The Havering Hoard: Bronze sunset over the marshes
An exceptional hoard of broken Bronze Age tools and weapons has been excavated in east London. Andy Peachey, Pieta Greaves, Sophia Adams & Kate Sumnall tell its story as known so far
Late Bronze Age hoards excite archaeologists: they reveal great concentrations of weapons, jewellery, fittings and technology. But although they always seem to have been buried with care and deliberation, how they connected with the people and places of the time too often remains enigmatic. An excavation in the far east of London has chanced upon a hoard that is most unusual, for what it is and for where and how it was found. In both these ways it promises fresh insights i into the creation and concealment of a hoard, the stage within which a community performed a particular rite of ceremony or control, presenting us with a selection of narrative options.
What has been dubbed the Havering Hoard was found in September 2018 by Archaeological Solutions, excavating in advance of mineral extraction. The surrounding landscape contains a vast range of Late Bronze Age earthwork enclosures, including examples at
South Hornchurch and Mucking (feature Mar/Apr 2016/147). A cropmark at the quarry identified on an aerial photograph taken in 1961 hinted at an addition to this network of connected communities, and recognising the site’s potential significance, Havering Borough Council made archaeological excavation a condition of planning consent. It did not disappoint.
The cropmark turned out to be a remarkably intact square enclosure about 35m across. There was one entrance gap through the ditch, in the centre of the eastern side and opening onto a single roundhouse with an aggrandised porch. Sited on slightly raised ground overlooking the edge of the former Rainham Marshes, the house and the enclosure had direct access to the main channel of the River Thames. They faced out over the marshes towards the river and the sunset, elevating whoever lived there to a very niche component within society.
We began the excavation with a 50% sampling strategy. This soon revealed a neatly cut ditch with a v- shaped profile; it had silted up to a shallower horizon that contained a variety of post-Deverel-Rimbury flint-tempered pottery (1150–500bc). But as one of our early vertical sections sheared away to reveal the tell-tale green of decayed bronze, we rapidly agreed that this was an occasion for the unusual, complete excavation of the circumference of a Late Bronze Age enclosure. This led to the recovery of a hoard of metalwork. Only as excavation progressed, however, did we realise quite how unusual our discovery was.
Unrivalled opportunity
While the modelling and interpretation of the enclosure continue, our focus has remained on the hoard, the only metalwork from the site. It was buried in a pit about 1.3m across dug into the partially silted ditch, behind the house on an east-west alignment through to the enclosure’s entrance. We uncovered the first objects, typically, it felt, on a Friday afternoon in winter, and lifted them individually to ensure their security. However, continuing excavation revealed that this group was but the first of four that appeared to be parts of a single contemporary hoard, placed in packages around the the edge of the pit bottom.
We were able to lift the other three groups in blocks of soil so they could
be excavated indoors in laboratory conditions. They appear to have been packed in straw, traces of which had mineralised and adhered to some objects, but we recorded no indications of bags or containers. In total the metalwork weighs 45kg, making it the largest Bronze Age hoard from the London area, and the third largest yet found in Britain. There was nothing else in the pit.
Lifting 45kg would be a heavy task, made harder on marshy ground. The division of the hoard into four 10–12kg packages would have made it practical for objects to be passed to someone standing in the pit, who could place them around their feet. The action distinguishes the site as a focal component of the network of settlements along the River Thames, perhaps occupied by a single family or “stewards” and not primarily a residential site of any magnitude. But before we could consider this further, the separate hoards needed to be dissected by conservator Pieta Greaves, and the objects in them analysed by metalwork specialist Sophia Adams.
Most hoards are discovered accidentally – these days, almost always by detectorists – and it is rare for any to be block-lifted. This was an unrivalled opportunity to micro-excavate hoards in the lab to maximise the information gathered, about the finds themselves, their deposition and any additional evidence such as environmental material preserved within the blocks.
As Greaves removed each object from the hoard matrix, she numbered and photographed it in situ to document its original spatial location. Some objects had broken or decayed in the ground, such as one horse-rein ring known as a terret ring, which was very fragile. Pieces like this were lifted and bagged with associated soils for further conservation later. Most objects were stable, and required no further conservation at this early stage. However, some were suffering from fresh corrosion, which can occur because of changes in temperature, light and oxygen after they are removed from the burial environment. These were treated to stabilise them. In addition, some required cleaning to
remove soils and corrosion to reveal the original surface and designs to aid research.
The most complicated challenge was the fragmented terret ring. Corrosion and compaction had deformed the thin-walled object, making its seven pieces difficult to reconstruct. Soil around it was removed, but casting material from within was not cleaned to preserve it for specialist study. It was eventually pieced back together with a conservation-grade adhesive that can be easily removed in future. Although the joins no longer fit perfectly, they were lined up sufficiently that the ring’s shape can be understood. The fact that it has broken over time also remains a clear part of its story (photo page 40).
