickness (max.) at point of break in shaft: 3mm by 3.5mm; Weight: 11.9g

Non-associated finds from the Evaluation excavations on the 15^th of November 2013

The evaluation excavations of the 15^th November 2013 also produced a number of non-associated finds that are retained within the archive of the archaeological work. This includes four sherds of non-prehistoric pottery (total weight: 5.5g) and four pieces of unworked (natural) flint from topsoil contexts (6.3g).

Discussion

The ornaments share features in common with goldwork of probable Middle Bronze Age date, including the substantially larger Capel Isaf (Dyfed, Wales) armlets (Savory 1977), the embossed and punched gold braclet fragment from Mountfield (British Museum: 1863,1212.2) and two small interlocked gold 'rings' found at Binstead (West Sussex) (Varndell 1998-9, 10-11, fig. 3). The composition of the goldwork (by XRF analysis) and the possible association of the ornaments with pottery of Middle or Late Bronze Age date do not contradict this dating.

Several (especially Set B) appear too small to have been worn as bracelets by an adult and may instead have been intended for a child or infant. It is possible that they served other functions (as earrings or hair fittings) but their form and hooked fastenings would seem to suggest that they served as bracelets.

On the balance of probability it appears that all eight ornaments were deposited together and can be considered a single find. More research is needed into their typology and into the function they served.

The discovery of a copper alloy awl of Bronze Age date close to the discovery site of the ornaments raises the possibility that this also belonged to the hoard deposit. As the dating of awls remains vague it appears prudent to include the awl as part of the same find as the ornaments. Future research may choose to be more cautious with the association of ornaments and awl but it may be prudent at the current time to be open to the possibility given the spatial proximity and chronology of the finds.

Conclusion

The eight gold ornaments, the associated assemblage of prehistoric pottery and copper alloy awl from Woolaston qualify as Treasure under the stipulations of the Treasure Act (1996) as they are more than 300 years old and have a metallic content of more than 10 per cent (by weight) of precious metal. In the case of the pottery and copper alloy awl, these appear (on the balance of probabilities) to form part of the same find as the ornaments and therefore to qualify as Treasure by their association with the goldwork.

Bibliography

Hoyle, J. 2013, Report on a rapid archaeological evaluation of land at Keynsham Lane, Woolaston, Gloustershire, 15^th November 2013, Unpublished report for Gloucestershire County Council.

Savory, H. 1977, 'A New Hoard of Bronze Age Gold Ornaments', Archaeologia Atlantica, 1977 (Vol. 2).

Varndell 1998-9, 'Binstead, West Sussex: Two Bronze Age gold rings linked together', Treasure Annual Report 1998-1999, DCMS, 10-11.

Author

Neil Wilkin,

Curator of European Bronze Age collection,

The British Museum

With information and help from: Kurt Adams (Find Liaison Officer for Gloucestershire and Avon), Frances Raymond, Jon Hoyle of Gloucestershire County Council Archaeology Service, Tim Youngs of GeoArch and Professor Niall Sharples of the University of Cardiff.

9^th April 2014