Sickles and swords
Following micro-excavation, conservation and study by x- ray, Sophia Adams was able to identify and examine a minimum of 453 items that made up the four closely associated groups, numbered 1–4. The character of the assemblage and the latest types of artefact it contains date it to the Ewart Park period of metal styles, around 900–800bc. This is informed by the presence of a bag-shaped chape (the metal tip of a sword scabbard), flame-shaped spearheads, a barbed spearhead and sword fragments of plain Ewart Park and Carp’s Tongue types, among other items.
The Havering Hoard fits comfortably among other Late Bronze Age metal artefacts from south-east England, and compares well with other assemblages such as a hoard found at Watford, Hertfordshire or, local to the site and perhaps one of the best comparisons, Grays Thurrock Hoard i, Essex, which contains a very similar range of objects. Like other contemporary deposits the Havering Hoard is dominated by fragments: only
13% of the objects are complete and these are mostly axeheads, though there are whole pieces in all four groups. A single piece of wood survives, a rare dowel in the chape, which had been fixed in place with a copper-alloy pin hammered into one end.
The chape is one of the complete artefacts, which are dominated by axeheads, followed by short spearheads, gouges, rings from strap fittings, a terret t ring and a rare awl-like tool similar to those in a hoard from the Isle of Harty, rty, Kent. Though complete many of these artefacts are damaged ed in some way, several of them apparently rently deliberately so. For example, a spearhead in Hoard 2 is broken across the blade and squashed, thereby splitting the decorated socket mouth.
Fragments cover a greater range of artefact types: axes, spearheads, swords (hilt, blade and tip pieces), knives, sickles, gouges, chisels, strap fittings, bracelets, an incomplete terret ring, casting waste (dribbles of bronze and sprues) and fragments of copper cake. Cakes are lumps of metal formed in the base of a furnace from smelting copper ore, typically described by archaeologists as bun ingots ingots. Future research on the comp composition of this ore could help find the sou source of the raw material. Amon Among all the fragments fragm in all four hoards hoar there is not a single piece th that refits to another. The combination o of complete and broken items, and the re relative quantity of object types across each hoard, is so consistent as to suggest deliberate organisation of the contents before burial.
A handful of items were pushed inside sockets, including a buttonlike object protruding from a body fragment of a faceted axe in Hoard 2. Several very similar “buttons” were found in a hoard from Llangwyllog in Anglesey, and a single one in a hoard from Borstal, north Kent. Some objects in sockets are only visible in the
x- rays, so the quantities of different object types may change as further research is carried out. For example, the x- ray of a soil-filled, faceted socket axe in Hoard 3 shows it to contain what appear to be five separate fragments, one of which may be a spear tip.
Most of the axes have been sharpened and heavily used. The majority are socketed forms including
plain south-eastern, ribbed, wingdecorated and faceted types (Type Meldreth). End-winged axes form a much smaller percentage of the assemblage. These have traditionally been referred to as a French axe form, but the possibility that they were made in France has recently been challenged by their increased appearance in Late Bronze Age hoards in England, the comparable density of socketed versus end-winged axes in French hoards, and the discovery of end-winged axe moulds in a hoard from Boughton Malherbe, Kent.
People and power
Nonetheless, the Havering Hoard does contain items best paralleled in France, including two terret rings (the complete one in Hoard 3, and the fragment in Hoard 2), the only ones known from Late Bronze Age hoards in England. Terret rings occur in pairs in assemblages of horse-related equipment, and were designed to prevent reins from tangling on a chariot or cart. A similar, albeit more oval-shaped, example was found in a contemporary hoard at La Chapelle in Normandy. The Havering Hoard raises a number of pertinent questions about local and long-distance connections early in the first millennium bc. It contains artefacts with local and international parallels, and similarities in the combination of items may be found in the south-east of England and northern France. Not only are we looking at evidence for connected object production and use across the Channel, but also in the way bronze was buried.
Late Bronze Age specialists have long debated their theories behind the mass deposition of metalwork during the period, and the relationships between objects, and people, power and control. Experts have come together to develop this project and an exhibition in London (see end note), and the Havering Hoard has naturally stimulated fresh debate, though with no further consensus. While traditionally the bronze objects themselves have been the focus of study, that is now moving to the consideration of the human communities behind the hoards.
The Havering Hoard was buried around the mid-ninth century bc, not long before iron started to come into common use. Much recent discussion has addressed the possible ritualistic abandonment and disposal of bronze objects as the new iron took hold, but at Havering this begs questions. Why not place the hoard actually in the river or marsh, rather than near its edge? Why are there no reconstructable or even cross-joining pieces? If parts of items were deliberately selected, even curated, to contribute to the deposit, did the missing elements help to meet a continuing demand for bronze rather than being abandoned in some other way?
And then there is the question of the relationship of the hoard to the
enclosure. losure. That bronze was a valuable commodity mmodity traded from, among other places, ces, theAlps the Alps through France and the Atlantic seaboard to Britain, is beyond ond dispute. But how widespread were e the communities that contributed tributed to this particular hoard? Did d individuals visit the roundhouse to gift iftmaterial material towards a community offering ering to the river – both a highway and valuable environmental resource in itself? lf? Or was there an acknowledged or recognisable ecognisablemember member of society who o travelled through settlements collecting ecting bronze, either for a religious offering ering or for a amore more economic or technological hnological contribution to the world rld they lived in?
In n a society with a strictly hierarchical rarchical structure, wemight we might call this a tax, but butmore more communal benefits efits present an alternative model. del. Wastematerial Waste material (sprues and so on) was clearly collected ected and valued, but there re is no evidence for actual ualmetalwlorking metalworking in the he enclosure.
It has as been speculated culated that t bronzecasters ters or smiths miths may y have e travelled around, regarded perhaps as transient figures with “magical” skills. Might a broad community have gathered together surplusmetal surplus metal pending the arrival of such an individual? Or was the hoard a regional cache owned by one or more bronze workers who could periodically return to it without having to carry it around? Smithsmight Smiths might have removed parts of objects as they were broken down and recycled, effectivelymaking effectively making an offering to their own craft within a “religion” that only those initiated into the casting process understood. Or the collectingmay collecting may have servedmore served more authoritarian ends. Was the flow and supply of bronze being controlled, with the small enclosure atHavering at Havering representing the segregation of bronze fromcommunities? from communities? Indeed, was there a metalworker whomay who may equally have been controlled? Nearly 3,000 years ago, one Thames-side community occupied a stage that was deliberately structured to face the river and marshland, and also for the pperformance performance of the depositionp deposition of one hoard among many across south-eastern England. It is easy to focus on any one of the narratives described here, but one returns to the inescapable enigma of why somuch so much bronze was abandoned, unless it was deliberately and systematically placed into the ground to serve a long-forgotten belief system. These beliefsmay beliefs may have centred on the fluctuating water courses they so clearly related to, the lifeblood of outward-looking communities with links to the continent. Or perhaps they reflected prominent landscape positions dedicated to technology with a spiritual standing of its own that was segregated fromcommon from common settlements.
Telling the story
As analysis continues, the objects and their context will continue to providemore provide more insights for Late Bronze Age researchers. It has already been invigorating to watch an exhibition develop so swiftly after the archaeological fieldwork, and see the hoard, in 21st-century Britain, connect and engage communities in east London around the Thames, and amuch a much wider audience, back to themes of pprehistoric prehistoric landscapes, p ,
communities and environment, and of recycling and material value.
The aim of the exhibition was to highlight this new archaeological discovery while exploring the mystery behind the Havering Hoard – who created it and buried it, and why. We reviewed current research into hoarding, and tried to distil it in a publicly accessible way. We start at the point of discovery, and then work with the idea of the hoard in four parts. We present four theories about why it was buried, leaving the answer open for visitors to form their own opinions. In the next section, using some of the star finds supported with objects from the museum’s own collections, we explore some of the clues that the hoard provides into the nature of Late Bronze Age society, its connections with Europe and the people who lived and worked in the local area. The final section of the exhibition goes behind the scenes, focusing on some of the many people and processes that are involved in such a discovery.
Throughout the exhibition it felt important to place the find within the landscape, and to emphasise the significance of the sun and its movement. We have used immersive film, photography and the design of the exhibition to create that context. We had to balance the content of the exhibition between our key audiences, families and “self-developers” – visitors who want a deeper level of information. At the same time we needed to ensure that we covered the basics, such as what and when was the Bronze Age.
Everyone involved has worked incredibly hard to bring this discovery to display. All the archaeological work was monitored by Historic England, assisted by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The hoard was declared Treasure in July 2019, and it is hoped that the Museum of London will acquire it. We acknowledge within the exhibition that ours is an early interpretation, and that as postexcavation and research continue, understanding will evolve as more information comes to light. Excavation and discovery are but the start of a very long journey.
Andy Peachey is an artefact specialist at Archaeological Solutions, Pieta Greaves is a conservator at Drakon Conservation & Heritage, Sophia Adams is a research associate at the University of Glasgow, and Kate Sumnall is curator of archaeology, Museum of London. We thank everyone who contributed time and expertise towards making this project happen. “Havering Hoard: A Bronze Age Mystery” was due to open in April at the Museum of London Docklands with free entry, see www. museumoflondon.org.uk for latest news